2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 12, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 7

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

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: I have five guests in the gallery today. They're here for their first visit. These are members of the Global Federation of Chinese Business Women Association of B.C. Shirley Chung, Tiffany Wang, Henry Jong, Julie Chang and Susan Wu are here. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

[1335]

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to welcome this entire gallery of nurses who are here today. They are here representing various professions within nursing: licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses and nurse practitioners. They come from various parts of British Columbia.

I know they met with the minister as well today. I had a wonderful meeting with them. They do so much on the front lines of health care every day, and their voices at the table are so welcome.

Will the House please join me in welcoming this wonderful gallery of nurses today.

Hon. T. Lake: As the member for New Westminster mentioned, we were privileged to meet with nurses from across British Columbia today in recognition of National Nursing Week.

We have 22 nursing representatives from across the province, including the following individuals, with whom I met earlier today: Julie Fraser, president of the Association of Registered Nurses of B.C.; Stan Marchuk, president of the British Columbia Nurse Practitioner Association; Teresa McFadyen, president of the Licensed Practical Nurses Association of B.C.; and David Axon, director of the board of the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C.

We all know that nurses are very important and highly skilled members of our health care team. I would just like the House to again join me in welcoming them to the Legislature today.

Hon. A. Virk: I rise today to introduce and recognize the representatives from Let's Talk Science, an organization dedicated to engaging children, youth and educators in science, technology, engineering and math. Joining them are their supporters Amgen Canada, who also operate a leading-edge research facility in Burnaby. Let's Talk Science and Amgen are here to inform members of their landmark Spotlight on Science Learning report. The report reminds us of the critical importance of science and learning to Canada's future economy.

Would the House please make welcome Dr. Bonnie Schmidt and Cailin Clarke from Let's Talk Science and Amgen's Jim Favaro.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to have two guests in the gallery today, Cassidy Shuvera and her boyfriend, David Anderson. They are aspiring political science students attending the fantastic University of Northern British Columbia. They are here to observe question period and to see our cordial behaviour during that democratic exercise. We hope it encourages them to get involved in further political engagements. Please join me in welcoming them and wishing them the best in their future studies.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise to introduce a group of students from my constituency of Surrey-Fleetwood and their teacher, Ms. Tessa Hansen, from Cornerstone Montessori School. I'd ask the House to please join me in welcoming them.

M. Dalton: I have special guests in the gallery today: the love of my life, my wife, Marlene, and my darling daughter Hannah. Hannah came down for Mother's Day from Tofino, where she's working and learning how to surf. She is here taking some time off SFU, and she's here with her friend Bella, who is her roommate and works up there also. Bella means beautiful, and she's that too. We're glad they could all come here. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

NURSING WEEK AND
CONTRIBUTIONS OF NURSES

J. Tegart: I rise in the House today during National Nursing Week to recognize the vital role of nurses to health care throughout British Columbia. I'd like to acknowledge the over 20 nursing representatives in the gallery today and thank all B.C. nurses for the outstanding, compassionate care they provide to patients and their families every day.

Government recognizes the important work nurses do for British Columbians and acknowledges the vital role of all nurses working in health care teams across our province. Since 2001 we have more than doubled the number of nursing training spaces and invested over $200 million in the B.C. nursing strategy to educate, recruit and retain nurses.

[1340]

Nurse practitioners, registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses play key roles in two new assertive
[ Page 3776 ]
community treatment teams which provide community treatment and rehabilitation supports to clients in Vancouver. Licensed practical nurses continue to be integral to community and residential care, including dialysis and operating room procedures.

Since 2012 our government's nurse practitioners for B.C. program has added 87 new positions for nurse practitioners across our province. By 2015 this total will increase to 135 new positions for B.C. nurse practitioners.

The theme of this year's National Nursing Week is "Nursing: a leading force for change." I'd like to recognize today the innovative and collaborative leadership of nurses in continuing excellent care for patients across our province. May 12 to 18 is National Nursing Week, and I would like the House to join me in acknowledging all nurses for their dedication to British Columbians.

J. Darcy: I am pleased to join my colleague opposite and rise today on National Nursing Week to honour nurses across British Columbia and, especially, again to acknowledge the registered nurses, the licensed practical nurses, the registered psychiatric nurses and the nurse practitioners who have joined us in the House today.

Let me begin by saying that I think we should be honouring our nursing team members every single day of the year, not just in nursing week. Nurses work in every corner of this province and in every conceivable aspect of health care, from the operating room to community clinics to First Nations health care, from caring for seniors at home to caring for them in care homes, from prenatal care to end-of-life care and all points in between.

Nurses also carry out critical work in mental health and addictions programs, and they have a huge role to play in primary care too, an area where their potential has not yet been realized in this province. But that day will come, because having everyone work to their full scope of practice is essential to high-quality health care. It's also essential to ensuring the long-term sustainability of our public health care system.

The holistic care that nurses provide means that they're in a unique position to see how a person's health is affected by everything: from the environment to child poverty; from access to healthy, nutritious food to safe working and living conditions, to access to safe, clean water. Nurses are uniquely placed to practise health promotion and prevention and to advocate to improve public health care, and indeed they do.

Every day our nurses and other members of the health care team absorb the enormous pressures and strains of our health care system, often at great cost to their own physical and emotional health. But they keep on going and keep on giving because of their passion and their dedication to caring for us.

On National Nursing Week let's tell our nurses how much we value them, and let's also do it every single day of the year.

BRITANNIA SHIPYARD
NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

J. Yap: I rise today to recognize the rich maritime history of the Britannia Shipyard National Historic Site in my community of Steveston. The Britannia Shipyard is home to some of the oldest shipyard buildings in B.C. First constructed in 1885 on the south arm of the Fraser River, the shipyards have been home to canneries, boatyards, homes and businesses. The shipyards have also been home to many of B.C.'s diverse cultures, with thousands of Chinese, European and Japanese immigrants, as well as First Nations people, coming to the area to fish and find work.

In 1992 Britannia Shipyard was designated a national historic site and today continues as a boat restoration and repair hub, with local shipwrights preserving and showcasing heritage vessels. The recreational waterfront, with its historic pilings, boardwalks and structures, are home to interpretive exhibits and boat-building demonstrations. This August the shipyards will host the 11th annual Richmond Maritime Festival, where many will see firsthand the community's rich maritime legacy.

[1345]

I would acknowledge the dedication of the many volunteers — in particular, the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Society chair, Loren Slye — and the staff for revitalizing the shipyards, including the efforts of community partners such as the Steveston Folk Guild, the Vancouver Wooden Boat Society, the SS Master Society and the city of Richmond.

The Britannia Shipyard National Historic Site in Steveston is a major asset to west coast maritime history, and I invite all members of this House and indeed all British Columbians to come and visit.

MARINE CONSERVATION AREA
FOR SOUTHERN GULF ISLANDS

G. Holman: I want to remind the House today about the proposed marine conservation area for the southern Gulf Islands, which is supported in principle by both senior governments. But the process for this proposal has dragged on for 20 years, since Canada and B.C. first agreed to study it.

Conservation area is a misnomer. It is simply zoning that ensures commercial activity is managed sustainably while recognizing First Nations rights, but protects areas of high ecological importance. The south Salish Sea is one of the most productive marine ecosystems in the world, home to more than 3,000 species including large populations of herring, salmon, birds, seals, sea lions, dolphins and whales.

Today Parks Canada calls this area one of the most at-risk natural environments in Canada, including our southern resident orcas, due to high contamination from
[ Page 3777 ]
toxins, noise pollution and diminished food supplies. Every year this area generates millions of dollars in commercial and food fishery harvests and draws thousands of visitors who recognize it as a world-class destination for marine recreation.

The Islands Trust states that provincial and federal management for the area is fragmented and ineffective, resulting in continued oil spills, sewage discharges, derelict vessels and declining fish stocks. I urge this House to get to yes and designate the NMCA for the southern Gulf Islands and begin community-based and stakeholder planning for this precious marine environment as soon as possible, if for no other reason than it will be good for business.

CLEVELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LANDS

R. Sultan: Thanks to superintendent John Lewis, parent Lea Carpenter and the Free the Trees team, Cleveland Elementary School board lands destined for real estate development have been preserved as teaching and recreation space in North Vancouver.

We all recognize the pressure to realign surplus assets from time to time. North Vancouver schools have played their part with unused property, generating significant capital for new schools and seismic upgrades. However, when it came to liquidating Cleveland School's private little forest, parents and Cleveland's 325 students drew the line. The school board listened, and the adjacent land remains intact.

Students, teachers and neighbourhood volunteers helped remove invasive plant species, plant native trees and bushes, and establish two outdoor classrooms. One consists of a teacher's rock and three rows of large boulders, and the other is a large circle in an open space. The most recent neighbourhood day involved removing invasive lamium, spreading about 12 yards of manure and consuming about 450 hot dogs.

Lea Carpenter explained: "Restoring the wooded area has helped students learn about the habitat surrounding the school and its place in the larger ecosystem."

Congratulations, Cleveland Elementary. Congratulations, school district 44.

MINING WEEK

S. Fraser: It's B.C. Mining Week also, and right after Mother's Day too. What are the odds of that? The parallels are pretty clear between Mining Week and Mother's Day. There's no better way of saying "I love you, Mom" or "Thank you, Mom" than gold or platinum or silver or copper or zinc. How about coal?

Well, maybe not for Mother's Day, hon. Speaker. But all of these resources and other minerals help build the economy and sustain the economy of this great province.

Mining is one of B.C.'s largest and oldest industries, and B.C. Mining Week is an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the importance of modern industry in British Columbia. Activities are planned for Vancouver and communities all over the province.

[1350]

Getting to production for any mine is really tough. The bedrock of the industry, if you will, is the small claims holders, the prospectors, the placer miners, the hard-rock miners — many working with small budgets but with very big challenges in remote and rugged territory. If assays look really promising, they might just have the opportunity to sell a claim to a junior exploration company.

Capital is very tight, so many of those companies are facing their own challenges. But they persevere and embark on the more advanced exploration processes. If a multitude of moons all line up, maybe — just maybe — the project will actually move forward up the ladder towards actual development of a mine.

Those larger companies that have the resources to actually open a mine have their own challenges. Ever-changing international commodity markets — international price changes that they, and we, have absolutely no control of — can derail even the best-laid project.

So when we think of a gold locket for Mom on Mother's Day, maybe just remember where it came from and the women and men in the B.C. mining industry that, against all odds, made it possible.

Oral Questions

SITE C POWER PROJECT REVIEW PANEL
REPORT AND ENERGY ALTERNATIVES

J. Horgan: Last week the joint review panel on the Site C project issued its report — 400-plus pages. I know the minister spent his weekend boning up on the material, and I want to just highlight a couple of those points for him, if I may.

Over the past ten years B.C. Hydro has spent $300 million studying, reviewing, putting together documents for the Site C project and almost zero on alternatives, to the point where the joint review panel said…. It's not surprising, then, that the panel said they cannot be confident that alternatives are "accurately valued." After the report was tabled, the review by the media was conducted, and the minister said that we weren't going to look at alternatives, that we're going to forge ahead.

Can I ask the minister how it is possibly in the public interest to disregard the joint review panel's recommendation that we look, somehow, at alternatives before we spend $8 billion on power that we don't need today?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I think, first of all, I should just remind the member and the House where the Site C project is in government's process. The first stage of an environmental assessment has been completed. That is
[ Page 3778 ]
the joint panel process.

The report has been presented to both the federal government and the provincial government. That report now resides in the provincial environmental assessment office and in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, where it will be reviewed and where potential conditions to an eventual certificate, should it be granted, will be mulled over, over the next several months.

Early in the fall the provincial EAO and the federal agency will decide whether or not the project should get an environmental certificate, and subsequent to that the provincial government will have to make a final investment decision as to whether to proceed with the project. That's the process.

I would respond specifically to the question by also referring to what the joint panel said, because they were very clear in saying that when — not if — the province needs this new electricity, the very best place to get it is from the Site C project. I've got lots of quotations I'd be happy to read into the record, but that is, in fact, what they said.

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

J. Horgan: The minister conveniently neglects the point that I made in the quotation that I read out, which was that absent any alternatives, it's difficult to come to a conclusion one way or the other on what the next best least-cost option is. Unless, of course, when you're articulating what the process is, perhaps you could have articulated, Minister, what the process should have been, and that is to have the B.C. Utilities Commission — the independent, arm's-length B.C. Utilities Commission — review the assumptions that are being made.

[1355]

Interjections.

J. Horgan: I'm sorry. Am I interrupting your conversation, Minister? Oh good. Carry on. It's only $8 billion. It's Monopoly money on that side of the House.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

SITE C POWER PROJECT REVIEW AND
ROLE OF B.C. UTILITIES COMMISSION

J. Horgan: We have 28 percent rate increases coming forward over the next five years, and now this government wants to add another $8 billion onto that. The joint review panel said we don't need the energy today. Quite clearly and categorically: we don't need the energy today.

A prudent, reasonable government would take the opportunity of this additional time to have a genuine process that put forward genuine alternatives and a genuine costing formula in front of an independent body, the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Before we spend $8 billion, will you have the good sense to put this before the B.C. Utilities Commission?

Hon. B. Bennett: If the hon. Leader of the Opposition finds that this particular job doesn't work out, I would suggest he can easily find a position as a contortionist, because he has twisted around so many times on this project and on this file.

The words did not pass the hon. member's lips, but I've read what he has said in the media. He talks about geothermal, and he talks about wind, and he talks about renewables. For the past ten years that member has referred to that kind of power as "junk power." That's fine. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has clearly changed his mind on this topic suddenly, and fair enough.

Here, in fact, are a few things that the panel did say about alternatives. Number one, they said that….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: I was just trying to add to the suspense.

What they did say — this is from the panel — was: "By comparison, projects such as wind power were noted to have a lower operating life."

This hydroelectric project, should it get approved, will last for over 100 years. "By comparison, projects such as wind power were noted to have a lower operating life than the project and would require replacement and significant rehabilitation after 30 years." The panel went on to say: "The panel agrees with B.C. Hydro on the importance of predictable delivery."

I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition gets this stuff. I know he understands firm power. The panel is talking about the "importance of predictable delivery and, hence, storage over periods from hourly to annual. Weather-dependent renewables alone are not the answer. The sun does not always shine or the wind blow."

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: And talk about predictable delivery. I mean, holy cow.

Now, this is complicated stuff, and absent a third party, we've had Liberals asking Liberals what they think about what the Liberals should do. What I'm hopeful we will see from the mature and responsible government coming on to its first year is that they will do the right thing. [Applause.]

I note the first one to clap was the last guy that cancelled the rate hearing at the B.C. Utilities Commission,
[ Page 3779 ]
before an election, so that he could tell the voters after the election they were going to pay 28 percent more for their power.

[1400]

If I could go back to the minister in this decade that we're living in, the joint review panel said: "B.C. Hydro's outlook is that market prices it would achieve through the forecast period would average $35 a megawatt hour" — radically less than the marginal cost of supply of Site C, $94 a megawatt hour. B.C. Hydro expects to lose "$800 million in the first four years of operation."

So let me just get this right — it's not the NDP saying this; it's the joint review panel — $800 million of ratepayers' money that you're going to blow because you want to build this before it's time.

My question: will the minister please do the right thing for ratepayers? Put this to the commission. Let's get real answers to real questions, not fiction like the stuff that comes from the minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, first of all, the BCUC has never conducted a review of a major hydroelectric dam in B.C. in the history of British Columbia. That's a fact.

I think that to propagate the impression that there has been no good work done on this project after 35 years of poking and prodding and analyzing and looking at it, particularly since 2010, is a fiction, frankly. There has been an enormous amount of work done on this project by B.C. Hydro. That's true. We do put some confidence in the public utility. That side of the House used to put confidence in the public utility. They don't seem to anymore.

The technology that is proposed for this project is mature. B.C. Hydro understands it, probably as well as any organization in the world. The standards that have been used to monitor and assess costs are to the highest international standards available.

You will find that within the $8 billion budget there is a very, very large contingency, a very large inflation account and a very large account for interest. If you total up the cost of interest over the eight-year period to build this project, should it get permitted, and you add the contingency fund and you add inflation, you've got $3 billion out of the $8 billion there as a cushion. So in fact, we think that B.C. Hydro has done its work.

In addition, and finally, I would like to mention that they hired KPMG to assess the costs of the project. Frankly, if this ever did go to the BCUC, they do not have the capacity to look a large project like this. It would take at least two years, and they would have to hire an agency like KPMG.

S. Simpson: The joint review panel concluded that it could not confirm the accuracy of the project cost estimates because it doesn't have the information, time or resources. They also concluded that there is much uncertainty in the long-term forecast put forward by B.C. Hydro. On both of these question and others the panel recommends sending the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

As the minister for both Hydro and the core review, which is supposed to concern itself with best practices for government, how does the minister justify proceeding without proper due diligence and the independent assessment that the Utilities Commission would provide?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, as I said, the BCUC has in fact never reviewed a large hydroelectric project like this. Here, in fact, is what the panel did say.

The panel said that "there is little doubt about the competence of B.C. Hydro to build and operate the project efficiently." There is nothing in this report that would indicate the panel lacked confidence in B.C. Hydro's capacity, abilities or skills to engineer this project and to build it on time and on budget. What the panel did say was that they did not have the resources to look at the kinds of things that the opposition is asking about.

This side of the House responds to that by saying that there has been a huge amount of due diligence done already by B.C. Hydro. We could study it further for another few years. It has been 35 years under the microscope today.

[1405]

What the panel did say is that when British Columbia needs this new electricity, Site C is the best, lowest-cost place to get it.

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

S. Simpson: The B.C. Utilities Commission's biggest problem is they've been under assault by this government for a decade because the government doesn't want independent assessments.

The panel questioned the credibility of basing a $7.9 billion project on a 20-year-demand forecast without an explicit scenario for long-term pricing, and they concluded that the proponent has not fully demonstrated the need for the project on the timeline set forth. That's what the panel said. Again, on these fundamental questions, they said: "Send it to the B.C. Utilities Commission."

We know this minister has ideological blinkers concerning the Utilities Commission and with the political manipulation of B.C. Hydro that's been going on with this government for years and years.

I quote the minister. In his letter concerning the core review he stated to ministers: "The overall goal of the core review process is to ensure the best possible use of government resources and respect for the interests of taxpayers."

How can the minister have any credibility on either of his files when he ignores the panel's advice to ensure due diligence is done by sending this project to the Utilities
[ Page 3780 ]
Commission for a full assessment?

Hon. B. Bennett: Even with my ideological blinkers that the member claims I have on — these are just reading glasses — the panel also suggested in November, and again I quote: "The Minister of Energy announced a series of reforms that should put B.C. Hydro into a more sustainable position over the next ten years."

These include paying down regulatory accounts. They include the elimination of the special tier 3 water rentals. They include the reduction of dividends until B.C. Hydro reaches a debt-to-equity ratio of 60-40. The NDP, when they were in government, set the debt-to-equity ratio at 70-30. We think it should be at 60-40.

They also go on and say that, in fact, we are allowing B.C. Hydro, encouraging B.C. Hydro to invest in capital expenditures before Site C to the tune of $1.7 billion a year.

If you look at what the NDP spent on capital on making sure that our dams and our transmission lines were in good shape and were able to provide the kind of reliable electricity that our people have become accustomed to, you will find that when they had their opportunity for ten years, they invested almost nothing.

FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION
ON SITE C POWER PROJECT

D. Donaldson: The review panel was clear when it said that Site C will have significant adverse effects on First Nations traditional use that cannot be mitigated. This is a big issue.

The Minister of Aboriginal Relations said that government's consultation was adequate and that First Nations would be part of the solution, but the panel maintains the province has yet to enter a discussion with First Nations on "the harmonious accommodation of all interests."

Why does it take a review panel to tell the B.C. Liberals to act honourably? Why should any First Nation trust this government on promises about Site C or any other major projects?

Hon. B. Bennett: Every once in a while you find yourself at least partly in agreement with the opposition.

I do want to make it very clear that this side of the House is well aware that there is significant engagement with Treaty 8 First Nations that will be required over the next six months to a year. That is already happening. There has been significant engagement already. There needs to be a lot more respectful engagement with First Nations around this project. We will do that. All of us on this side of the House will work hard at that.

[1410]

I'm sure that over a period of time, or at least I hope over a period of time, we can work enough with First Nations that we will find, together, some benefits to First Nations, should government decide to proceed after an environmental certificate.

GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

M. Karagianis: Very sadly, over the weekend we saw another domestic violence death here in British Columbia, the death of a young Vancouver woman at the hands of her ex-husband. It's just the latest in a long string of these kinds of tragedies that have occurred here in the province. All of these cases very vividly confirm that vulnerable women and their children are not being effectively protected by the government. This urgently needs to change.

My question is to the Minister of Justice. What is she going to do differently to ensure that these tragedies will not happen again?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We can all agree in this House, and I believe that the vast majority of British Columbians would agree wholeheartedly, that protecting vulnerable women and children in this province is a priority. Domestic violence is a despicable act, and no one condones it. That's why this government has been making efforts over the last number of years to see what programs and services we can add to that will make women and children safer in the province.

That's why, after extensive consultation with our partners in the field of domestic violence, we introduced a three-year domestic violence plan that will invest an additional $5.5 million to add to domestic violence units in the province, which we know are an effective way to support women in abusive relationships; to add to programs for aboriginal families in the province, where we know services are lacking; to add services for perpetrators to assist in the changing of behaviours; and to provide improved access to housing and transportation in rural and remote communities.

We know that although the government does provide over $70 million a year in services to women and children, there's more that can be done, and we will continue.

M. Karagianis: Well, I don't know how anyone in this province can have confidence in any of these programs when the minister responsible won't even stand up and defend them. If this government wants to prevent violence, then we need to see a substantial plan, not — and I quote the children's representative — an "empty shell" of a plan.

Instead of taking action, so far this government has refused to implement nearly all of the recommendations from the Missing Women Inquiry. They have failed to install domestic violence courts in the province. They have set up an office of domestic violence that actually has no scope to provide any kind of services or help to families,
[ Page 3781 ]
and the domestic violence plan will have no money and won't even begin until 2015.

Again to the minister responsible for these programs, the Minister of Justice: what is this government going to do differently now in order to tackle this growing epidemic of domestic violence deaths here in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The provincial office of domestic violence was formed to help to coordinate the services and supports across government and to ensure that programs directed at violence against women and the services to women affected by violence were coordinated across government and working in the best way they could. While societal attitudes are often difficult to change, we believe that these efforts within government and with our partners will help to shift the attitudes that perpetuate domestic violence and help us collectively, as a society, to achieve our goal.

[1415]

The three-year plan that the provincial office of domestic violence put forward in response to the consultations and efforts underway has been very well received by the community. Would we like to do more? Absolutely. Will we continue to do more? Absolutely. This government is committed to working to prevent domestic violence and to support the women and children who unfortunately have been affected.

ACCESS TO LEGAL AID
BY VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

L. Krog: It's a pretty strange way to recognize your commitment. The children's representative said it perfectly: this government's plan is short on funding and short on detail. I hope the Attorney General is listening, because that is who I'm directing my question to.

Rather than expand justice services for victims of domestic violence, over the last ten years the B.C. Liberals have cut legal aid funding by $23 million, shut down legal aid offices and cancelled support services like the Law Line phone service. So how does the Minister of Justice expect women to access justice in British Columbia when they've cut these very services left, right and centre?

Hon. S. Anton: There is a substantial investment in helping a violence-free British Columbia and helping families and helping victims. We spend $70 million a year in annual funding. But we always have to remember the terrible situations which we are facing right now, the tragedies that have happened in British Columbia in the last few weeks.

Let me set out the things that we are doing. We spend, as I said, $70 million in annual funding. That includes $32 million for spaces in transition homes. It includes $16 million for violence against women counselling and outreach programs. Those programs, by the way, reached 34,000 people last year. We spend $12 million for victim services programs and $12 million for crime victim assistance programs. For families and for children we have victim help lines.

There are many services offered by government, but is there more that can be done? That's why we have a provincial office for domestic violence to be the coordinating unit for domestic violence. That's why we have this broader suite of programs across government so that our families and our communities can be safe and that people in British Columbia can be safe from violence.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Would that the words matched some kind of actual action. Since 2002, 85 percent of legal aid offices in B.C. have been closed by the B.C. Liberals, and in rural communities, where services are even more challenging to access, we've seen this government make cuts that closed all rural community law offices.

Does the Minister of Justice think it's fair that vulnerable women in rural B.C. face increased barriers to services because of their shameful cuts to justice services for people in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: We have, in fact, increased the budget to legal aid this year by $2 million. That is to create innovative programs in family law and criminal law. That is to help families all around British Columbia.

We spend about $74 million on legal aid every year, and at the same time, we spend another $30 million on our justice access centres, one of which is in the member's own riding of Nanaimo, and family mediation centres around British Columbia. This is to give ready access to citizens to justice services.

Legal aid offers help in remote ways through its telephone programs. There is help for people around British Columbia because it is important that everything we do in justice services is accessible around British Columbia. People need help around British Columbia. That's what we are ensuring through legal services and the other programs we offer.

[1420]

IMPLEMENTATION OF MISSING WOMEN
INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS AND
BUS SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 16

J. Rice: It's been a year and a half since the Missing Women Inquiry called for urgent action to bring in a shuttle bus along the Highway of Tears. When we asked why no action is being taken to bring in the bus, the Transportation Minister insisted that "there have been a tremendous number of discussions and meetings that
[ Page 3782 ]
have been held." Yet mayors and First Nations leaders in the region say that the province has not met with them.

Can the Justice Minister tell this House who is correct: mayors and First Nations leaders or the Transportation Minister?

Hon. S. Anton: The piece of this that we need to remember is that the overarching conclusion for northern highways from Commissioner Oppal was that northern highways have to be safe. That safety is achieved through transportation: through the bus that runs along the highway, through the local transportation services, through the Health Bus, through the train. There is transportation.

It is also achieved through other ways of making the highway safe, because they have to be safe at all times. That's why there's increased cell phone service. That's why there's improved policing. That's why there's a hitchhiking study underway. That's why we've given money to the Carrier-Sekani to do public safety workshops along Highway 16 — because those highways need to be safe 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly here we'll continue second reading of Bill 24 and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room the continued estimates of Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

[1425]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

M. Elmore: I'm pleased to rise and join in the debate on second reading for Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014. I rise to speak opposed to this bill, and I want to start by talking about the historical context of the agricultural land reserve, how it came into being here in British Columbia, and then outline my views and concerns with some of the main contentions of the bill.

The agricultural land reserve — now over 41 years here in British Columbia — was an issue that was discussed, hotly debated during the 1972 provincial election. The issue of the agricultural land reserve — agricultural land and industrial development — was a very hot topic.

When the government of the day, the first NDP government, was elected, they made the decision to strike and create the agricultural land reserve for the purpose of recognizing the importance of agricultural land and to support farmers and also provide a process for developers and local governments to make land use decisions where arable land was set aside and agricultural work was promoted and prioritized, while non-farming uses were restricted.

That was the establishment of the agricultural land reserve throughout British Columbia, and the Agricultural Land Commission Act was adopted as the independent body to administer the agricultural land reserve. At the time that it was established, it was estimated that between 4,000 and 6,000 hectares of arable land in B.C. — 4,000 to 6,000 hectares of soil — were lost annually before 1972 to non-farming purposes. The purpose to establish the ALR was to preserve farmland and to regulate how rural and agricultural land could be used.

Certainly, when it came in, it was hotly contested. It was very intensely debated, and there was a lot of opposition at the time. Understandably, individuals who had plans to develop their land that was to be zoned in agriculture tried to have it exempted, so there was a process to establish that.

Now, our agricultural land reserve and Agricultural Land Commission that we have in place in B.C. is regarded and held up as a model of public policy in terms of leading, with respect to the management of agriculture, recognizing the central importance of maintaining arable land and the provision of local food for local needs.

Although, initially, the reaction was fierce, it came over the last four decades to be recognized in B.C. and, I think, across Canada and internationally as an ideal model for managing our agricultural land, our farmland.

My first opposition to Bill 24 is that it puts the successful functioning of the agricultural land reserve, one of the main principles and proponents, under attack and undermines the integrity of the ALR.

I think probably the most controversial change is promoted to divide land in B.C. Currently, under the agricultural land reserve, it's now recognized as one zone. The main problem with Bill 24 is that it proposes to establish two zones — zone 1, which is Vancouver Island, the South Coast and the Okanagan, and zone 2, which is the remainder of the province. Zone 2 covers 90 percent of the total land in the agricultural land reserve.

[1430]

The problem is that it undermines the ability to preserve agricultural land. Currently, land that's held in the ALR…. The priority for decisions, in terms of land use decisions for removing or placing land into the ALR — the primary consideration is to serve agriculture and farming concerns. But with the creation of zone 2, these lands will be exempted from that requirement, and the decisions will be based not primarily on the agricultural use but other uses as well — economic, cultural and other regional planning objectives. These changes mean that land exclusion applications outside of the Island, south
[ Page 3783 ]
coast and Okanagan will be much more likely to succeed.

One of the problems, one of the many problems, with Bill 24, in addition to the creation of two zones and the ease to remove farmland from protection, is the removal of a central, provincial, independent body making those decisions to proposed regional subcommittees that will be responsible for making decisions about removing land from the ALR.

Currently we have the structure of the Agricultural Land Commission, which oversees the ALR. When it was set up, one of the priorities was that it should be independent and that it should function in an independent fashion. It was set up as an independent tribunal with the expectation that it avoid political interference.

The changes, however, proposed in Bill 24 will severely impact the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission. With the decentralization of the ALC — there's the recommendation to create six regional panels — the problem is that…. One of the main pressures, certainly, for land exemption from the ALR has to do with local projects or developments. With the decisions now resting in the regional bodies, there will be much more local pressure, in terms of trying to meet local land issues.

In addition, the problem, in terms of the establishing of the regional panels, is it undermines the central authority of a provincial body, but it also undermines the independence because cabinet now will be given more power to handpick members of the Agricultural Land Commission. Currently the chair is appointed, but with Bill 24 the cabinet will now be able to appoint the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission as well as six vice-chairs of the regional panels. This will further subject the Agricultural Land Commission to the pressure of local land issues.

It was previously an independent Crown agency with the mission to preserve agricultural land and encourage and enable farm businesses throughout B.C., while it was also working towards a provincial agricultural land reserve system that fostered economic, environmental and social sustainability. It operates as a provincial zone where farming is encouraged and non-agricultural uses are controlled, covering about 4.7 million hectares in B.C.

With the creation of the proposal to break up the agricultural land reserve into two zones, and also to undermine the ability of an independent provincial body, into six politically appointed regional subcommittees to make decisions….

[1435]

This is really, in my view and also talking to many constituents, businesses and folks who are interested and concerned about food security and who support our B.C.-based farming, B.C. farmers, and recognize the importance of needing to expand the ability of B.C. to grow and expand our fruits and vegetables and goods that we consume here in British Columbia…. These are moves that will undermine the ability of British Columbia to adequately support our farmers and for our farmers to be successful — allowing more land to be removed from the agricultural land reserve.

In addition to the specific problems with Bill 24, to add insult to injury is the fact that while at different times positions have been brought forward by the government, by the Liberals, in terms of the ALR and the Agricultural Land Commission, we didn't hear anything in the platform before the election. These proposed changes were not discussed or put to the people of British Columbia last year before the election.

Now the bill is being introduced without a mandate, because British Columbians weren't advised of that, and without an adequate consultation period for individuals and many people who are concerned about this issue, who gain their livelihood from farming. The many businesses that have sprung up out of our agricultural industry have not had an opportunity to give input and feedback with respect to the bill.

We've heard some claims from the Minister of Agriculture that he's accepting e-mails and personal letters, that he's open to those suggestions, but I think it falls short, certainly, from expectations of bringing such significant changes to our long-held agricultural land reserve and our practice of administering it through the Agricultural Land Commission. There's really no mandate.

I was sitting on our Finance Committee when we were undertaking tours across the province, listening to presentations and recommendations from individuals and organizations for their recommendations to the budget. We were surprised to hear that presenters would come, and they wanted to make a presentation to the committee on having input to the possible changes happening to the agricultural land reserve and Agricultural Land Commission.

The members of the Finance Committee — our initial response was: "This is not the appropriate body for these reviews." It was only later that it was revealed that there had been a press release. A government press release had been sent out on October 24 that indicated that public input into the core review process, which would include concerns with respect to the Agricultural Land Commission, could be made to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, which was already underway. We were already well into our hearings, and we had individuals who were concerned about possible changes and wanted to come to our body to raise these concerns.

It created, I think, surprise. I was surprised on the committee. Our committee members were surprised. It was a surprise to us and, I think, our Chair, who wasn't advised of this. It was only after the fact that, indeed, we were able to hunt down and find the press release that had been issued by the Minister Responsible for Core Review​. It ended after a short couple of weeks as well.
[ Page 3784 ]

[1440]

In terms of input, consultation into significant substantive changes, certainly the public was not informed, was not advised prior to the election. During the course, individuals attempted to come and make presentations to the Finance Committee, which was not given…. We had not been mandated with that when there were promises to bring, to hold consultations. I think that assurances from the minister that he's accepting e-mails and letters do not meet the standard, certainly, unless it's an incredibly low standard with respect to public consultations.

These are some fundamental problems with this bill, with Bill 24, undermining our agricultural sector in B.C. and, I think, really undermining public confidence in our system and disrespecting citizens in British Columbia in terms of the opportunity to have input and to have concerns brought forward and to really engage in a discussion on this topic.

I visited the Trout Lake Farmers Market in Vancouver on the weekend and was distributing information about the bill. One thing I found very surprising is that there is actually a high level of engagement. Individuals were knowledgable about the bill. For a specific piece of legislation, I was taken by surprise.

Certainly, the reaction from folks that I talked to was that they were, I think, very concerned and upset about the proposed changes and frustrated with the manner, as well, in which it had been implemented — a very heavy-handed manner by the government. My message to them was and continues to be to raise concerns, to communicate their concerns to the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister for Core Review, the Premier.

We need to put a halt to this bill. We need to hit pause, and we need to ensure that British Columbians are able to participate in and bring their concerns forward on this very important issue. When we talk about…. If you go to any farmers market, you'll see, I think, another dynamic that's very unique to British Columbia and reflects the success of the agricultural land reserve. That is that we have, number one, the success of farmers markets themselves.

They have grown substantially and become very popular right across the province in all communities. When you go through all the farmers markets, you'll be amazed by just the breadth of products. It's really a credit to the entrepreneurship of local producers and local business people to have developed just an incredible range of products — everything from homemade jams to, of course, your produce to locally made chocolates.

Of course, we have just a wide range of products that are very popular. It is really a very dynamic business system.

I also wanted to mention that, in reference to that, we are seeing British Columbia also leading — I would contend — in Canada and really making a statement worldwide in terms of the recognition and the vibrancy of our local agriculture sector. Nearly 48 percent of food that we consume in British Columbia is produced here, which is quite an impressive statistic.

We also see growth in and a real support for locally grown food, for families wanting to feed themselves and their children healthy food. They want to know where the food comes from. There's growth and a real expansion in terms of restaurants and the farm-to-plate business model as well as, I think, for supporting locally grown food and the importance of that. When we look at what's happening….

[1445]

Now, when the agricultural land reserve was brought in, in 1973, I think you can really characterize that as, certainly, a very visionary step and a very bold public policy statement to put into place. The fact that it has been sustained over 40 years — today I think we can appreciate that.

When we look at the challenges around food security, when we look at what's happening in California now with their record worst drought…. They've had to declare a state of emergency. They're expecting, as California produces a good majority of fruits and vegetables for the rest of the United States, that food prices will be rising because of the hardship on the local farmers.

The impact here in British Columbia…. We must move towards the direction of having the ability to grow more of our food in British Columbia. We have to support our local farmers and protect our existing farmland for a long-term view, in terms of ensuring we have adequate food security.

I think there's a growing awareness, as well, about the importance of food security and environmental sustainability, in a global context of climate change, global warming and the impact that that has, not only on food prices, with food prices increasing — we've seen prices increasing for cattle and beef and now anticipate prices being on the rise for fruits and vegetables, with the drought in California — but also in terms of pressures on transportation, rising costs.

Here in British Columbia we've seen the growth and the popularization of the 100-mile diet — that's a local phenomenon as well — as well as many successful business models, in terms of taking locally produced food and delivering it either to restaurants or to local businesses or to individuals.

These are really popularizing and promoting awareness around the importance of food security. I think it's also what is informing the concern coming forward not only from B.C. farmers and producers — and, really, the multiple businesses that depend on locally grown and locally produced and raised agricultural goods for their businesses — but also individuals.

In terms of our view moving forward, we have to continue to recognize the importance of B.C. farmland, to preserve that and to ensure that there's always pressure
[ Page 3785 ]
and there's always tension, in terms of removing land from the agricultural land reserve for other purposes.

The challenge to maintain it, certainly, is a central concern. It's something that we have to ensure that for our existing land, we protect it, and that existing land remains a permanent legacy for generations to come.

As well, there's an excellent article in B.C. Business, the November 2013 magazine, that talks about and lays out really how dynamic and fast-growing our local food sector is, not just in terms of how fast it's growing with respect to the popularity of farmers markets but the rise of — we see them opening every day — local restaurants that exclusively market that their foods are grown in B.C., and also the distribution systems that are set up to support those businesses.

Certainly, it's a growing sector. It's a sector that we have to continue to support and ensure that it's strengthened. Bill 24 goes in the wrong direction and undermines those efforts.

So that's Bill 24. I want to also talk about the history, in terms of when the agricultural land reserve was brought into being, but also some of the context and thinking behind that.

[1450]

Bill 24 will undermine not only the integrity of the agricultural land reserve but also threaten our farmland. That also has to be taken into context of, I think, the poor record of this government with respect to supporting our agricultural sector in B.C.

While B.C. enjoys a very fertile and productive agricultural sector, we have the least amount of support for agriculture here in B.C., the least amount compared to any province in Canada. In B.C. we only invest 5 percent in terms of supporting our agricultural sector, compared to other provinces spending an average of 14 percent.

As well, the Liberals eliminated the buy-B.C. marketing initiative in 2001, which was very successful in promoting B.C. products and encouraging not only British Columbians to buy and support those products but in terms of marketing it outside of British Columbia and around the world.

We have also seen a report from the Auditor General in 2010, recommending that we need to protect B.C.'s farmland, and also a recommendation that the Agricultural Land Commission needs to have support in order to fulfil its mandate and that there was a lack of compliance and enforcement and a lack of knowledge about agricultural land reserve boundaries.

The agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission were established not just to protect agriculture but also to support and really encourage farmers and the agricultural sector in British Columbia. Bill 24 undermines that. In addition, in the context of how agriculture has really fallen very low in terms of a political priority, we're seeing a need to support our agricultural sector, and Bill 24 goes, certainly, in the wrong direction.

We've seen cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands budget in 2009, and these have been undermining our food security and also concerns around sustainability.

In Vancouver farmers markets are very popular, and it's recognized…. The Vancouver city council is also bringing forward concerns about Bill 24 and passed a motion in council. The Vancouver food charter, which was adopted in 2007, encourages personal, business and government food practices that foster local production and protect natural and human resources.

The Vancouver food strategy also has been promoted in terms of encouraging local communities to develop local food networks around growing and utilizing B.C.-grown food and encouraging that. It's been a very successful program that has been taken up. I think the recognition by folks that I talk to, neighbours, in programs that are run out of the neighbourhood houses — South Vancouver Neighbourhood House as well as Cedar Cottage…. These are the programs that Vancouverites recognize the importance of and, I think, have led to an increased awareness.

The motion that was passed at the Vancouver council meeting on October 8, 2013, calls on the government to support the preservation of farmland in our agricultural land reserve, and that if the ALC and ALR are to be modified, that there be an adequate period for input, for consultation, for concerns to be brought forward, and that this is a huge concern.

[1455]

These are important issues, not only in terms of dry public policy. You can argue it affects our fundamentals of life, and certainly, these changes proposed in Bill 24 undermine our food security.

S. Robinson: I rise in the House today in complete and total opposition to this government's intention to incrementally destroy the agricultural land reserve with Bill 24.

I wanted to say how grateful I am that previous governments had this idea and this commitment to take our agricultural land and to put a proverbial fence around it, recognizing that future generations would need to have access to these lands so that we can have a sustainable agricultural sector, one that's capable of feeding our communities, feeding our children and feeding our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.

This system of putting aside arable land where agricultural activity can be promoted and prioritized, while non-farming uses are restricted, is a policy of vision. It's a policy that took tremendous courage and a great recognition that if these lands weren't protected, they would eventually disappear. These arable lands, a small portion of our land base, were at serious risk of becoming housing or commercial or industrial zones, thereby losing these lands to grow food forever.

Perhaps I can remind this House of life before the ALR.
[ Page 3786 ]
I myself was actually a small child. That's how old it is. It's a little bit older than me. I've had to do a bit of research, because I was living in Montreal during the time and really had no sense of what activity was going on here. In doing my research, I learned that between 4,000 and 6,000 hectares of arable land in British Columbia were lost each year prior to the agricultural land reserve.

It was Dave Barrett's government and the leadership of Harold Steves, who's now serving the community as a well-loved Richmond councillor, who helped to push and make the agricultural land reserve an election issue. When they won the election, they made it a reality.

It really wasn't without its challenges, and I know the previous speaker spoke to this. There really was tremendous opposition. Farmers who had put their life investment into their land and recognized that at some point they would sell the land were completely outraged.

As I was reading up on the history, what dawned on me was, when you read about our public health system, that once upon a time doctors were outraged when socialized medicine came into being.

While I recognize that these changes are really very difficult, when there's vision attached to it for the long term and for the benefit of future generations, I think we can all appreciate that. We certainly feel that way about our socialized medicine, and there are many around this province that feel that way about the agricultural land reserve.

There was at the time a frenzy of rezonings that were going in — applications so that these developments could get done before the ALR actually came into being. The Agriculture Minister of the day introduced a farmland freeze, an order-in-council to halt these subdivisions, and finally the Land Commission Act was introduced on February 22, 1973. Now, with all of these angry people, it took tremendous courage and tremendous foresight to stick to the legislation, knowing that future generations like our generation would recognize and value this legislation that was put in place.

The Provincial Land Commission was charged with designating ALR sites around the province, and the same body, even back then, would be responsible for hearing proposals to remove lands from the ALR for non-farming purposes. This really caught my attention. It was built right into the legislation that the body responsible, this neutral body, would be able to tweak the agricultural land reserve as needed. There has always been recourse and opportunity to tweak these boundaries, and it has been done throughout the history of the agricultural land reserve. Through all these 40 years there has been opportunity to tweak boundaries as needed.

The Agricultural Land Commission certainly developed excellent relationships through its work with local governments, the bodies responsible for land use. That's what local governments do. This commission has always considered economic, social and cultural uses of land when making their determination. This body has been paying very close attention for 40 years. They're very experienced in working with local bodies that have local knowledge and making sure that they consider all factors when tweaking these boundaries.

[1500]

Now, in 1975 the Socreds came into power. Although they were a vociferous voice against the agricultural land reserve, they recognized that there was widespread public acceptance of a land reserve. In 1978 the federal lands directorate report found that 80 percent of 800 B.C. landowners interviewed saw the ALR system quite favourably. They knew and appreciated and saw the value of protecting our agricultural land. Any tweaks that that Socred government made to the ALR legislation really only related to the appeals processes and public hearings. They recognized — even the Socreds recognized — the value of protecting these lands, and they recognized the widespread public support of this policy.

Under the NDP government of the '90s there were additional tweaks to the agricultural lands, most of which were actually shutting down the holes, created by the Socreds, that permitted the development of golf courses on arable land. I still can't quite wrap my head around decisions to chase a white ball all over a perfectly manicured green lawn where we should be growing food, and it's rather embarrassing. But the protections were put back in place, just as they should have been.

An additional adjustment to the legislation included eliminating direct appeals to cabinet of decisions made by the Agricultural Land Commission — direct appeals. The government of the day received tremendous heat from media, landowners, advocacy bodies and the general public over the ability to override and even undermine the work of the Agricultural Land Commission. The government saw fit to eliminate political interference in the process and to let the commission do its job as it was meant to: unhindered and unencumbered from political interference.

A '97 opinion survey noted that over 80 percent of British Columbians considered it unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable, to remove land from the agricultural land reserve. It's certainly very telling when you can get 80 percent of the people of this province to agree on anything. What it says to me is that the agricultural land reserve is valued by the British Columbian electorate.

When the Liberals came to power in 2001, they engaged in a core review process. They really like these core review processes. They took a look at the Land Reserve Commission, and they brought forward the Agricultural Land Commission Act, with the idea of making the agricultural land reserve "more efficient, effective and regionally responsive by providing for regional commission panels and expanding delegation."

Interestingly enough, they proposed to bring in six regional panels made up of commissioners who live in
[ Page 3787 ]
the region, under the guise that local decision-makers understood local issues. Funny that. I come from local government, and I thought that was the role of local government. I thought mayors, councillors and regional directors had that role.

This act was also supposed to delegate increased responsibility to local regional governments, but the commission noted in their 2003-2004 annual service plan report that only 14 — only 14 — of 136 local governments were even interested in discussing delegation with the commission. Local governments recognized that the independence of the role of the commission should stand on its own.

So where are we now? Well, we have a government that is proposing to further erode the power and the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission. They want to appoint their own handpicked vice-chairs to these panels, and their rationale for Bill 24 is that there is no real viable agricultural land in zone 2, which comprises about 90 percent of the agricultural land in the ALR.

I find it fascinating because the farmers I talk to say that you can grow plenty of stuff in the north and in the Kootenays and that it all depends on what you want to grow. What's really interesting is…. I was talking to my husband about this over the weekend, and he just looked at me sort of incredulously and said: "But if there's green stuff on it, it grows stuff." I mean, that's just a general….

Interjections.

S. Robinson: But different kinds of things need to be grown. It's only where you are up in tundra that you can't grow stuff. So really, when it comes down to it, it depends on what it is you want to grow in which part of the province. I'll get to that a little bit later, as we actually talk to some scientists and we hear what they have to say. If this government had taken the time to consult — and consulting doesn't mean reading e-mails; that's not consulting — they would learn a whole bunch of things.

[1505]

In the world that I come from, consulting means bringing together the stakeholders and hearing from them. It means understanding what the challenges are and what the concerns are. In my world consulting means hearing about what the farmers are growing in the Kootenays instead of telling British Columbians that nothing but hay grows in those regions.

In my world consulting means getting all the facts and making policy based on these facts, rather than listening to a few people who have perhaps had their proposals rejected by the Agricultural Land Commission and deciding that you're just going to do something about it and make up the facts along way to support your decision. What we have here before us is a piece of legislation that is decision-based evidence-making instead of evidence-based decision-making.

Let's get back to this process of this bill and how British Columbians even heard about it. Never once, never once during this last election, did we hear anything about dismantling the agricultural land reserve or the Agricultural Land Commission. Before the 2013 election there were two reviews of the ALC — one by the Auditor General in 2010 and a second order by government.

These reviews resulted in the Liberals claiming to recognize…. At the time, they claimed to recognize the need for the ALC to do their job. So they actually gave them a $4 million lift, saying: "You need more resources to do this fine job that you're doing." They liked it. They liked what they were doing. They gave them more money, specifically. It was specifically to adjust the boundaries, because that's what the Auditor General suggested.

In fact, in October 2011 the then Agriculture Minister, who is representing Comox, said: "I'm looking forward in the next month or so to actually release that report, but not just release the report; actually have some mitigation factors that actually just reinforce the fact that this province and this government find the ALR and the ALC a great entity that actually promotes farming, protects and preserves quality farmland in this province…." Their own Agriculture Minister spoke to the ALR — protecting and preserving quality farmland in the province.

It's reminiscent that during the election, we don't hear anything about this, and it's reminiscent of the HST. It's a style of communicating to the electorate after you get elected, not before. "Why would we tell people before what we're going to do? We'll just tell them after the election."

After the election, what do we hear from this Liberal government? We hear that after two reviews and a financial lift that will assist the ALC to do its job, the ALC will be part of another core review process. They just had two reviews. I don't understand. On October 4, 2013, the Liberal government ordered the ALC to stop boundary review work that the Auditor General recommended it conduct, because they're going to be doing a core review.

Now, if a core review is about looking for efficiencies, how can this government say that creating two zones and handpicking vice-chairs is going to be more efficient and more cost-effective? In fact, it would seem to me that it would actually be less efficient and perhaps even more costly.

A month later, after the ALC stopped their boundary review — in November, five months after the election — the Globe and Mail revealed that the Liberals actually had drafted a secret plan to dismantle the ALR and the ALC as part of their core review. The plan was drafted in the days and weeks following the then Agriculture Minister being reprimanded by the ALC for contravening rules against political interference in the commission's decisions — something about a rodeo. I don't know — agricultural land.

This was really about political interference, political
[ Page 3788 ]
interference in a decision made by an independent body, an independent body whose role it is to prevent the British Columbia public waking up one day and asking: "What happened to our agricultural land?" Once caught, the then Minister of Agriculture, the member for Peace River North, noted that he was only advocating as an MLA in the days before he was given the Agriculture portfolio.

He then went on to say that the ALC "makes independent decisions about land use in British Columbia, and I fully respect their decision." That was the case on November 10, 2013. If that's the case, how is it that the Agriculture Minister and his cabinet respect the work of the agricultural commission and then say: "But it needs to be different"?

[1510]

The Premier has chosen to not only defend her minister, who engaged in political interference and broke the rules about the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission…. She actually said that the proposal to redefine the ALC has merit, claiming that there may be some lands in the ALR that ought not to be protected given its "limited farming value."

How does she know this? It's sort of like: "So how do you know that?" Does she now have a degree in agriculture? They certainly haven't consulted. Had she checked with the farmers? Has she even read what the soil scientists are telling us?

I'd like to read into the record a little bit about what I learned from the soil scientists. These are the people who have lots of degrees after their names. They've written a letter about their concerns, serious concerns, about Bill 24. They write:

"As a group of experienced soil scientists who have worked throughout British Columbia for many years, we have serious concerns over the substantial change in direction embodied in Bill 24, presented to the provincial Legislature on March 27, 2014.

"For the past four decades preservation of agricultural lands has been a provincewide priority aimed at protecting existing farmlands and lands that have the potential for future agricultural use."

Potential. Imagine that, protecting farmland that has potential.

"Some of those future agricultural lands are now forested, and until such time as they are needed and developed for agriculture, they will continue to contribute to wood and fibre production and thereby to the provincial economy."

So where you have stuff growing right now, that has value now and into the future, in all likelihood — and possibly for agricultural land, should we need it.

"For such lands not currently farmed, the objective is to keep the option open for future agriculture."

These soil scientists admire the vision of the future and recognize that these lands will possibly serve some purpose for us and for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. These soil scientists "consider this to be a prudent course of action in the face of an uncertain future."

They go on to describe the bill, and they note:

"We question whether this is sound policy and direction in a province with a very limited land base capable of food production.

"In areas designated as ALR, decisions regarding subdivision, exclusion and uses of land for purposes other than agriculture are currently considered from a food production perspective. That is, protecting the inherent quality of land for food production is, by law, the primary consideration. Other considerations, such as socioeconomic conditions, are secondary" — just as they should be. "This approach has been proven to keep future options available."

This is how the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission have been operating. This government wants to change that. They give this great example. It was really very helpful, because I am not a scientist and I am not a farmer. I'm a city mouse, so I don't have a great sense of agricultural lands, but this was very helpful. They note:

"If the poor economic performance of tree fruit production in the Okanagan Valley of the '70s had taken precedence over the inherent capability of many Okanagan Valley soils to produce both tree fruits and grapes, and had such lands not been protected in the ALR, the vibrant wine industry" — I will make note, too, that I do know something about that industry; I quite like Okanagan wines — "and the associated agritourism business that we have today would not have been possible, or at the very least, it would have been diminished."

The fact that we have had a fabulous policy in place for 40 years tells us that this current generation has benefited from it. I have serious concerns that Bill 24 will rip off future generations of the same possibilities.

What they do go on to note is that agricultural land use decisions should not be tailored to regional conditions. As far as they are aware, the Agricultural Land Commission decision-making has been incredibly sensitive to regional and community differences, both in the type of agriculture and differences in other land and resource uses. These soil scientists, who come from all over the province — this is their profession. They study these decisions, and they recognize that the Agricultural Land Commission as it stands today has done a fabulous job.

They note that the commission has worked for many years with local and regional governments to support community and regional planning. This already happens.

Now, this goes on to talk about the concerns about the different quality of soils, but they note that a class 3 soil in the Fraser Valley is, of course, different from a class 3 soil in the Peace.

[1515]

They note: "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."

They go on to note that at different times, a different class of lands will grow different kinds of things. They note that 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 that reduces both labour and feed costs of ranchers.

If these things aren't respected, there will be a tremen-
[ Page 3789 ]
dous undue cost that come to these farmers. That cost will be then, of course, borne by the rest of us — those of us who like to eat.

One of the things I do want to point out…. I'd like to read into the record the conclusions that these soil scientists make, because I think that's really important.

They note that they completely agree with the words of the late Gary Runka, who was the former chair of the B.C. land commission. They note that the key elements of effective farmland preservation are as follows:

"A provincewide zone administered by a provincial commission operating in the overall public interest of present and future generations; a zone firmly based on science that objectively assesses the inherent biophysical ability of lands to grow crops; a permanent zone from which urban expansion and other non-compatible uses are redirected, not merely a zone that rations food-producing lands to other uses over time; a zone within which British Columbians are committed to supporting, where necessary, those who farm the land and produce the food upon which we rely."

Then they sign it. When they sign it…. It's amazing. We've got Terence Lewis, PhD in soil science; Art Bomke, PhD, professor emeritus at UBC faculty of land and food systems; Mike Fenger, BSF — lots of initials — soils and land use consultant; Niels Holbek, bachelor of science in agriculture; John Jungen, bachelor of science in agriculture; Evert Kenk, BSF; Bob Louie, BSF; Paul Sanborn, PhD, associate professor, ecosystem science and management, University of Northern British Columbia; Margaret Schmidt, PhD, associate professor of soil science at SFU; Scott Smith, PAg — professional agriculturalist, I guess — soil scientist; Jace Standish, master of science, RPF, PAg, terrestrial ecology and soils at BCIT; Udo Wittneben, bachelor of science in agriculture; and Eveline Wolterson, master of science, PAg.

Here we have some amazing professionals who've taken the time to let us know what they know. I quite trust scientists in helping us to make policy decisions. Clearly, Bill 24 has not taken that into consideration.

Not only is this policy redundant, because we already know that local considerations are taken into consideration as well as social and economic forces…. What that does for me is it makes me a little suspicious about: why are you doing this, and what's this about? If the real issue is tweaking boundaries and an independent body is already addressing that issue, why would you propose a plan that would break up a system that's already doing it? Why would you upset the millions of British Columbians who have been very protective of this for 40 years?

It certainly seems to me that there was a plan all along to just make it easier to pull lands out of the ALR so that pipelines and gas plants can be built. Government for over 40 years…. There have been different governments, but every single government recognized the value, the importance, of protecting our agricultural land for future generations.

In the first week of November 2013 the Premier denied that her Liberal government was going to split the agricultural land reserve into two sections, with different rules governing each of these sections. But just a week later on Kelowna radio, she actually said that this idea had some merit. So clearly, either something happened in that week, or she wasn't actually quite forthright with what the plans were.

[1520]

In fact, the radio announcer summarized it and said: "The Premier says marginal agricultural land in northern B.C. is getting in the way of developing the liquid natural gas industry." So clearly, this is not about tweaking boundaries.

This is really about saying the agricultural land reserve is getting in the way of our latest project, our latest eye candy, our latest little shiny thing that we're going to show to all of British Columbia that we're capable of doing — rather than recognizing that you need to balance these.

There is no balance in this at all, and that is so disrespectful to every single farmer across this province and to everybody who likes to eat local foods.

Here we are just months after an election where there was not a word to the electorate that the B.C. Liberals were considering a major shift in policy and that we're going to be changing our stewardship of agricultural land for this province. It becomes clear that the motivation for doing this has absolutely nothing to do with agriculture. It has everything to do with their singular focus on LNG.

This government wants to charge full steam ahead, do whatever it wants to do without being honest with us about why it's destroying a 40-year legacy that has been intended to protect farming opportunities for generations to come.

Several weeks ago this city mouse went to Creston. I was there as a critic to attend the AKBLG, which is local governments' association up there. There was actually some substantial concern from mayors, councillors and directors about the proposed changes.

Many were quite worried about how the dismantling of the ALR and the ALC is going to affect their constituents. They noted that there hasn't even been any consultation with the farmers. So this group of local politicians, who represent the local electorate, put together an emergency resolution asking the UBCM and this provincial government to go out and properly consult with farmers in all areas of the province in order to properly identify just how these proposed changes will impact the future of agriculture in our province.

On this side of the House we value consultation — real consultation. Certainly, the local government officials that I've talked to value real consultation. They haven't even been properly consulted — the farming community — about the implications of this bill. Really, I can't imagine, as somebody who comes from local government, ever doing sweeping land use changes without consulting with the group that is going to be most impacted by the proposed changes.

When I was in Creston, I spent the afternoon touring
[ Page 3790 ]
three different farms, had conversations with these farmers to hear what they had to say, did my own, I guess, little mini-consultation, because I really wanted to understand what this bill would do to farmers and to farmland.

See, in my community some people might think that their food just comes from Save-On-Foods or Thrifty Foods, and I wanted to make sure that I as their representative understood exactly, because in suburbia we don't have a lot of farms. We might have our own gardens, but we don't have a lot of farms. I wanted to make sure that I was able to impress upon my constituents what this would mean.

What I learned from these farmers was that they have serious concerns about how their operations will be put at risk by parcelling up the ALR. They're worried that there will be an increase in land prices. Inappropriate development will mean losing these lands forever, and their ability to use the land through the entire supply chain will increase their costs — which, of course, will then increase food costs, continuing to make life more expensive for all British Columbians.

More recently with the…. We have a new Minister of Agriculture, and he's saying that he's in the process of consulting. I remember hearing him here in the House. When pressed about what that means, what that looks like, he said he's reading e-mails from British Columbians.

I've certainly been telling my constituents who have concerns to send letters to the Premier, to send letters to the Minister of Agriculture. At least he's reading them, which is great, but to him that's consultation, and that's not consultation.

Then, we have the Minister of Agriculture saying he's open. "I'm going to read all these e-mails. I'm going to consult. I may just change the legislation that's being proposed. I'm open to amending it. I'm open to removing it."

Good on him, because that's his job. His job is to hear from constituents all across this province. I actually sat on this side of the House going: "Okay, this is pretty good. We have a minister who is open to hearing what people have to say. I'm going to get the people that I know are worried and say: 'He's a minister who's open to hearing what you have to say. Get right on it. You send him e-mails.'"

Then, five days later the Minister Responsible for Core Review was saying: "We're just going to keep on going through with this legislation."

[1525]

One minister says one thing; the other says the exact opposite. Now in my world, before I had gone into local government and I was a family therapist, we'd call this crazy-making, when one parent says one thing and the other parent says another. It's really not good for the children. Certainly, in this case we have one minister saying one thing and another minister saying the other thing, and it's not good for the electorate.

V. Huntington: How does one begin to speak about a piece of legislation that is so confounding in its intent that I find myself looking at the faces across the aisle with curiosity, wondering whether they've lost their way entirely?

I'm puzzled how I could have assumed we live in the same part of this great country and see the same bounty — the unique, startling, stunning beauty and bounty of British Columbia. I thought we shared a similar desire to see government done well, a desire to protect our hard-won, imperfect democratic heritage by ensuring the essential public interest, by protecting the ability of our descendants to have the same opportunities for security, success and a dignified life.

That deep-seated need for security is one of the most fundamental reasons for government. There's almost no other purpose for government. Over time, in most representative democracies, security has come to mean a multitude of necessities — protective services, education, health. In Canada the body politic recognizes that it has a responsibility to ensure the vulnerable are afforded as much dignity as is possible.

Security in the future and modern world is also going to take on new meaning, one which the relatively wealthy and content industrialized world, certainly Canada, has yet to recognize. Security is also going to mean protecting the most valuable resources that we have as a nation, resources fundamental to the needs of our very humanity. That is our water and our agriculturally productive land.

One day in the not-too-distant future British Columbia could well become the envy of the world. In a world that becomes even one or two degrees warmer we could well be the richest nation of all — rich at least in our ability to survive a startling new reality of drought, vicious weather, changing land use and the resultant damage to food production and access to water; rich because the billions of people in this world who will suffer drought and starvation will want what we have, will need what we have and could well come to get what we have.

Indeed, nations who understand what drought and starvation mean are already making plans to protect their own citizens, and those plans involve buying our land and shipping our production overseas to protect their own people, their own livestock and their own future. That is a security issue we must come to grips with: how to protect our own citizens in a drastically different world. That is a security issue this provincial government is slow to recognize, slow to plan for and slow to believe is coming.

Our own government is making decisions about essential resources with no forward-thinking policy plan in place, with no foresight, without a sense of the demands the future will place on every piece of agriculturally productive land in this province.

It is forcing those plans to take into account critical policy decisions that are being made in the absence of
[ Page 3791 ]
science, in the absence of common sense, in the absence of statistics and the absence of an understanding that the changing climate is real and that the agriculturally productive lands of this province will be absolutely essential to our own survival and essential to the security of our province and of our nation.

Even worse, it seems the government is only now attempting to come up with a food security policy, which, if this bill is adopted, will be policy-making after the fact, after the horse has left the barn, after it introduces a piece of legislation that is so shortsighted in its goal and so blatantly against the long-term public interest that it could well jeopardize the future food security of British Columbia.

It is also a piece of legislation that treats farmers in different parts of this province quite differently, and it is a piece of legislation that will make it even harder for farmers in zone 1 to work the land, acquire land for future generations and see a bright future for their chosen profession.

[1530]

What are those lands that could well become the most essential and important lands in this province — or could become essential if this ridiculous piece of legislation dies the ignoble death it so deserves? Why, they are the very lands the Minister for Core Review is so anxious to turn into blacktop or little boxes or resorts — the very zone 2 lands that he has somehow decided are the least productive and that represent little in the way of adding to the GDP of the province.

How insulting to the men and women of this province who take pride in the profession of farming, who feed and nourish us, who have chosen to live on the land and to coax it to its potential. How insulting to be told their labour and life's work is so undervalued that the government of the day wants to change the uses on that precious land.

That's what's going to happen if this bill is accepted by this House. The uses on B.C.'s agricultural soil will change.

Yes, there are issues the farmers need to have addressed. Complementary businesses should be considered. Homes for the next generation should be considered a possibility that could be added to the farm home plate. Poor land should be removed from the reserve. All of these issues could have been solved by the ALC through consultation with farmers, local governments and associations.

Consultation isn't what this bill is about. This government has lost the ability to trust the people enough to consult with them. Why? Because it might not get the answer it wants. That's why.

The people of B.C. believe they have the right to participate in major policy shifts that were not part of an election campaign platform, but it's quite obvious that the Minister for Core Review took his very own definition of "consultation" from the Devil's Dictionary. That well-known visionary Ambrose Bierce was obviously thinking of the minister when he defined consultation as "seeking another's approval of a course already decided upon," because that is exactly what the Minister for Core Review did. He recited support that wasn't there and that didn't back him up.

Actually, if the truth were known, Ambrose's Devil's Dictionary was the new title for the Cynic's Word Book, and that's what this minister and his government have created throughout this province: cynicism, a cynicism so deep that people are turning away from government, from voting and from participation. That is the fault of a government that cares not one whit for what the people think, who have underwritten the voters' mantra: "Why should we bother? It doesn't make any difference."

Here we are debating a bill that the sitting government has no mandate to introduce. The fundamental changes to the Agricultural Land Commission that are proposed in Bill 24 were not called for by the people, were not tested in the crucible of the last election, nor are they required to meet any emergent circumstance that has occurred since the last election. In a representative democracy, substantial changes to important public policy, legislation or taxes ought to be proposed during election. That is the only way a government can rightfully claim it has a mandate to make fundamental changes to provincial policy that has been relied upon for years.

How can members on the opposite side support such a massive alteration to four decades of public policy without one word uttered during the election? The introduction of massive policy change without one hint, one word of debate during the election. They have obviously learned nothing from the HST scandal. It was deceitful then, and it is deceitful now.

Deputy Speaker: I think the member needs to watch her use of words.

V. Huntington: I beg your pardon?

Deputy Speaker: I said the member needs to watch her use of words.

V. Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is also no information the government can share which would show that this was a reasoned decision or even a plan for an emergent circumstance that warrants the amendments. On the contrary, the government has refused to provide the public and this Legislature with any rationale whatsoever for these proposed changes.

Simply put, very few representatives of this chamber and even fewer members of the public actually know what the government's real agenda is with this bill. It claims Bill 24 is intended to improve the ALC and protect agricultural land in B.C.
[ Page 3792 ]

Interjections.

V. Huntington: Perhaps the members should read the bill, because it does the opposite of what they purport.

Because it has no coherent, fact-based and public argument to show how Bill 24 will do this, we can only assess its potential impact by analyzing both the content of the bill and the informed public feedback on the proposed legislation, feedback which has been universally and overwhelmingly negative and which the government refuses to listen to. Taken at face value, Bill 24 would reverse the mandate of the ALC in the north, the Interior and the Kootenays by allowing economic and other considerations to trump agricultural use.

[1535]

It doesn't matter that the minister's amendments try to suggest that agriculture will continue to be the primary consideration. The fact is that government is formally and legally requiring what is supposedly the independent Agricultural Land Commission to determine whether non-agricultural uses should be permitted on some of B.C.'s best soils. Slowly but surely, this will open up 90 percent of the good soil in this province to non-agricultural uses, threatening our food security and driving up the speculative cost of land until our farmers are driven off it. That is what this government is doing.

Bill 24 corrupts the appointment process to the Land Commission by entrenching the requirements that members of regional panels be resident in the region. It is hard, almost impossible, to say no to your neighbour, friend, acquaintance or supplier, and saying yes will become the order of the day.

The government says resident appointments will ensure that the panel knows the area, but that isn't what happens, is it? We know that the number of exclusions jumped when the government tried this before, and it wasn't until the panels went back to membership from outside the panel area that exclusion approvals levelled off again. Corruption of a system comes in many forms, and influence and proximity are among them.

The bill also adds regulatory and monitoring requirements that, because we have no idea what they will be, could be used to require that the commission give greater consideration to non-agricultural uses in all of B.C. Too much is left open to regulation, especially the section enabling other prescribed considerations for excluding lands in zone 2. Deciding, behind closed doors, that the B.C. Agriculture Council will be consulted on the development of the regulations is simply not good enough.

This policy shift, and its regulations that will define its operation, is of paramount interest to all the people of B.C., and all of us deserve to know what is being regulated and how. By opening the door to developers to bid on agricultural land for non-farm uses, this government is participating in the destruction of the ability of farming families to afford the very land that it's saying it is trying to protect. Look at the pressure on Delta's lands, where pioneer farming families are actually moving out of Delta because they can no longer afford the land for their next generation to farm. Even the government is selling the land at market value in Delta — hypocrisy of the highest order.

The zone 2 land changes make a mockery of the original mandate of the commission, which was to preserve agricultural land. It was to support farming on agricultural land and to ensure that municipalities and regional governments accommodated farms and agricultural uses of land. If this bill passes, any of the previously protected farmland in northern B.C., the Interior and the Kootenays — a full 90 percent of the land reserve and now suddenly christened zone 2 — will slowly disappear under the weight of undefined economic, cultural and social values, regional government OCPs and other prescribed considerations.

How do you define cultural or social values, and at what point do they overrule agricultural needs? Who measures the need — the speculator, the developer, the regional government that wants a new park? How much economic value does a project have to provide before good farmland is taken out of the reserve? If the government has any idea at all of what "other prescribed consideration" means, it sure isn't telling the people of B.C. or the members of this House, who have to vote on this piece of nonsense.

Obviously in the north, oil and gas development has been trumping agricultural land for some time. Thousands and thousands of wellsites, pipeline corridors, transmission corridors, resource roads, water pits, refinery sites and campsites swarm the landscape. Given that the industry is the cornerstone of this government's economic agenda, they can expect that nothing will stop the industry's growth.

The ALC already has a strong working relationship with the Oil and Gas Commission, so what is the bill responding to? Is it because rodeos don't fit into subsoil rights of the oil and gas industry; because someone said no, and some of the government members didn't like no, a word that this government no longer seems to tolerate in its growing sense of noblesse oblige?

It must be rodeos, because the issue of resident panelists having all the right knowledge could so easily have been solved by appointing a member of the ALC to the Oil and Gas Commission, if that was even a problem. Rodeos trump agriculture, and the secret is out.

When the government says Bill 24 represents flexibility for farmers, one just has to laugh. As I said earlier, the issues that need modernizing could so easily have been dealt with by a good process of consultation. The farming community wants the option of building complementary businesses that assist their revenues. They want the option of using their land to provide homes for their children.
[ Page 3793 ]

[1540]

These important issues could be dealt with by consultation and by simple amendments to the regulations and bylaws of local governments. We don't need to open up land in only one zone for industrial, commercial and recreational uses beyond the needs of legitimate farming families.

Despite what government wants us to believe, the land that's being threatened is good land. The northern region alone has 72 percent of our class 1 to class 4 farmland — 72 percent, for heaven's sake. It's some of the best soil in the province.

Telling us that there is a lot of protected land that shouldn't be in the reserve is disingenuous at best, or at worst is simply ignorant. The government knows as well as we do that the ALC was conducting a very thorough, scientifically based review of the ALR boundaries to determine what lands should come out of the land reserve. We don't need sweeping changes that will open zone 2 lands to other uses. The work was already underway, and the government knew it.

If the government is going to use farm-gate receipts to defend its ridiculous machinations, then it should get the numbers right. The areas set out in the Stats Can census data are not the same as the zones in Bill 24, and if the government is going to use numbers to justify its policy decisions, I would think they'd want to get those numbers right.

How can you make policy decisions that are justifiable if you don't use statistics properly? Neither the jobs data nor the farm-gate receipts information is correct, and it is fairly obvious that the lands in zone 2 are worth more agriculturally than the government is letting on and are worthy of dedicated and continued protection as farmland.

The admonitions that Bill 24 supports the independence of the Land Commission are also disingenuous or, more likely, a deliberate doublespeak that hides the true intention of government. Bill 24 purports to protect the appointment process by ensuring that the minister can now make appointments independent of consultations with the chair of the ALC. Or as the Minister for Core Review would say, the bill leaves "no more room for the chair to monkey with the process" — an unbelievable statement for a sitting minister to make, especially when the comment bears no relation to reality.

While section 3(c) of Bill 24 implies that appointments will no longer be made in consultation with the chair, the legal reality is that the existing act is bound by section 3 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which requires that appointments be made following "a merit based process and consultation with the chair." The minister doesn't know whereof he speaks, because this bill does nothing to change the legal requirement of process and consultation.

Moreover, and even worse, is the hypocrisy of the entire section. Since the appointment of the current chair of the ALC, the chair has never, not once, been consulted on any appointment to the commission. The government has already compromised the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission in a substantive and an objectionable manner and has probably compromised that independence illegally, if the Administrative Tribunals Act has any standing whatsoever.

The problems with Bill 24 are so numerous that it's difficult to keep enumerating them. Perhaps one of the most troubling is the quiet little reference to efficiencies found in section 6, those undefined performance metrics that add unknown reporting requirements which seem to be tied to the government's desire for core review.

Will the reporting requirements let the government keep tabs how quickly the ALC processes approvals? Will they require applications be processed within certain time limits? Will they place emphasis on certain types of applications?

It is interesting that the government is invoking all these new performance standards without a hint as to how it might support them. Will the government further increase the ALC funding to help it meet any new standards, or will it use new benchmarks that will be impossible to meet, in subsequent efforts to undermine the work of the ALC? Given the government's attitude to the ALC, we can only believe that it will be the latter.

There is so much that can be said about the meaning of this bill, its impact on the agriculture in British Columbia and the government's attitude towards one of the finest public policy decisions ever made in this province. The introduction of the agricultural land reserve, though difficult and heartbreaking at the time, is now lauded and supported by everyone in B.C. — everyone, that is, except the Minister for Core Review and his colleagues and the developers whom he is no doubt backing.

Bill 24 is a bad piece of legislation. It should never see committee. It should never have seen second reading, for that matter. I've been surprised that members opposite have actually stood to defend the bill.

[1545]

Rather, I had thought that they would have fought hard and long in their caucus room to demand that cabinet hoist the legislation and demand that ministers go back to the drawing board, consult with the farming community and with the public, and bring back legislation that is meaningful and supported and that truly strengthens the Agricultural Land Commission, the agricultural land reserve and the farming community that supports both.

Instead, they have spoken for a bill that divides this province, creates two tiers of farmers and two tiers of farming, opens farmland to speculation, puts pressure on the price of land and undermines food security as we go forward. The government did not obtain an electoral mandate to make these policy changes, nor has it made a public case for why they are necessary.

As a consequence, the government must, in accord-
[ Page 3794 ]
ance with the very basic principle of representative democracy, remove this bill from the order paper and ask the people if the changes are necessary or even wanted. That would be the right thing to do, the democratic thing to do, and in my mind, it is the only thing to do.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014. This piece of legislation that has been introduced does a number of things, but it really, primarily, has two particularly key critical and fundamentally flawed aspects.

The first is to break the agricultural land reserve, essentially, into two zones in the province, the first zone being zone 1: Vancouver Island, the south coast and the Okanagan, where the commission largely, in that zone, continues to prioritize the preservation of agricultural land in its decision-making.

It creates zone 2, and what zone 2 does…. That contains about 90 percent of the land that's under ALR coverage today, and there the commission will be compelled to give equal weight to economic, cultural and social values, regional planning objectives, and any other prescribed considerations.

What you have here is you say that for that zone 2 — 90 percent of the land in the ALR — it's wide open now. It's wide open now. What you have here is a situation that does that.

The other thing that this bill does is it changes the decision-making structure of the commission. The commission, and we'll talk a little about this in a while…. The Liberal government, back a number of years ago, took what was a provincial commission and attempted to break it up into regional panels — didn't make that compulsory. That system did not work effectively, and the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission essentially drew it all back into a single commission and a single decision-making body.

What this does now is say that that changes. It says that we will go to regional panels, and these panels will be, essentially, Liberal political appointees in six regional panels. They will become the decision-makers throughout this province. This is fundamentally flawed. It's a system that undermines the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve in the most fundamental of ways.

What you have is a situation where we now have these two different zones. Why is this important? Why is it important, this question? Why has this piece of legislation caused such concern across the province — concern with the agricultural community, concern with the farming community, concern with local government? How come that's been the case? How come this piece of legislation, maybe more so than anything we've dealt with in this particular session, has raised the fears and concerns of British Columbians and of people in our communities across the province?

Well, to understand that, you have to go back to the decision that was made back when the Agricultural Land Commission Act in 1973 was adopted. That was adopted at the time by the Dave Barrett government. It was adopted at a time, in fact, when decisions were made that we needed to protect the integrity of our farmland, the integrity of our agricultural properties. The agricultural industry had to be protected, and food security was a compelling and growing concern. That's what made it so important at that time. As a result of that, more than 40 years of this.

[1550]

For all of the back-and-forth — and we've seen lots of laws come and go in this province over 40 years — this particular piece of legislation, the agricultural land reserve, the land commission that facilitates that reserve…. The integrity of that has, in large part, been sustained for 40 years. It's been sustained because it is one of the most enduring pieces of legislation and law in the history of the province.

It is one of the laws that makes British Columbia the great place it is. It's a law that has fundamentally sustained this province, and when we talk about sustainability and climate and environment, food security becomes a compelling issue.

Increasingly, as a province that relies on California for food, relies on other places, we know that that reliance can't necessarily be sustained. We know about the situation in California, with increasing droughts. We know about problems elsewhere caused by climate, caused by other issues.

We know it becomes even more important that we protect the integrity of food security in this province. And you cannot protect the integrity of food security in this province if you do not protect the agricultural land and if you do not support the farming communities and industries in this province.

Bill 24 does not do that. Bill 24 takes us in the other direction. That's the reality of what we face with Bill 24.

As we look at this, we have to look at how this bill came about. We know that this piece of fundamental legislation was brought in with almost no consultation with stakeholders, with people in the community — almost no consultation at all. That's why the member for Delta South, who spoke before me, quite wisely said that even if you don't want to kill this bill, which is what we should do, there is no sense in bringing this forward now.

There should at least be some desire to have a discussion with British Columbians before you even contemplate a piece of legislation like this. I suspect the problem the government has is that they know if they open that box and start to travel this province and start to talk with British Columbians, people in local communities, people who work in the industry, they will hear time after time that Bill 24 is bad legislation.
[ Page 3795 ]

It's a bad law, and it belongs in the scrap heap. That's what they'll hear. They don't want to do that because they know what the result of that will be.

What do we know about the people who have talked about this piece of legislation? We know that the B.C. Agriculture Council…. Interestingly, when the bill first was introduced, the chair at that moment embraced the bill. As was said by people on the Agriculture Council, they embraced it until they read the bill. Then, after they read it, they rejected it.

The chair said: "I think we're genuinely afraid that the changes will trump the well-being of agriculture and agricultural land." That's what we heard from the Agriculture Council. They are concerned. They are not supportive. They do not feel they were consulted.

The minister did talk to them. The minister had a day-long meeting or something close to that with them — the new Minister of Agriculture. We'll talk a little bit about that consultation process in a minute. But that's what we heard from those folks.

We also know that you can travel across this province and look at regional governments and local governments. Local governments across this province and regional associations of local governments across this province have been adopting resolutions and taking positions that say: "Stop. Stop Bill 24. Stop what you're doing. At least talk to us if you're not prepared to just throw the bill away, which is what you should do."

But they're not being spoken to. They're not having their issues addressed, and that's a significant concern. We have them saying this, and of course, they're not alone in this at all. We have soil scientists across the province who have raised their concerns.

Dr. Art Bomke, the professor emeritus in the UBC faculty of land and food systems — pretty smart guy — understands this issue. What did the professor say?

[1555]

"With Bill 24, we will not only lose ground in the literal sense but also in the public policy sense. The ALR was established because local and regional authorities could not be relied upon to protect our scarce and irreplaceable farmland from non-farm development. The six-panel system contained within Bill 24 potentially takes us right back to the 1973 situation that gave rise to the establishment of the provincial ALR and the Provincial Land Commission in the first place."

There is concern across this province about this piece of legislation. There is concern about where this legislation takes us and about what it does and doesn't achieve.

It receives little support from people in the community who work in this field. As I said, the B.C. Agriculture Council has raised concerns. We've heard from soil scientists. Members here will know, because some of them, I'm sure, have seen the letter that was sent to the Premier that's critical of Bill 24, a letter signed by 100 academics — biologists, naturalists and other academics.

What does that letter say about Bill 24? It says: "The bill reduces the ability for science to inform land use decisions, will increase pressure to remove land from the reserve at a cost to the general good. Agricultural lands produce not just crops but contain wetlands, streams, ponds, riparian areas, woodlands, hedgerows and uncultivated grasslands that are either adjacent to or integral to farm operations."

We know that, and what the letter tells us is these areas are instrumental in protecting functioning, healthy ecosystems, and in many cases these diverse services help boost agricultural production.

The letter from the 100 academics goes on to say: "Allowing more non-agricultural uses on ALR land and the release of more lands from reserves will have the unintended consequence of threatening many important ecosystems and, by extension, many valuable species, including species at risk." So the litany of concerns just continues to grow. That's the reality of what Bill 24 brings us. That's the reality of this piece of legislation.

We continue, also, to see other comments in relation to this. The British Columbia Cattlemen's Association in a letter to the Minister of Agriculture on May 7 says: "We fear that these changes will make ranching more vulnerable to other industries and non-farming activities that aren't complementary or reversible to agriculture."

The letter from the president of the cattlemen's association goes on to say: "It is difficult to see what the overall benefits to agriculture will be from Bill 24 and the amendments you introduced this week. Without more information about what the benefits to agriculture will be or what the changes will mean to our industry, it is very difficult for our directors to support the bill even with your changes."

They haven't asked…. The cattlemen's association says: "We kindly request that the minister delay any decision on Bill 24 until further information is provided and consultation can be had with the farming and ranching community."

They are asking to talk about the bill. They're not getting that opportunity. They're not getting that opportunity at all. What do we see instead? Well, we can go back. Some will recall that the minister, as he was meeting with the Agriculture Council…. When the minister was first appointed, he stepped out immediately after his appointment and told us all what we thought we wanted to hear.

What did the Minister of Agriculture tell us? He said: "The opportunity is everything from amending the bill to leaving it alone to removing the bill. I haven't landed on any particular recommendation yet because I'm not finished my consultation process." That's what the minister said.

So we all said: "Good. Maybe the minister is going to go out and talk to folks. Maybe he's going to put some kind of meaningful process in place. Maybe there's going to be a conversation with people who are concerned about agriculture, who are concerned about this land, who are concerned about these issues." We all were pretty
[ Page 3796 ]
hopeful.

Of course, the day the minister says that, it's not a day later the Minister for Core Review comes out and kind of slaps his colleague down and says: "Am I open to changes to the legislation? That's really up to cabinet and caucus, but I can tell you that government is not interested in fundamentally changing or delaying the bill. The bill will pass." That's what the Minister for Core Review says the next day.

[1600]

So then we all wonder: who is the Minister for Agriculture, really? Is it the minister who carries the title, or is it the Minister for Core Review? Well, we immediately hear the next day when we come into this House and ask questions, that all of a sudden that extensive consultation that we were all offered, that consultation that was going to be broad and inclusive…. It was going to leave all of the options on the table so that people could comfortably feel that their input would be meaningful. They would have the opportunity for the input, and it would be meaningful.

Well, that ended up being the Minister of Agriculture then essentially saying: "I'm reading my e-mail, and other than that, we're not going to really change much. But I am reading my e-mail." That's essentially what the Minister of Agriculture said. It creates a huge, huge challenge here for what we have heard.

Now, it's not just those folks who are engaged in this. We also know that the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, Mr. Bullock, raised his own concerns: "I'm not sure if any of our people should be treated different in one part of the province than they are in another. I thought equal treatment is how we operated as a society, but we'll see." That's what the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission had to say.

It's interesting, because the chair has done some pretty interesting work on this. I'd like to talk about that, because I think the chair is pretty thoughtful.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Back in November of 2010, the chair, Mr. Bullock, submitted a report to the minister at the time, Review of the Agricultural Land Commission: Moving Forward — A Strategic Vision of the Agricultural Land Commission for Future Generations.

Now, it's interesting. That report is produced in November, 2010. The Liberal government sits on the report for a year before they allow it to be released. Why is that? Probably because a lot of the machinations that we're seeing now were coming up. But what did the report recommend? What did the chair of the land commission recommend?

He recommended that the land commission "have sufficient funding and resources to enable it to undertake targeted reviews of ALR boundaries to ensure that the ALR is more accurate and includes land that is both capable and suitable for agricultural use" — that the land commission have that authority and the resources to do the work. Not that it just be a blind situation, but that there be the resources available to do real research, real analysis, produce real evidence, based on some kind of empirical basis that would allow that question to be answered.

"That the work of the land commission be repositioned away from being reactive and focused on applications to a more proactive planning model that would enable it to strengthen ties to local government land use planning, deal with emerging issues as they relate to agriculture…." Not a bad idea. Not a bad idea for the land commission to be able to engage that discussion.

"That the 'encouraging farming' aspect of the land commission's mandate take a greater prominence so the land commission can focus its work on farmers, ranchers and the business of farming." That makes sense. Why aren't we strengthening the land commission and saying: "Go out and help farmers and ranchers to do their work, encourage them, make that industry more dynamic and more effective, and don't try to undermine it." But instead, Bill 24 clearly undermines it.

"That the land commission have sufficient funding and resources for compliance enforcement and that its compliance and enforcement capabilities be enhanced through legislative amendments." That would be helpful, especially after these debacles that we hear in the Peace — people just ignoring rulings and deciding they'll do what they want to do. The land commission needs to have the teeth and the authority to deal with these matters. But that is not what we're seeing here.

There are a number of other recommendations that were put out by Mr. Bullock in the November 2010 report — not all recommendations that we would necessarily agree with, but it was an important discussion and an important dialogue. It was one that would be meaningful.

It was one that in fact could be engaged as part of a debate with the public and the people of British Columbia around how we protect and enhance agricultural land in British Columbia, how we enhance food security, how we move forward in a way that makes sense.

[1605]

Now, it isn't just the folks who understand agriculture who necessarily have done this work — no. In 2010 the Auditor General also did a report. At that point he called on the B.C. Liberal government to strengthen the Agricultural Land Commission. The report noted: "The commission is challenged to effectively preserve agricultural land and encourage farming in British Columbia." It showed a disturbing pattern of prime agricultural land being excluded from the reserve in the south of the province and being replaced with less fertile land in the north. That's what it found.

The Auditor General pointed to the cutting of the
[ Page 3797 ]
budget by over 28 percent since 2002. If there was any meaningful commitment to the Agricultural Land Commission, to agricultural land, you wouldn't have seen that kind of cut.

I quote the report from the Auditor General again. "In 2002-2003 the Agricultural Land Commission's budget was $2.9 million. Since that time, the budget has decreased. The commission's most recent detailed budget submission in November 2008," at that time, "estimated that with the 2008-09 budget of $2.4 million, it was operating at approximately 20 percent," or half a million dollars, "below its minimal requirements to maintain its core business." In 2008, that's what it saw.

What we saw is a pretty tried-and-true trick used by this government, which is to just basically strangle programs they don't want. Where you don't have the courage to just eliminate them, you cut the money out. You take out the resources. You strangle the program in a way that's necessary to be able to do that. That's what we saw. That's the situation that we have.

Now we have a situation here where pretty much everybody we're talking to…. The Agriculture Council, local and regional governments, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, citizens and individual farmers across the province, the soil scientists, the academics, the Auditor General — group after group is raising concerns about this situation, raising concerns about how in fact this bill will affect agricultural land and the Land Commission in this province. That's the problem that we see today. That's the challenge that we see today.

You have to ask yourself: why is this happening? The reality that you have to conclude from this is that the government is feeling pressure from their friends, from their supporters, from certain aspects of industry to open the door to allow land to be removed so that other activities can go on. Other activities might be quite legitimate, but are they legitimate on agricultural land in the reserve? No, they're not. But that doesn't seem to matter. It seems to be a case where the decision has been made that in fact it's going to get bled out. That's what we're seeing happen today.

The history of the Land Commission is far too important. The history of the agricultural land reserve is far too important. There are fundamental strategies that you find in a province, in a place like this. These become increasingly important, particularly when we look at the future that is in front of us.

We know that climate change is real. We know that sustainability questions are no longer theoretical; they are issues we need to address today. We need to put in place sustainability initiatives today. We know that questions like food security are not academic questions. They are real questions for people every day. The quality, the quantity, the price of food — all fundamental questions. They are all questions that we need to get our heads around. It makes no sense.

[1610]

It just makes no sense at all. At a time when we are trying to grapple with those questions — very fundamental questions from the industry level and from all levels of government — as to how we ensure that we address those questions of farming, of agriculture, of food security, we're introducing and dealing with things like Bill 24, which undermines and compromises that situation. That's the situation that we find ourselves in today.

The time truly has come. We are continuing and will continue this debate for a number more days as we head into the last dying days of this session over the next couple of weeks.

But what I would say to the people who would be watching this, who would be interested in Bill 24, who are interested in the integrity of the land reserve, interested in the integrity of the land commission, interested in enhancing and protecting food security, interested in protecting those communities that were built on farming and agriculture and ranching, is: we will continue to raise our voices here, but it is critical that those folks contact their MLAs, particularly their Liberal MLAs, and demand consultation.

Demand a real conversation about this. Demand those MLAs be accountable for this government's action on Bill 24. Demand that the minister fulfil the promise that he made for real consultation. Demand that the minister actually put back on the table what he said was on the table — everything. From withdrawing the bill to changing the bill, put it all back on the table.

That's what we want to see. Be very clear. If you're not going to throw the bill in the scrap heap, at a minimum…. We're apparently coming back in the fall, so take the bill on the road. Go out and talk to people in communities. Have a discussion with British Columbians. Consult with British Columbians. Spend a few months. Learn what you will learn.

Bring the bill back here in October and see if maybe you, the Liberal caucus, have decided that you might like to change a few things in that bill after you go talk to your constituents, after you go talk to the stakeholders in this industry, after you go talk to local governments, after you go talk to regional districts. See what you think then. That's what I would say to the Liberal caucus.

We need to have a conversation. You can say we have a situation…. The accusation's been made that we're just trying to protect a piece of legislation from the NDP government of the '70s. If you believe that, if you believe that's all this is about, then go out and talk to British Columbians.

Most British Columbians probably couldn't tell you what the history of the land commission is, but they can tell you that it works. They probably couldn't tell you about how the land reserve got put in place, but they know it's a good idea. They inherently know that the decision to protect agricultural land, to protect farming, to
[ Page 3798 ]
protect those communities — they know that's important.

They would also tell you what Mr. Bullock said in his report from 2010: support those industries. Figure out how to invest in encouraging farming and agriculture; how you encourage more people, young people, to look at it as a legitimate option as a way to take care of their families.

That's what we need now. We need an innovative strategy that talks about the future of farming and the future of agriculture, not a strategy that talks about how you tear the pieces away, about how you get a little land out here and get a little land out there. There's no upside in this; there is no upside at all.

As we move forward on this bill…. Sadly, I believe we are going to move forward, because it's pretty clear to me that the commitments that the Minister of Agriculture made when he first got his new portfolio lasted about a day. That's pretty good by Liberal standards. They lasted a day before they changed their position. Not bad. But they're now compromised.

We've seen times when this Liberal government has been forced to reverse itself on positions. When that happens is when the public and stakeholders get to Liberal MLAs, get to the back benchand to those caucus members, and they come back to the Premier and the cabinet and the minister and say: "Wait a minute. This has got to stop. We're being told loud and clear that it's time to stop. It's time to send Bill 24 off to its final resting place. It's time to have a real conversation about agriculture. It's time to try to fix this industry. It's time to make this industry grow. Then we will be better off."

Sadly, that's not happening today, but I believe that if the public steps up and raises their voices, that potential is there.

[1615]

We will stand up and raise our voices on this side. The public will raise their voices. Maybe, just maybe, this time the Liberal government will hear. They will understand they've gone too far. They will back off. They will remove this bill, and we will all be the better for it. I'm truly hopeful that that's what will occur. I'm hoping the people of British Columbia will change the government's mind by speaking out and saying: "Stop Bill 24." It's bad for British Columbia. It's bad for our families. It's bad for our communities. It's time for it to go. We'll all be better off.

K. Conroy: I rise, too, to speak against this bill, Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. I want to start, first of all, with my roots in agriculture. I wasn't raised on a farm, but I married a farmer and have been farming a family farm for the past 36 years. We raise purebred polled Hereford cattle, and I want to explain that polled means they're genetically dehorned — no horns. Great cattle; excellent beef. They're breeding stock, very gentle — great temperament. Our cattle have actually won awards. One of our bulls was a supreme champion at a provincial show a few years ago. They're very good stock.

But for true disclosure, I also want to make it clear that we also live on ALR land. It's in the Kootenays, in the proposed zone 2. I think it would be interesting just to have the discussion in the House someday on how many MLAs actually do live on ALR land and farm it — actually farm it. Or do they want to develop it? Maybe there might be some potential conflict of interest in the House. I'm not sure, but I just want to disclose up front that we live on ALR land.

I really love our lifestyle. I wasn't a country girl. I never spent any time on a farm, and suddenly I was fully immersed in raising cattle, learning about breeding, calving in the middle of cold January nights, saving calves' lives. Most of the time I was alone. It always seemed to happen that whenever something went wrong, Ed, my husband, was away. Quite often he was down here, working down here.

I know there was one time when…. It's important that your calves live, when you're calving. One night in the middle of the night, of course, they go calving. It's a breach birth. If you don't know what that is, the calf is coming backwards. You have your arms immersed deep inside the cow to see where calf is, and you find out it's coming backwards. I'm sure the Minister of Health would understand that well — for another reason.

There I was with my hands immersed up there, thinking: "Oh my gosh. I've got to get the calf out." I called our oldest son. He came to help. We managed to the calf out, but the calf was drowning in the birthing fluid, because it was coming out backwards. What do you do?

I'm sure, again, the Minister of Health would have had a brilliant idea how to save this calf's life, but I just followed instinct, got down on my hands and knees, started sucking the birthing fluid out of this little calf's nose and spitting it out. And it lived. It got up. We got it up and got it living. I thought: "If I didn't ensure that calf lived, my husband would've killed me." I just wanted to make sure. It got up, and I looked over at our son. He was over in the corner of the barn being sick. I thought: "Okay, you're not going to be the farmer in the family." It's just something that we have to go through as farmers.

We're living on agricultural land, land that's near and dear to us. It's land that I feel, for our family, has defined us as a family. We all are really concerned — my husband and I are concerned; our families are concerned; our kids are concerned — about what Bill 24 could do to farmers in this province, what it could do to families who are trying to raise cattle or trying to raise anything, to any farming family.

I want to share a little bit of our Kootenay cred, so to speak. There are four of us MLAs from the Kootenays. I really want to talk about the fact that I do have…. There's an agricultural component when you live in the Kootenays, in the so-called zone 2 land where we're told
[ Page 3799 ]
we don't have any land that's decent or that we can't grow food on it. I think that was the quote.

My husband's maternal grandfather was actually born in Slocan City, and his grandmother Nell immigrated to Winlaw from England via Australia when she was the ripe old age of four. She immigrated with her parents to a chicken farm in Winlaw. Sight unseen they bought a chicken farm. They arrived to find an acreage — a rock pile, basically — with a locked shack and no chickens, but they persevered. They farmed that land. Well, actually, his great-gran did, because his great-grandfather died shortly after they arrived, leaving her to raise the five kids on this farm. She managed to make a go of it.

[1620]

His grandparents met and fell in love, and proceeded to have two children. One was of them was Irene, Ed's mother. They established themselves in Robson and actually built a dairy there. The dairy was on the land that was flooded when the Keenleyside dam was built. They operated a dairy for years, and they ran a pasteurizing plant in Castlegar.

Grampa Roy was the milkman in town. He delivered milk from the '30s through the '50s all through the Robson and Castlegar area. They were a well-known agricultural family in the Kootenay area.

My father-in-law was actually born in Cranbrook. He's Ed Conroy Sr. — or Fast Ed, as they call him. They refer to my husband as Slow Ed, but we won't go there. That has nothing do with Bill 24.

Fast Ed had numerous jobs in the Kootenays, but he ended up in the '40s working as a farmhand on the dairy farm. Here's the sweet part of the story. The farmhand fell in love with the beautiful farmer's daughter, and they were married in 1945. Ed, my husband, was born in '46 in Rossland. Shortly after being born, they moved back, and they lived on the dairy farm for years until they finally sold it to the Frenelli family in the '50s. He kept the pasteurizing plant, kept delivering milk to the community, so farming is in Ed's blood, and now it's in mine.

I know that some of the members have commented about how difficult it can be to farm. You're right. It is difficult to farm. Bill 24 makes it more difficult, as far as I can see, not easier to farm. I know we know a lot of people that farm, and some have jobs off the farm to support the farm, and that works. I know people — we have cattle partners — who have huge spreads on the Prairies, on the Lower Mainland. One of the spouses works off the farm.

More and more now, you see families and young people who are actually working on the farm and making ends meet and making a good, decent living. It's frustrating, I know, for young people. We've gotten numerous letters, as have both sides of the House. We know, because they're copied to everybody.

When people like the member for Kootenay East referred to…. Well, the member for Kootenay East said a number of things, but one thing he did say is that young people can't get involved in farming anymore, and there's a real lack of young people in farming. I think a few of the other members have said that, and they had statistics. Well, I would say they're inaccurate in where they're getting their facts from. They only need to come to the Kootenays to see that's just not the case. Many of the letters and e-mails I got are from young people in the Kootenays who are trying to make a living, making a go of it farming and doing fairly well.

One such farmer is Andrew Bennett. He's from Rossland. He was one of the very first farmers to voice his concerns about Bill 24. It was back at the beginning of April right after the bill was sent. He's 34 years old, works on a farm with his wife and his son. They're building a growing business, and they're selling food. They don't have the finances to own their own farmland, so they operate entirely on leased parcels. I want to quote a part of his letter where he's talking about Bill 24. He says:

"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. 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. We're bleeding money, 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. very fast if the government conspired with us instead of against us. Imagine the impacts.

"Look at my customers. 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 businesspeople to keep that money going round and round right here in B.C.

[1625]

"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-tiered approach to 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 their taxes — without having to incur an expense that cuts into my already slim margins. Between the ALR and farm status assessments, that is about all
[ Page 3800 ]
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 B.C. and federal governments make my life harder, loading small producers with unreasonable restrictions and bureaucracy. We get nothing comparable to the hefty handouts and tax breaks large industrial farmers receive. The ALR and farm status are all the government has ever done for us, and 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."

His letter resonated with me and with so many more people across the province and in our region. To think that young people aren't getting into farming is not only a ridiculous comment, it's disrespectful of the so many young people who are doing just that and who are speaking out against this Bill 24.

In March of this year the Young Agrarians held their first Kootenay-wide gathering for young farmers. Now, the Young Agrarians is a B.C.-based network that is growing the next generation of Canadian farmers. They harness the power of the media and the Internet and bring people together in real time. They connect thousands of young farmers, food producers, food and agricultural advocates, and friends. Young farmers often end up working in isolation, so this is a chance to make connections to people, resources, market opportunities, funding programs and more.

Thanks to funding from the Columbia Basin Trust, two beginning farmers — they're from the Creston Valley — are now coordinators for the Kootenays. They work to connect Kootenay young agrarians with each other and with resources, opportunities, groups and projects that can support them. They use the Young Agrarians' social media outlets to showcase Kootenay farming and food production.

The event in April brought together these farmers, food producers and homesteaders, plus all of the region's major food and farming initiatives. They shared their stories, took part in workshops, demonstrated tools, discussed issues and networked. The workshops included pathways into farming, working with retailers and restaurants, selling surplus and value-adding on the homestead, season extension, permaculture, profits and co-marketing.

There are Young Agrarian groups all across our province. They have an excellent website and are again proof that young people are definitely into or are getting into farming. Many are speaking out about the consequences of Bill 24 and what it'll bring to their opportunity to be successful farmers.

Many have posted what they're calling…. They're pictures, and they're calling them felfies, which is a farmer selfie. All of them have signs. There are many, many of them — images that get this message out that young farmers are against Bill 24. They're against what it does to them, the potential for them to actually stay in agriculture, to make a living in agriculture.

I mean, I could stand here for 30 minutes and read off every one of those felfies that they posted. There are so many of them. But I suggest you go to the website yourself — youngagrarians.org — and look at all of the pictures of the young farmers in this province who are against Bill 24 because it goes against everything they need to ensure that they have successful farms.

We subdivided a few years ago. We subdivided, but we didn't sell off our land. We actually added in to our farm. We bought a piece of our neighbour's land, and we kept the neighbour's land at the size so that it could be a small farm — they have horses — and it meets the regulations. But it made our farm that much more viable.

[1630]

We also did sell a piece. We had another 50 acres up the road, and we sold it to our son, who is very interested in maintaining it as agricultural land. He wants to keep it in the ALR, and he's interested in farming on it one day. Could he have bought 50 acres of really first-class land if it had not been in the ALR? No. He couldn't have afforded it. But the ALR ensures that it stays affordable land that future farmers can buy.

He's actually started his herd, so he wants…. Someday he will come back and farm this land. He's started his herd, his small herd. He's just got his first cow, which had a calf, actually lives on the family farm. Someday he's going to add to that.

I think the excitement for him was when his cow had her first calf. We e-mailed him, and I said: "You're a father. You've had a son." He was in a meeting in Los Angeles and got all excited. The people working with him said: "You've had a son?" He said: "Oh no, no." They got worried that he wasn't with the mother of the son when it was being born, and he explained. He said: "No, no, it's a cow." Well, he got in trouble for that.

Anyway, he's very much committed to farming and will one day come back. The land is being utilized now; it's been leased as a farm. He will one day make it his farm permanently that he will live on.

Could that happen if Bill 24 passes? Could that happen for future farmers, young farmers in our Kootenay area? No. I think what would happen is you'd see developers come in, speculators who'll come in and subdivide the land, not future farmers. That's a real concern.

We can have another home on our land. We know that. People have complained, saying, "Oh, we couldn't get another home," but ALR allows that, the ALC allows that, and your regional district allows that. You can have two homes on a family farm. We know that we want to keep the farm in our family, so that's something our kids are all thinking about — if someday we might have another home on our land.

It's so healthy for kids and for families to know we can grow our own food. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to watch my grandkids playing outside and running to
[ Page 3801 ]
the garden wanting to eat carrots or peas or cucumbers — not into the house, not wanting cookies or chips. They run to the garden because they love what they can get in the garden. They love the food there, and they consider it a real treat.

I know eating the first cucumber of the year has become like a rite of passage in our family. It always goes to my husband. A few years ago we gave four-year-old Aydenn the first cucumber and said: "Run and find grandpa. He wants this." Grandpa came down a little bit later with a smile on his face. He'd gotten a little stub of a cucumber. Aydenn explained to us: "You didn't say I couldn't eat it." She was kind of shocked that she had to share the first cucumber.

I want other families to see this joy, to understand the experience of eating those first tomatoes and cucumbers and to snack on fresh fruit. We can do that in the Kootenays. We can do that in most parts of this province, and I think that it's really important that we give families the opportunity to do that. We want our kids to eat healthy. There are so many young families today who are trying to ensure kids are doing that, and they respect and want local food grown by local farmers.

We can do that. We know we can. We just have to go to any part of this province and see the number of farmers markets that are happening across the province. Every Saturday, Sunday, in all parts of the province you see farmers markets with all kinds of food grown locally. People are buying it. In our area there are three or four of them every Saturday and Sunday. Not only are they selling fresh fruits and vegetables that they grow; they're selling meat, selling all kinds of things that are all local. Talk about a 100-mile diet.

I think one of the best examples I know of why it's so important for kids to understand where food comes is what happened when our oldest granddaughter lived in Victoria here. She was going to school in Oak Bay, and they came home for Thanksgiving.

They come home to the family farm for Thanksgiving weekend, and we were slaughtering that weekend. She was six at the time, and I had said: "Well, Daira, you're not going to be watching this. We're slaughtering." She said: "No, I want to watch it." We explained what was going to happen. The cow was going to die; it was going to be slaughtered. She listened intently to what was going to happen, and she turned to her dad and said: "I understand, Dad. We're all going to die someday. I want to watch this."

[1635]

I thought: "Okay, fine. She can go watch it." So off she went to watch this process, which is a process that happens on farms all across the province, and she got quite excited about it. She came in and gave me a detailed description of everything that happened and got to carry in the organs and show me what they were. She was very, very excited about it. We thought nothing of it. We carried on, had a great holiday weekend.

Except she went back to school in Oak Bay, and the teacher said: "Let's share stories of what you did on Thanksgiving weekend." Daira quickly put up her hand, wanted to tell her story and started to tell her story. The teacher got a little upset and said, "Oh, Daira. I'm not sure if that's an appropriate story to share with the kids," because she got very detailed. Daira looked up at the teacher and said: "Ms. Friendly, meat doesn't grow in Safeway." And with that, she was allowed to finish telling her story, and all the kids understood that meat grows on grandpa's farm and it doesn't grow in Safeway.

I just think that's so incredibly important. Kids have to learn that just because they can go to Thrifty's or Safeway and buy it, it doesn't mean it grows there. Some farmer is actually growing the meat; they've grown the vegetables. I think this bill will deny children the very opportunity to learn that, to go to farms to learn — especially in rural parts of B.C., like the Kootenays or northern B.C., where there's a lot of farming that happens. What will happen if this bill is implemented and we start to lose agricultural land? The agricultural land that we have will be lost if we have developers and speculators coming in.

It concerns me, because I think there's a lot of misinformation about the ALR and the ALC, the Agricultural Land Commission, about what's been done in the Kootenays. If one listened to the people that are pushing this bill, one would think that no land ever got removed from the agricultural land reserve in the Kootenays, never. In fact, the reality is that 72 percent of the applications to the ALC have actually been approved — that's from 2006 to 2012 — and only 27 percent were rejected. Of that 27 percent, it hasn't been confirmed but a number of those have gone back, have been resubmitted and then been approved. So that number is even larger.

There is an opportunity in our area. There are very few times when the land has been rejected — and primarily for good reason. The amount of actual good-quality land is difficult. We have not bad land, but it's not grade 1 land. I think it's grade 4, but it's because there are rocks on our land. We've reclaimed a lot of the land to make it into a pasture so that we have more pasture land. You can do that. It takes work, but you can make good agricultural-quality land in our area.

When you look at the…. It was 660 applications that were received by the Agricultural Land Commission in our area. It's obvious the commission…. Because it's an independent body, it's obvious they understand what good agricultural land is and what isn't. They know what constitutes that land, so they've done the work to make sure that the good land isn't taken out of the agricultural land reserve, that they work with the farmers, with the families.

Now, there's a debate on whether or not…. Who has control of this bill? There's some debate around whether it's the minister of core review, the member for Kootenay
[ Page 3802 ]
East, or the new Minister of Agriculture. I respect the new Minister of Agriculture. I've worked with him quite a bit since I've been elected, primarily around health issues and on the Standing Committee on Health. I think he was genuinely…. I think he was earnest in his endeavour to want to consult with people. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he was shut down, but he knows people out here in the province want to be consulted.

The B.C. Cattlemen's Association — the member for Kootenay East was saying: "Oh no. They support this bill 100 percent." Well, they don't. I mean, we've got this letter saying that they fear these changes will make ranching more vulnerable to other industries and non-farming activities that aren't complementary or reversible to agriculture.

"It's difficult to see what the overall benefits to agriculture will be from Bill 24 and the amendments you introduced this week. Without more information about what the benefits to agriculture will be or what the changes will mean to our industry, it is very difficult for our directors to support the bill even with your changes. We kindly request that the minister delay any decision on Bill 24 until further information is provided and consultation can be had with the farming and ranching community."

[1640]

Now, this is from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. It was announced that they were very supportive — and they're not. That's part of the problem with this bill. People want to be consulted. They want you to come and say: "This is how it will affect us or not affect us." I think it's really important that people are listened to, that people like the B.C. Cattlemen's Association are listened to, or, in our own region, the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments.

They passed a motion at their recent local government meetings asking that this bill not go ahead. They're sending a letter to a number of different ministers requesting that the provincial government undertake consultation with the public, local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and affected parties on the proposed two-zone approach to the ALR and that Bill 24 not be brought into force until such consultation is complete.

Here again, local governments, representatives from the entire Kootenays — from every community in the Kootenays, east and west, represented here — are all voting unanimously. It's carried, to support this resolution, to ensure that this is the…. It's a real concern. I was going through the resolutions, and this just stuck.

The other one that kind of struck me was — well, it has nothing to do with Bill 24, Mr. Speaker — that the people from AKBLG also think that the government shouldn't give money to a Jumbo resort municipality that has no people in it. I thought that was an interesting motion, too, but that has nothing to do with Bill 24, for the record.

Even the Peace River regional district…. The Peace River, where the Minister for Core Review has been quoted as saying that the bill is going to go through and there was tremendous support. That's a quote — "tremendous support for the bill in the Peace region."

The people from the Peace region are saying: "That's not quite true. I think it's inappropriate to slam the fist on the table and say: 'This is the way it is.' Let's talk about it." She said that ideally, consultation should happen much more broadly than just with selected members of agricultural groups. "Some open public meetings might be the way to go." This is from a member of the Peace River regional district.

They're really concerned. They're concerned about the two-tier system. One member feels that the northern regions are being treated like second-class citizens: "I mean, you either have a single tier, or you don't have a tier." He thinks it's wrong.

I think that these people's voices need to be heard, because we're hearing inaccuracies here in the House by saying that everybody in Peace River supports it. That's just not accurate. It's just not accurate, and I think we need to make sure that those voices are heard here and that people understand that this is not what the member is telling us, because it's just inaccurate.

It's interesting, because the member for Kootenay East…. I heard him when he gave his response. He said that he doesn't have the kind of power to implement this bill, to circumvent the process, not to allow the Minister of Agriculture to do what he wants to do.

He was quoted in an interview as saying he'd decided to change the ALR because he had been — I can't use the language in the House, so I'll just say "beep" — "listening to his constituents for 13 beeping years. This is what they want me to do, so I get really upset when people say that this is something other than what it is." If that doesn't say to me that the member for Kootenay East is actually driving this, I don't know what does. If he's concerned about his constituents for 13 beeping years, talking to him about this, what about his other constituents?

We got letters from people in Kootenay East who don't agree with their MLA, who have been longtime supporters of their MLA. They don't agree with him. They're lifelong agriculture advocates and people with family farms. They're just really concerned, and they're wondering who this member is listening to.

It doesn't make sense. It's just so hard to believe that a bill like this, with such far-reaching consequences in this province — for farmers in this province and across the entire province — could be implemented because an MLA is listening to some of his constituents.

[1645]

When you see the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets ask their members to write and ask the minister — the real Minister of Agriculture — to follow through on his promise of meaningful consultation….

The Horse Council of B.C., the horse owners council, is asking their members to complete a survey of questions so that they can take that information to the minister. But they're not going to get the consultation done
[ Page 3803 ]
before this bill gets rammed through, so how are their voices going to be heard?

I wonder how members from Oliver and Comox and Peace River North can go home and face their constituents about this bill when we're getting letters from their constituents. They don't want to see this bill passed. I ask those members on the other side of the House who represent those areas: how are you representing your people? There are municipalities, and there are individuals, organizations. They do not want to see this bill passed.

I ask: what is the rush? Why is this being rammed through?

S. Fraser: I rise to take my place in the debate on second reading of Bill 24, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014. It's only seven pages long.

I've been doing this job as MLA for nine years now, initially in 2005 elected as the member for Alberni-Qualicum. After the changes to the boundaries in 2009 prior to the election, it's now Alberni–Pacific Rim. I have never seen a bill that scared me more in that nine-year period.

I am also very, very concerned that it appears that the Liberal members are finished voicing their concerns on Bill 24 in this second reading. There were only nine Liberal members that spoke, and the ones I heard spoke far less than their allotted time. This is of great concern to those watching, because it appears that the fix is in on Bill 24 — that the decisions have been made without the consultation that was required to make such draconian changes to an institution, if you will.

It's 40 years, four decades, that the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve have been in place in this province. To this day it is held up as an example to the rest of the country, by the rest of the country, and the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with issues of food security and recognizing the foresight that 40 years ago, what came into play in bringing about the agricultural land reserve.

Indeed, if it wasn't for the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission 40 years ago, we would probably not have the agricultural land left in the Lower Mainland, the Fraser Valley. The pressures of development would have overtaken any concern for food security. Those pressures exist today, and I would submit that the only reason we do not have a lot of the Fraser Valley completely urbanized at the expense of that most valuable of farmland was because and is because of the agricultural land reserve.

I would submit that also is the case in other parts of the province. The Okanagan and the huge benefit that the fruit-growing and grape-growing has to the economy of this province — none of that would have happened if the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission had not been in place.

The time for that, the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission as they were conceived 40 years ago, has not ended. That has not been the call from the farming community — from small farmers, from large, from the ranching community. No one has asked for this. Bill 24 comes as a blind side to the people of British Columbia, and I would also submit not just to the farmers of British Columbia, the ranchers of British Columbia.

I know there's been some attempt made by some Liberal members to try to divide that saying: "Well, some of the members on this side that are speaking — they've never been to the Peace River, or they've never been to regions…. They haven't been involved in farming." I do not believe that that's even germane to the argument.

[1650]

We all need food. The understanding of food security in this province does not require us to be farmers. Bill 24 is making massive moves in the wrong direction to the food security of this province and to the very ability of the land to sustain us in the future, and it's going to become more and more necessary. It's also putting in place changes which will make it difficult or impossible for the next generation of farmers to come forward and take their part in farming and agriculture in this province.

There are many young people that I've spoken with in Alberni–Pacific Rim, in other places, too, on Vancouver Island and across the province — young people wanting to get into growing stuff and being part of that solution for food security in the future. But it's expensive. With the agricultural land reserve, of course, one of the great benefits of that has been historically to keep the land more affordable.

Bill 24 will change all that. By opening up other uses, other than agricultural uses, for land within the agricultural land reserve, it means that that land will be speculated on. Indeed, there are reports that prices are rising in different parts of the province already because of the anticipation of land being able to be flipped, if you will, unfettered by the agricultural land reserve restrictions.

We've all, as MLAs, seen that pressure even with the agricultural land reserve. It's only because of the reserve being in place that we do have a lot of our farmland left. Those pressures are always there, but the premises and the makeup of the agricultural land reserve and the commission themselves have been a great deterrent towards that sort of land speculation that has occurred.

Indeed, people are still buying agricultural land reserve land and hoping to have an application come forward that will be successful. Some of these people have no intention of farming this land. They're hoping to be able to turn it over into other uses — subdivisions, that sort of thing — that have nothing to do with agriculture or food security.

There's no easier way to make money than to purchase land for the prices that are available, the lower prices that are set in the agricultural land reserve, and then to be
[ Page 3804 ]
able to flip that land once it's out of the land reserve. It's an immediate moneymaker.

So there is that huge pressure on all of our agricultural land in the province to get land out for the quick buck. The quick buck, as we all know — most of us know; some of us know — is short-term thinking that can lead to bad decision-making. The worst part of that is that decision-making is at the expense of future generations. That's where the agricultural land reserve 40 years ago was prescient.

I wouldn't suggest that those involved in the creation of the agricultural land reserve in 1973, and the Agricultural Land Commission, were thinking necessarily of climate change, but for anyone who's been following the news for the last several years….

Some of the major agricultural areas, the regions that we rely on here in B.C. to get our food — California sticks out in my mind — are going through massive changes, changes where almond farms, massive farms that are producing a product which is, of course, a huge economic generator for California, the taxpayers of California and the economy of California, are being told that they will no longer get water because a decision has to be made on whether water goes to agriculture use or to the city of Fresno for drinking water.

[1655]

So the decisions are being made now and have been made over the last year that are basically shutting down agricultural operations that have been essential in growing the economy of that state, California.

Some still argue about the causes of climate change, global warming, but no one can deny that climate change is happening and that the ability for us to get food from outside is being reduced. The cost of that food from outside of the province and outside of the country is going up now, and that won't stop.

The need for the people of British Columbia, for future generations of British Columbians to be able to provide their own food, grow their own food, raise their own food is essential, arguably, for the survival of this province and future generations — or the quality of life or the ability to eat healthy for future generations.

That is at stake right now with Bill 24. That is why I believe it is the scariest thing I have seen since I have been a sitting MLA — or for that matter, a standing MLA, as I am now in this House. In nine years nothing has eclipsed this.

Bill 24, for those who are just tuning in to this debate, contains a division of the provincial ALR land into two zones with two different sets of guiding principles. In zone 1 — Vancouver Island, the south coast and the Okanagan — the commission will continue to prioritize the preservation of agricultural land when making its decisions, but that doesn't tell the whole story. I will come back to that.

In zone 2, which contains the remaining 90 percent of provincial ALR lands, the commission will be compelled to give equal status, equal weight, to economic, cultural and social values, regional planning objectives and any — and the quote is scary — "other prescribed considerations" yet to be determined.

The changes mean that land exclusion applications outside of the Island, the south coast and the Okanagan will be much more likely to succeed. That's the most obvious problem with and the most prominent feature of Bill 24 — creating a two-tiered agricultural system in the province out of the agricultural reserve.

Bill 24 also shifts decision-making on key ALR decisions, such as land exclusions, away from the provincial commission, which has managed the agricultural land reserve carefully for 40 years, and turns it over to handpicked political appointees in the form of six regional panels.

Now, I don't mean to digress, but I think that this is germane to the discussion. How does that fit in with the mandate of core review? How did the Minister Responsible for Core Review come about with such changes? Indeed, arguably, creating political bodies, political appointees on panels in six regional areas, will increase the bureaucracy and will actually increase the costs of the commission. That seems to me to be contrary to the mandate of the core review.

I believe that the core review is being used as an excuse to do what some senior members of cabinet have been wanting to do for a long time, and it's to help their friends get significant value from their land where they should not be — allowing friends to be able to make a lot of money by a quick turnover of agricultural land reserve, all at the expense of future generations.

Other changes. It provides for cabinet to appoint six vice-chairs, each of whom must be a resident of the area involved in different panel regions, and provides for the minister to appoint additional members of the commission.

[1700]

It's essentially made the agricultural land reserve a creature of cabinet as opposed to being, as it has always functioned, an arm's-length, independent body. We as MLAs all get this sometimes. We all get pressure on us to help somebody remove land from the agricultural land reserve. I tell my constituents that…. I explain and allow them the information that they need to address the appeals process within the Agricultural Land Commission, if they indeed have been trying to not get the land out of the reserve.

That's as far as it goes. It's as far as it should go. Politicians should not have a hand in these decisions.

This is about food security. It's not about one party or the other. It's about the long-term survival of our ability for the land to support agriculture in the province of British Columbia. Bill 24 fundamentally changes that.

I represent the constituency of Alberni–Pacific Rim.
[ Page 3805 ]
There is significant agriculture in my constituency — parts of my constituency. Some of my constituency is coastal temperate rainforest, so we're not talking there, but certainly the Alberni Valley is a fertile valley for agriculture. It is producing a lot of food. It's producing wine. There are ranchers. There are water buffalo. There are all types of agriculture happening in the Alberni Valley.

Over the hump on Highway 4, towards the east side of the Island, the Coombs-Errington area is a farming area — small farms, the backbone of agriculture and food security in the province and in the world. I'll touch on that a bit later. The people, the farmers — all of them that I've talked about are fearful of what this government is doing with Bill 24.

I spoke to a rancher in the Alberni Valley last week. I think he got it right. He said capacity-building and infrastructure are what we need, not enabling other uses. He's got it right.

We provide — "we," as in this government — the least support for farmers in the entire country. This Liberal government and their members have been purporting that Bill 24 helps the farmers. Well, if the government wants to support our farmers, according to the rancher that I spoke to, let's not confuse the issue. Let's support our farmers with real supports — with capacity-building and infrastructure and buy-B.C. programs that were cancelled by this government.

We need real supports for farmers. Per farmer, this government provides the least dollars towards supporting agriculture and farmers in the country. And the rest of the country holds up our agricultural land reserve as the model for food security and for allowing for the future generations to engage in agriculture and farming.

If the government is being honest about wanting to help farmers, then help the farmers. Follow the lead of other jurisdictions that do. Even crossing the line into Washington State, they provide key infrastructure and capacity-building that we don't here. Those are the supports that farmers need. But Bill 24 will push the value of agricultural land through the roof, will make it out of reach of small farmers, of young farmers, of the next generation of farmers in this province.

That same rancher that referred to providing capacity-building and infrastructure — the actual things that are needed, not enabling other uses like in Bill 24…. His son sent me a letter yesterday. I'll read from that.

[1705]

"Dear MLA:

"I sent a letter to the Premier last week, as I was concerned about the intent of the core review. I did receive a letter back thanking me for my input and was given assurances that the core review would not compromise the ALR."

Well, we already know that not to be so. But I'll continue.

"I am a young farmer who is passionate about farming and growing my business. I believe in the ALR and believe that without the ALR we are in great jeopardy. The intent of the ALR is visionary. We live in a society where it is all about money — short-term gain for things that are not lasting. But the land that we farm is solid and is meant for the long term."

He's a very eloquent young man.

"I am 21, and I've chosen a future in agriculture. I believe that the ALR is vitally important to agriculture in this province. The ALR needs to be strengthened, not ended. With Bill 24, we are going backwards. This backwards step is more about short-term economic gains.

"I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what this government seems to be doing is without vision or knowledge of the real issues in agriculture. Allowing more uses drives up land prices and makes it harder for the people that work on the land or want to start farming to make a living.

"Should we not be looking at strengthening and protecting the land vital to a 'real' farmer? Once the land is altered, it cannot be undone, and the future in farming for my generation is lost.

"I played junior hockey in Dawson Creek and travelled throughout the United States. What I saw was investment by the American and state governments in agriculture. It is apparent while travelling through this province that the investments in agriculture are lacking. It is very easy to say that you can't make a living off a piece of land.

"No one forces anyone to farm. Please don't further erode or develop the land. Let a new generation have a turn. It is time for this province to invest in agriculture. We need to protect our land and continue to support the farming community.

"I invest in my community and do my best to make a living, and it's tough. The overall cost of running a farm has only ever gone up, and the prices for products produced off the land have only gone down. Agriculture needs support. Do what is right for the future generations. I am young and willing to work with government to help strengthen agriculture."

I'll refrain from using the name, but the Minister of Agriculture is here. I will provide him with this letter on request, and he will be able to contact this very astute and wise young man. Wisdom is not necessarily held by age. The young have wisdom too.

This decision to bring in Bill 24 ignores any type of wisdom that I've ever seen. I think that was highlighted by this young man's very eloquent letter to the Premier. As I mentioned, his father is an established rancher in the Alberni Valley also. That's just one example of the actual, real world when it comes to farming and the effects that Bill 24 will have on those farmers, present and future.

On Friday I was fortunate to attend a meeting in the Comox Valley, in Courtenay — another great farming, agricultural region on Vancouver Island. I attended with our critic, who's doing such a valiant job on this file, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, as well as the member for North Island. We were expecting to be met by about six farmers to discuss the issues that they feel are important around Bill 24 and their fears and concerns that they rightly have about the bad piece of legislation being brought in, known as Bill 24.

[1710]

However, it's a busy time for small farmers. They're busy. It's May. They're working hard. I expected that maybe we'd get the six farmers that were due to show up, but maybe not. We were certainly going to be understanding about that. Friday afternoon there were 22. It was a full house. We ran out of chairs. Everyone in that room had the same concerns and the same anger that
[ Page 3806 ]
they weren't consulted with.

Bill 24 came out of a vacuum — a political vacuum, a vacuum that was never highlighted prior to the election. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the agricultural land reserve is one of the most important pieces…. The Agricultural Land Commission Act 40 years ago was one of the most important pieces of legislation ever adopted in this place. To win an election and bring in Bill 24 without even a peep of this happening prior to the election is fraught with problems on so many levels.

The group that assembled, many of them young farmers, totally know their stuff. They know what's real in farming. They know what's not real in farming. They see right through Bill 24 and what it means to them, what it means to the future for farmers all over the province.

I learned something that's interesting about food security — that 16 percent of the agricultural land in China is now contaminated. That's pretty scary, because China has almost a quarter of the world's population, and their food security is at risk because of contamination of agricultural land.

We have an agricultural land reserve in place that has actually been prescient in many ways, without knowing it 40 years ago, because areas like the Peace River Valley and the Interior, areas that may not have been fully utilized yet for farming will be, very quickly. This is the time for the values of the agricultural land. This is the time for the ALR to provide food security, in real time, in the world today.

We're losing our ability to grow food. We can't just say: "Well, we'll get it from China, or we'll get it from California." That isn't going to happen because of climate change, droughts in California, contamination in China. These are just two examples.

The ever-increasing cost of fuel to transfer, to transport food to this province, will make it cost-prohibitive for many. Those that can afford it — it may not matter too much to them, maybe. But I submit that it does.

Those that can't afford to buy food will be forced to buy unhealthy food, fast food, quickly processed food, food that leads to bad health outcomes that will escalate the costs on the province in our health system — and all of the associated things that go along with that.

This is a very shortsighted bill. It's going to make some people a lot of money. Ironically, it seems to be being brought in to facilitate an increase in pipelines, tar sands, oil, whatever else the government is looking at, with complete disregard to the importance of that land for which it is best intended.

I see the light has changed, giving me my warning.

Bill 24 is not supportable, not by this side of the House, not by the agricultural community, not by the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, not by the Peace River District Women's Institute, not by the Peace River regional district, not by the National Farmers Union — I've got a letter from them, which I will hopefully have a chance to discuss at a later date in another part of this discussion — not by anyone that understands agriculture, not by agrologists, not by soil scientists, not by science.

[1715]

Bill 24 is about facilitating the removal of land from valuable agricultural land — at the expense of our food security and our future generations of farmers — for a quick buck. I will not be supporting this bill. I will do everything I can to fight it.

C. James: I'm proud to rise and take my place to speak to Bill 24 and the challenges that I see with this bill. It's interesting. When I take a look at legislation that comes forward to this House, I usually take a look at it within a frame. There are usually two or three questions that I always use when I take a look at legislation that comes forward. It's no different for this piece of legislation. I'm sure that for those who are listening, they know that this is the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act.

I always take a look first to say: "What's the purpose of this bill? What's the purpose of this piece of legislation that's come forward?" Then I usually take a look at what this bill may be looking to fix, because often when legislation comes forward to this House, it's coming forward to fix something — to fix a problem, to fix a challenge, to fix an issue that's occurred. That's usually why you see legislation often introduced into this House.

The other reason that legislation often comes into the House is that it improves something. It comes forward to make something better, to strengthen something, to acknowledge something. I often take a look at legislation to say: "Is this something that improves it?" I'll come back to those three questions, because I think it is, as I said, critical to take a look at some kind of framework when you're looking at legislation.

If we look at the subject of this legislation — in this case, obviously, the Agricultural Land Commission and bringing forward amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission — I think the first thing we want to do is take a look at the history. It's a well-used phrase that if we don't learn from our history, we're likely to repeat mistakes. I think that can work both in the pro and the con. It's important for us to learn what doesn't work, but it's also important for us to learn what has worked in history, what has been successful in history as well as the challenges, for all of us to learn from.

I want to start there, to talk a little bit about the Agricultural Land Commission itself. The act that, as I said, this bill purports to amend, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, came into effect in April 1973, so it's been almost exactly, if we take a look at the dates, 41 years ago. I want to read its primary purpose because I think, again, it's really important to take a look at the act that's going to be amended. What was the act brought in for?

Well, its primary purpose was to preserve agricultural land and to encourage the establishment and mainten-
[ Page 3807 ]
ance of farms. So it's interesting, if you take a look at that purpose, that it's just as relevant today, I would suggest, as it was when the act was brought in, in 1973 — just as important today as it was 41 years ago. And what was the context of the time?

Why would the Legislature, the people sitting in the Legislature back in the 1970s…? Why were they looking at the issue of agricultural land? Why was it important, and why did it end up as a priority in this Legislature? As we all know, as those of us who've sat in this House for a few years know, priorities and a number of issues of legislation could come forward at any time. There are always competing demands. There are always many things that people are looking for to bring forward and to get on the front of legislation.

In this case, back in 1973, we actually saw that the government of the day believed that it was important to bring forward the issue of agricultural land. If you look at the context of that time, building up to this act, there was a great deal of pressure on farmland.

[1720]

It was a time in our province that you were seeing huge pressure for development on farmland, for residential and business development on farmland in the early '70s. It was also a time where we saw a real growing environmental movement across North America — not unique to British Columbia but across North America.

I think it's interesting, if you take a look at that context…. Again, that context from over 40 years ago is just as important today, just as critical as today and, in fact, fits the context, I would suggest, of today in that we're looking at growing pressure on agricultural land, growing pressures around development and a strong environmental conservation movement that is important.

The agricultural land during that time period in the early '70s was also a hot topic during the election campaign, which I think is interesting for all of us to be thinking about. The year before the act passed, the year before you saw government come in, you saw three political parties running at the time, running to protect farmland.

Again, if we're taking a look at the last election, I didn't hear anybody stand up and say that they were looking at taking apart the Agricultural Land Commission. I didn't hear the government of the day now, a political party then running in the election, say that that's what they were interested in. In fact, I heard political parties saying that they supported the Agricultural Land Commission and supported the protection of agricultural land.

What did the act of the day do? Again, this is looking at history related to Bill 24, because if we are going to take a look at why this act should be amended, it's important to look at the history and important to take a look at what we're amending in this current act.

That act back in the '70s put in place the Provincial Land Commission, which was a five-person body that was designated with looking at agricultural land reserve sites around the province. This was a provincewide body. I'll come back to that again, because I think it has significance in the kinds of amendments that are going to be looked at. So a provincewide body.

I also think it's interesting to note that this body — in the original legislation that was brought in, in the '70s — was also responsible for hearing proposals to look at taking land out of the agricultural land reserve. They did provide an opportunity in this bill for exceptions — for exceptions when there were cases that could be proven, when people had come forward, when the research was done. When the provincial body took a look at applications that came in, they could take a look at non-farming purposes and exceptions if the case was made to the provincial body.

Now, I think that's very interesting to note in the legislation, because I've heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side about the fact that there is no opportunity for land once it's designated as part of the agricultural land reserve — that there's no opportunity for any kind of reasoned argument or debate coming forward or rationale to come forward and that that's what this bill is bringing in. It's providing an opportunity for that rational argument.

Well, I would say, looking at the history, that if the government had taken time to look at the history, they would in fact see that there is an opportunity. There is an opportunity, in fact, to look at those extreme exceptions.

I also think it's interesting…. One of the other areas that I've heard great debate and great calls for from the other side is that this is simply partisan politics, that those of us on this side of the Legislature, New Democrats…. Because it was a New Democrat government that in fact brought in the legislation, I've heard some members on the other side say that this is simply partisan politics. We're simply protecting something that we brought in as New Democrats, and it's simply partisan politics that's being played here. Well, I'll talk a little bit about public support and other support as we go on.

I think it is interesting to note, again, that this legislation, the original legislation, came in, in the 1970s and was, in fact, supported by New Democrats, by Social Credit — when the Social Credit government came in — and then by another New Democrat government. And until now, until the B.C. Liberals, we've seen this act kept in place.

[1725]

I think that says something about not only the public support for the ALR, but in fact different governments of different political stripes that have come forward and supported the ALR.

There's no question that there've been attempts to make changes. There have been suggestions around weakening the legislation, about changing parts of the legislation. But ultimately, until we see this Bill 24, we've seen the original legislation pretty well stay intact, which I think, again, speaks volumes to the support that we see
[ Page 3808 ]
around the key purpose of the act — which, you'll remember, is to preserve farmland in B.C. and to encourage farming.

It's interesting to take a look at public opinion over the years. Again, I would certainly expect that when legislation has come forward, there's been good dialogue with the public. I'll talk a little bit about that as we go along. There actually was a public opinion poll done in 1978, and it found that 80 percent of B.C. landowners saw protecting farmland as a plus. They saw it as important. They saw the value this legislation had brought in, and they saw the value during that time period.

Then we move ahead to the late 1990s, 1997, when a survey was done again, asking the public in British Columbia how they felt about the agricultural land reserve and protecting farmland. That poll found that 90 percent of British Columbians wanted government to protect farmers and to protect farmland. Again, looking at the history of this legislation and the bill that we're here debating, it's very clear that the public then, back in the 1970s, and the public now want to see agricultural land protected. They know that once you lose this land, you don't get it back. They know the value of this land now and for future generations.

This isn't unique to British Columbia. We are not unusual in taking a look at farmland and protection. In fact, before the Agricultural Land Commission bill was even brought in, in the '70s, you saw Hawaii, for example, create a land use law. That law was charged with regulating how rural and agricultural land could be used. Again, in the same kind of time period you saw Hawaii recognizing the pressure that was coming around growth, the critical nature of protecting food security, and they brought in a bill that actually looked at regulating agricultural land.

In 1966 — and I'm sure most of the members in this House would know this, either from history or otherwise — the Williamson act in California came in and limited development on farmland — again, another jurisdiction taking a look at the importance of protecting that farmland and bringing in legislation to do just that.

In the late 1970s in Quebec we saw the Quebec officials actually contact B.C. and ask our commission — the new legislation that I talked about — for advice on how to create their own act to protect farmland.

In Ontario you saw some greenbelt legislation passed, again protecting farmland from further urban growth. Again — that example as well — they looked to British Columbia, because they knew we had done something right here. They knew that something important had happened in British Columbia, and they wanted to look at how they could provide the same kind of support to farmland and agricultural land in their jurisdiction.

We know that the purpose of the agricultural land act is just as sound today as it was in 1973. We also know, in looking back at history, that the public in fact is more supportive today than they even were in the 1970s. The public opinion actually shows the public feels stronger today about protecting that agricultural land than they did in the 1970s. We certainly know that the conservation movement, the environmental movement, is strong today just as it was in a growing movement in the 1970s.

[1730]

The other thing that's similar from history — if we're comparing, again, history to today's context — is that we know that the pressures that existed in 1970 for development are even greater today, that the pressure around industrial use is much greater today than it was in 1973.

Given all of that — given that the purpose is just as important, given that the public is just as supportive and given that the pressure is as great, if not greater, to remove land — what would be the purpose of this bill that's coming forward? What is the purpose of Bill 24?

I come back to those questions that I talked about at the start. What is this bill looking to fix? What is this bill looking to improve? Well, one of the first places that I would look in wondering why a bill has been brought forward and what its purpose is, is to the people who would be impacted by that bill. So if a bill was coming forward, I would look at the stakeholders. I would look at the interested parties. I would look at, perhaps, people who've worked in this field. I would look at people — no pun intended — who work in the area.

That would be one of the first places, when you're bringing forward a piece of legislation, that I would think the government certainly would have taken the time to do. They would have taken the time to talk about it with the people who work in the field. They would have gone out and talked about the changes with farmers, with ranchers, with the public, with not-for-profit groups — with everyone involved in agriculture. Not to limit it, just to give some examples of the areas that you would have imagined government would, of course, have gone out and had that discussion with.

But guess what. This government didn't do that. They didn't, in fact, go out — just the opposite. This government decided that they'd bring forward this legislation without having a consultation process, without going out and discussing this issue with farmers, with ranchers, with people who work in the industry. They decided they'd just bring the legislation forward. They'd say: "Mea culpa" — we seem to see a lot of apologies — "but it's nothing to worry about. We’re just going to move forward. It's good for you."

Well, that is, at the base, one of the big problems we see. One in a long list but one of the big problems we see with the government on the other side is the lack of interest or the lack of engagement that we've seen with the public on critical bills such as this — a bill that has weathered governments of different political stripes since the 1970s. Yet here we are today with a government that tries to bring a bill in without any proper consultation.
[ Page 3809 ]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Well, in fact, there was a huge opportunity for consultation, a perfectly made opportunity for consultation called the provincial election — an opportunity where political parties of all stripes have the chance to be able to come forward, have the chance to be able to talk about issues that they feel are important, a chance to be able to put their agenda in front of the public.

Yet we didn't see the government talking about these changes in the election. We didn't hear the government talk at all about making changes to the Agricultural Land Commission or the agricultural land reserve. It certainly makes you wonder about why that would be, why the government wouldn't take the opportunity to bring this issue forward.

They just decided all of a sudden after the election that this was something they wanted to do? It wasn't something that they thought about before the election? Well, that certainly leaves a very bad taste on behalf of the public, when there was an opportunity to talk and to be honest and upfront about these issues, yet we didn't hear any discussion about any change to agricultural land in this province.

[1735]

As I said, this is a pattern that we've seen with this government. It isn't simply Bill 24 that has been a problem for this government when it comes to public consultation. There is a long list of issues where this government has not done what they should do, what I consider just basic good government, which is to talk to people impacted before you make a final decision.

I could list things — from ripping up contracts with employee groups to creating regulations for First Nations without telling the First Nations about them and to, of course, the HST, as we all know. You would think, given that list, that this government, the B.C. Liberals, would have learned something.

You would imagine that they would have taken a look and said: "Well, things didn't go so well for us on the HST, or things didn't go so well for us around that regulation we brought in without consulting with First Nations. Perhaps we should consult on something like Bill 24. Perhaps we've learned our lesson on this issue, and we'll actually take the time to go out and talk to the public. We won't, like we've done in other examples, bring something forward, tell the public about it and pick up the pieces afterwards. Perhaps we'll do good government and consult."

But I haven't seen that. There is no example of that in this bill. That's precisely the reason you're seeing so many people speaking out, and that's precisely the reason you're seeing the public and others rise up around this issue, because they're angry that they have not had the opportunity for a voice in Bill 24. They have not had the opportunity to speak about challenges that they think are major changes to something that they hold dear in British Columbia.

I want to take a few minutes to read some of those voices. Although the government didn't go out and take the time to consult, although the government didn't seem to think it was important, this side of the House does believe it's important. We do believe that those public voices should be heard. I believe that it's important to read some of those into the record so that that public who were speaking out have the opportunity. Whether the government chooses to listen or not is up to the government, I suppose.

There's nothing we can do about that, but we can certainly read the voices out in hopes that someone on the other side will take some time to listen and take some time to recognize the real genuine concerns that are coming forward from individuals.

I'm not hearing from individuals that they're not interested in looking at the agricultural land reserve. I'm not hearing from individuals that they're not interested in looking at the commission and the structure of the commission. In fact, people want to engage. They want to engage on this critical issue to our province, this critical issue to this generation and future generations.

It's not that they don't want to be involved; it's that they haven't had an opportunity. Now their opportunity is to try and have their voices heard while government tries to bring in a piece of legislation that shouldn't be introduced in this Legislature without that kind of thorough consultation and without major changes. This bill should not be here, because it does not support agriculture, as the original bill was meant to do.

Let's take a look at a couple of those organizations. I want to start off with the B.C. agriculture association itself. It represents 14,000 of 20,000 British Columbia farm families and generates 96 percent of the farm-gate receipts in British Columbia. Their chair stated: "I think we're genuinely afraid that the changes will trump the well-being of agriculture and agricultural land." That's pretty clear. That's not questioning. That's very concerned about the heart of the industry that this individual is coming from.

The B.C. Cattlemen's Association: "We need to look at the importance of food security not only for our province but as an economic driver down the road." Now, there's someone who's looking at agriculture with the importance that it needs to be, unlike what we see in Bill 24 that's come forward.

What about the B.C. Food Systems Network? "The split into two zones with additional requirements added to the basic mandate for zone 2…. The intent seems to be to weaken the primary focus on agriculture" — weaken the primary focus on agriculture.

[1740]

Well, if the purpose of the Agricultural Land Commission bill was to support agriculture, then, I
[ Page 3810 ]
suppose that the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act is to weaken agriculture. It's to take apart the focus on agriculture. That's certainly not what I expected would be introduced in this Legislature.

Let's take a look at another group and organization — very committed, again, to the issue of agriculture — the Pacific Regional Society of Soil Science. They say: "The reduced role of science as the basis for protecting farmlands within the ALR is deeply troubling." So we have "deeply troubling." We have "worrisome." We have individuals who work in the industry coming forward, talking about their concerns and trying to get this government to listen.

There's a letter from 100 academics sent directly to the Premier. I quote again from the letter: "Agricultural lands produce not just crops but contain wetlands, streams, ponds, riparian areas, woodlands, hedgerows, uncultivated grasslands, either adjacent to or integral to farm operations."

Again, here's a group of scientists writing directly to the Premier expressing their concern about what Bill 24 will do to their livelihood and to their passion. I think that's important to state. People who work in the area of agriculture certainly don't work in that area for money. It's not an area where there are huge dollars being made by most farmers in British Columbia. Most people are into farming because of family history and because they care deeply about the industry. They care deeply.

You hear people…. I'm sure all members of this House have spent time talking to people who work in the agriculture area or who are running large and small farms, who will talk about the feel of dirt in their hands, who will talk about the joy that they get from being in the outdoors, from producing. It really is a joy and a passion that I think is important to acknowledge.

When we see these kinds of quotes coming forward, when we see these kinds of comments coming forward, they aren't simply coming forward because an individual happened to see a bill coming forward in the Legislature, Bill 24, and decided: "Well, I better put something down on paper." It's coming from the heart from these farmers. It's coming from the heart from people who work in the agriculture industry, who care so deeply about this issue.

I want to read a couple of quotes from the public that have also been coming in, because again, as I said, I think that's part of the real challenge that we see in this bill coming forward, the lack of public involvement and engagement.

This quote actually came in from someone who lives in an urban setting. I'll talk a little bit about that in the time I have, because I think there are people who think that the only people who are going to stand up and talk about agriculture are people who come from the country — people who come from rural areas, people who come from other parts of British Columbia.

Well, I grew up in Victoria from the age of five, and I care deeply about agriculture. This is not an issue simply for folks who come from other parts of British Columbia. This is just as important to urban settings. When it comes to food security, when it comes to the life of our community, when it comes to natural, healthy food, agriculture is just as important.

This quote says: "So much of our food is transported from many miles away, but thanks to the ALR, we have access to fresh, locally grown food. Please don't take that away. I believe the ALR is a treasure that helps to safeguard land that will quickly be developed so that all of our food will have to be trucked in. Please think. Please think before you make this happen."

I think that voice is so important to take a look at. The reason that this bill is so worrisome is that it takes away that provincial oversight. It gives the opportunity to regions to make individual regional decisions. The whole point of protecting agricultural land is having that provincial oversight, knowing that that provincial body is there to take a look — yes, listen to the regions; yes, hear the voices that are coming forward — and to say: this is a provincial good.

[1745]

Just as our public health care system and our public education system, our agricultural system in British Columbia is a rich part of all of us. It belongs to all of us in British Columbia, and it is critical to all of us in British Columbia that we see it protected.

The easy thing for this government to do would be to withdraw this legislation and do the proper consultation that is needed to occur. We will remember that this Legislature used to talk about introducing legislation as a draft for discussion and then giving an opportunity for the public to have a say and bringing it back in the fall. Now, there weren't a lot of things that I agreed with the former Premier, Premier Campbell, on, but that was one of them.

S. Hammell: I'm pleased to rise and take my place in the debate on Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. I'm pleased to raise my voice in opposition to this act but rise in sorrow that a bill such as this has found its way onto the floor of this House.

It's shocking, really. Prior to 2013 this Liberal government was in power for 12 years and gave little indication to anyone, to us in the House or the public, that they were preparing to attack the role of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. But why am I not surprised? The minister who is carrying out this travesty has said — and if I'd been aware, I suppose I should have known — "I've been very frustrated with the way the Agricultural Land Commission operates."

The minister who appears, actually, to be in charge of this file, because he's been very clear that he calls the shots on it, has been in the past very frustrated with the way the Agricultural Land Commission operates. He has
[ Page 3811 ]
also said that people who are trying to get land out "are constantly being turned down when they want to use their own private land — land that they purchased — for the purposes of maybe a small subdivision, or maybe they want to put a small campground on it, and they've been flummoxed by the Agricultural Land Commission for years."

Now, I think that's what the Agricultural Land Commission's job was: to protect the land from being taken out of the reserve for subdivisions and campgrounds and uses other than agriculture. I think that the minister was somewhat disingenuous when he said: "I do get a kick out of the 100-mile diet, except, where you live, you'd have to eat hay." I mean, I think that sort of sets the tone for this whole move on the agricultural land reserve, because basically there's a deep-set contempt for preserving the land and more cheerleading for getting land out and creating subdivisions or creating other enterprises on the land.

If you look at these comments, you kind of look for leadership and for vision and for hope and perspective on the future. Is there a vision for the future in those comments? The problem is that this government does not understand or appear to understand that it takes backbone and vision to protect the future from the present.

During the election of 1972 every party, every single party in the province, could see the future. Every party, every party prior to the election in 1972, reflected the concern of the citizens that they represented, that something needed to be done to protect farmland from the sprawl of urban development.

[1750]

Former Liberal leader David Anderson in 1972 said: "The futurists say that by the year 2000 the area from Chilliwack to the sea will be an urban development of Greater Vancouver. Once it's gone, it's gone for good. God gave up making farmland long ago."

Houses, they predicted at that time, from Vancouver to Chilliwack in 28 years. There was fear about what that sprawl would do to the valley, to the great farmlands of the Fraser delta.

Now it is years later, and we don't have houses from here to Chilliwack on the valley bottoms or on the river deltas where you find some of the best agricultural land in B.C., nor have we had them in 42 years because the governments of the last four decades and the people of this province have clearly said, over and over again, no, loud and clear, to messing with the ALR and yes to preserving the farm breadbasket for future generations.

You look into the future. You understand that there is an absolute limit to farmland. You understand that there is an ever-increasing population in British Columbia and in the world in general, you understand that they are not making this land anymore, and you protect it. It is supported now — protecting that farmland — as it was when it was brought into the province.

I'd like to quote from the Province newspaper of December 29, 1972. The article says:

"Basically, the public is in sympathy with the government's program. As the population increases, open space is at a premium. There is every indication that the housing stampede onto the floodplain of the Fraser, for instance, has to be restricted before it goes further.

"The government" — and all future governments, I would add — "has taken great courage in taking its first step, and it will deserve public understanding and support when it comes to dealing with the costs and ramifications of that first step."

That first step was Bill 42, which set up the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. This article goes on to say:

"Instead of developers out to take the line of least resistance out onto the Fraser flatlands, where land is plentiful and subdivision costs are low, home-building may have to be channelled up the sides of the hills and onto the benches on the north shore of the Fraser and of the Burrard Inlet."

Now, if you go anywhere in the world and you look at where the houses are in a farm, the houses will be set on the highest point of the land, because you move your houses up onto the uplands and you farm the lowlands. That's what we did in the Lower Mainland. The land in the Peace, the north and the Kootenays is just as important for the future as the land in the Lower Mainland.

Sometimes one does despair that the three elements — land, water and air — that collectively we must preserve as a species to survive are just considered as not important. It's shocking. Really, this was an ambush — an ambush by the government on not only the opposition but the people of the province that we all represent. This act has taken place without any warning, without consultation. It's just taken people by surprise.

Before the election of 2013 there was no discussion of alienating farm use from its first and best use: that of growing food. There was not a plank in the platform of the Liberal Party in the 2013 provincial election a year ago that described the two zones — it did not mention two zones — and not a mention of 90 percent of our agricultural land being opened for any type of development. "Let's just let her rip." So 90 percent of the agricultural land will not be protected in the future.

[1755]

The farmland will be brought up to the same level as economic development. Economic development means any kind of development — cultural and social development, regional planning objectives and other prescribed conditions.

Some 5 percent of our land is arable. Of that, 90 percent is in the zone for development and the resulting alienation from the first and best use of the land, growing food. Hon. Speaker, 90 percent of the land is in zone 2, and in zone 2 anything goes now on agricultural land. I mean, what else could the government possibly do to make sure that anybody that wants to do anything on agricultural land has the green light?

As I've said before, and I'll say it again, the land in the
[ Page 3812 ]
Peace and the north and the Kootenays is as important as the land in the Lower Mainland. In fact, in the future, as the climate warms, it may be much, much more important than it is now.

It is sometimes worth looking back as we make changes in the present that will affect the future. In speaking about Bill 24, I want to go back in time just a little bit to the '50s and '60s, postwar. During that period of time in the '50s and '60s, before Bill 42, which was the original act that put the agricultural land reserve into play, and now, before this Bill 24 that's hoping to take 90 percent of it and just let development do what it wants there….

Before that time in the Lower Mainland, it was the postwar period, and there was rapid housing going on and rapid industrial development. Men and women — but largely the men — were coming home to their families from the war. They had fought and won, and their country was grateful.

Their coming home saw a rapid expansion of housing. Veterans' subdivisions spread out all around the Lower Mainland. They were accompanied by many other initiatives around housing, and this is where you began to see the urban sprawl.

These men coming home wanted to get on with life — raise a family, find a job, make a home — and they did. Comparatively speaking, if you compare to today — to most of us, I think, except maybe a few — they had large families. They had four, five, six kids — many. Over time, again, this added more pressure to the need to provide housing for the ever-growing population of the Lower Mainland.

Originally, Bill 42 was the response to that pressure, and now we have Bill 24, which undoes some of the good that the original bill did. The land for housing both postwar and beyond put incredible pressures on that very fertile agricultural land in the province.

I just want to take a minute and talk a little bit about some land in Richmond. Yesterday was Mother's Day, and my daughter and I took a trip down memory lane — at least it was my memory lane, not hers. I dragged her along with me, and we went out and looked at the subdivision where I grew up. I had never been there with my daughter, and it was actually quite a bit of fun.

I grew up on Sea Island, in a veterans' subdivision built after the war called Cora Brown, on the right side of the island as you head for the airport. There were about 50 homes, all about an acre and all on the best agricultural land in the province — the best land the Fraser River could throw up.

Our little subdivision of one acre was surrounded by farms. Here we were on this island, tucked way back in the corner, surrounded on three sides by farms.

[1800]

The back side of our subdivision faced the river, and from the river we could see across to Southwest Marine. On that island there were two major Grauer farms, and it was one of the first ones. It was a huge farm. There was Laing's farm, McDonald's farm, Cline's farm and Tong's farm. I'm sure there are others that I don't remember, but what I remember clearly is that there were farms around all of this subdivision.

Grauer's was along Grauer Road. Just the remnants of Grauer Road are still there. It was a major milking farm with a huge, huge herd of cattle. Classes from my elementary school went on field trips there and saw the cows being milked by machine and then the machines bottling the milk and putting caps on them. It was actually, from a child's perspective, just an amazing operation. They popped in the little cardboard lid that you pulled out of the glass bottle when you wanted to pour the milk.

At the end of this, they always gave us chocolate milk in a little bottle as our final treat of the trip. I thought our school was especially special to be able to go to that farm to see this amazing operation, as it was the school on the island that I went to.

They also kept bulls at the farm in huge pens, because the bulls themselves were very big. We didn't see them in our school outings, but when we rode our bikes up to the farms as kids, the farmhands would show off these amazing beasts. I remember clearly climbing up on a few boards of the fence, reaching over and petting the forehead of one of these massive animals. His eyes were huge, and he looked at me for a few long seconds, and I was absolutely thrilled. The smell, the sight and the sounds of that farm are still with me.

Bill 42, the original bill, did not save these farms. It was after these farms had been expropriated and the move to expand the airport was complete, or the future was being planned, that it sealed their fate.

We had Grauer's farm. We had Laing's farm on one side of the subdivision. I remember so clearly my father always warning us kids not to go out into Jimmy Laing's field. I think it was Arthur Laing. I can't remember, actually, his first name, but he was a very famous Liberal at that time.

Tong's farm was a small vegetable farm of just a few acres. He was a quiet man who gave us kids candies, but he didn't want our company. He was part of the community but not part. Cline's farm and McDonald's farm fronted onto McDonald Road. The McDonald's farm and their house were close to the river and slough, which is now part of the park at McDonald Beach.

This veteran subdivision surrounded by farms and backed up by the river was an ideal place to grow up, protected and cared for by this community of families tucked into the back of Sea Island. I could go on, and I actually have two other pages, but I do want to get to the point.

During that time, Sea Island was — and I can actually say "was" — an island that had amazing, amazing soil on it. The major players on that island were farms, with this little, tiny subdivision tucked up, of one acres, and then Burkeville, which still sits there on the corner. I'm sure
[ Page 3813 ]
the Speaker knows Burkeville well.

On the far side of the island was the airport. On the other side of the runway that served that airport was an air force base. That was the first industrialization of that island.

[1805]

That island has not been able to hold back the relentless industrialization of the airport. Today the major use and the ancillary use of that island and the land that was is the airport. The runways of the airport and the hangars and the freight buildings and every other thing you can imagine are now on that island. The farms are gone — there's not a farm on that island that is operating as a farm — and so is the subdivision of Cora Brown. The future for that island was being prepared in the '50s and '60s and executed in the '70s, as the industrialization of that island's future was ensured.

Now, I'm not saying for a minute that airports are not important and they don't need flat land, but some of the very best agricultural land in this province has been covered by asphalt, and without the agricultural land reserve and its attending commission, in the words of a supporter from the '70s: "From here to Chilliwack would be nothing but houses in 50 years if we hadn't done something."

An example was it was estimated that between 4,000 and 6,000 hectares of arable B.C. soil were lost yearly prior to 1972 to non-farming purposes and alienating the farmland from its use. Subdivisions like the one I grew up in are an example of non-farming use despite individual efforts. The final use of the airport and all its entrapments sealed the fate of that fabulous soil as being alienated forever from its best use.

Let me talk to you just a minute about alienating the land. When we went out there yesterday, there were mounds and mounds of gravel and sand that are settling and permeating the land so that big warehouses can be placed on the land. There are runways. The fertile soil, if not entirely removed, is mixed with huge amounts of gravel and sand and sometimes concrete and industrial fill.

The soil that was built up for years and years by the Fraser River as it searched for the sea is gone. It is absolutely gone, unrecognizable. That land will never, ever be able to be farmed again. Once it's gone, it is gone. God gave up making farmland long ago, but we're sure not finished alienating it from any farm future.

Mounds of sand and gravel, huge hangars and industrial warehouses built close to the airport for efficiency's sake, but gone are any remnants of those large, prosperous farms that grew their crops on the land. Not only the farms are gone, the land is gone and alienated.

Madame Speaker, we went out through Iona — you'll know this well; I think this is actually in your constituency — and out to the regional park at the end of Iona. We passed one very small equestrian centre with a number of horses in a pasture, and that is it. That is not something that I'd want to take home with me.

It's not a good future for any of us, and what I fear the most from Bill 24 is that it's just taking 90 percent of our arable land, which we only have a very small percentage of in this province, and saying: "Anything goes on it. Let her rip, just let her rip."

All of this on Sea Island took place before the land reserve and could have been the future of Richmond and all the way up to Chilliwack. Many of us will remember many, many battles. There was a huge battle over some farmland in Richmond, as well as the Spetifore Farm land that is out in Delta, and some of these fights or disputes over the use of land continue.

[1810]

But it could have been the future for all of Richmond and up to Chilliwack. The federal government expropriated the families on the Cora Brown subdivision for the future they saw for the land, and it was the airport. There was no competing vision for the farmland of our Delta until the ALR was put in place and largely protected by all governments until the one bringing this legislation into this sitting.

It is shocking and shameful. Other uses steamrolled over that land in the past as we lost blueberry and other farms of Richmond to the insatiable appetite of development. The tragedy of this bill, Bill 24, is that after 42 years of protection — 42 years of protecting the land that is the farmland of this province, 42 years of protecting 5 percent of our lands…. The irony is that we are protecting the most fertile land from ourselves. We need the land to remain as farmland, because once it's gone, it's gone. You are the authors of destroying that land. It is nobody's responsibility but ours in this House to protect the farmland of our province.

We, in this House, cannot see as clearly into the future as those who have gone before us. That is actually such a shame. The gift of the ALR from those who went before us would be much better served if before we changed it, we consulted. There is a trend in this government that you just do it and you don't consult.

We actually represent people. We are the top of the pyramid of people that we are representing when we come into this House. We govern on their behalf, and we govern at their pleasure. We have a responsibility to consult and speak with them on issues of major importance. This is another example of how we're just going to bring in legislation, do it without consultation, make major changes that were never promised, and the devil take the hindmost.

We need to re-evaluate this bill. We need to review the debate from the past — what David Anderson admitted on Monday, August 21, 1972, at a garden party in Sardis. He was speaking not only for himself, but he was reflecting the general unease of the population that he was representing. They did not want to see the area from Chilliwack to the sea be an urban development of
[ Page 3814 ]
greater Vancouver.

Every time I go through the Deas Island Tunnel and I head out towards White Rock or off into north Surrey, I go through the farmland that has been protected year after year after year by successive governments. They know that the future will need that land and that they are there to protect it. They also know that once it's gone, it's gone. Once you alienate it, once you pump that land full of sand so that you can build on top of it, that farmland is gone.

I think we should postpone, eliminate, defeat the passing of this bill and collectively pause and imagine what was prevented. The brave men and women from the last four generations who did not alienate the farmland from its natural use — those men and women who supported the preservation of farmland in this great province in the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, and so on until this moment — saw the writing on the wall.

[1815]

They could imagine the housing and suburbs of Richmond sprawling up to the Deas Island Tunnel, on to the other side and up the valley as far as you could see. Gone would have been the green, lush farmland, gone the lands of the past. We know that whether it is in the Lower Mainland or in the north, in the Kootenays or anywhere else in this province, 5 percent of our province is farmland, and 90 percent of it is being alienated by this bill.

We need to do something about it. We need to defeat this bill, go back to the drawing board and ensure that this farmland is here not only for us but for future generations.

M. Karagianis: I'm very happy to take my place in this debate on Bill 24. In preparation for this, I began to gather a number of documents and began to put together some reading material, rather than just come in here and speak passionately from the heart and from the sort of deeply embedded culture of the agricultural land reserve and the New Democratic Party. There is some really terrific material that's been gathered to talk about the importance of farmland. I know my colleagues have done just a stellar job here of outlining very cogent arguments on this.

I have read through this document produced by the Suzuki Foundation, called Forever Farmland: Reshaping the Agricultural Land Reserve for the 21st Century, and there's some very, very compelling information in this. I will use some of this to bolster my debate. Also, I have the "History of the Agricultural Land Reserve," another great document here that was prepared by the Legislative Library. It also outlines a really excellent rationale around why Bill 24 should be voted down.

I also gathered some information from Dr. Lenore Newman. She currently holds the Canada Research Chair in Food Security and the Environment and is a geography professor at the University of the Fraser Valley. She has written some really compelling words about the land reserve as well. I've heard her speak, and she is very knowledgable.

But first and foremost, in speaking against Bill 24, I would be remiss if I didn't talk about one of my favourite constituents, my constituent and good friend Dave Barrett, who was the Premier of the province for a few years here. In fact, his activities here in this House, in three short years in this Legislative Assembly, were the driving force behind creating the agricultural land reserve. I don't think you can underestimate in any way the visionary process that occurred when Dave Barrett and his government took on this challenge of protecting the agricultural land reserve.

When I talk with Dave, he has in the past talked to me very passionately about how you have to be courageous and have to be fearless when you enter the legislative chamber and create the kind of legislative framework that was put in place around the agricultural land reserve. That has stood the test of time. My colleagues have attested to that here over and over again in this debate.

It's very clear that this piece of legislation went deep into the heart of who we are as British Columbians. It was so substantial, and it was so genuine and such a great and brilliant piece of legislative business that it has remained virtually untampered with over all these years.

Four decades have passed. Many attempts, I believe, have been mounted to try and find ways to tear away at the structure of it. I think that in the last dozen years there have probably been more concerted efforts than ever put into trying to find a way to tear down this agricultural land reserve. I think it's an injustice that subsequent governments have tried so desperately to take this apart.

[1820]

When legislation is genuinely good, good public policy and good management of the common wealth of the province, then it does take such a huge effort for a government to try and tear it down. I guess that's why the government has chipped away at it for a very long time, and to me, that is very sad.

Human behaviour is such that I think the history of mankind has been that we naturally migrate to areas where there is arable land, where we can be near fishing, where we can be near areas to grow food. I think it was a very natural process to have seen the settlement that's occurred in the southern half of British Columbia around the delta, in those rich lands that had been created over millennia to produce some of the best farmland not just in British Columbia but, I would say, in all of North America.

Certainly, I know that my colleague the previous speaker has talked from personal experience of growing up around this area and seeing the changes that have occurred in the delta area in the Lower Mainland. Hon. Speaker, when you read the history and look at the
[ Page 3815 ]
history of the agricultural land reserve, it took a great visionary effort and a great deal of willpower for the government in the 1970s to halt what was encroaching civilization.

I think human beings are the only creatures on earth that go in and destroy the best part of the environment around them that supports them. I doubt that you would see any other creature go in and willfully destroy the area that they subsist on. Yet that's what we do as human beings. We naturally gravitate, as creatures in societies, to these areas that have enriched environments for fishing and for farming. We gravitate to these; we settle there. We have, it seems, been compelled to think about ways we can then marginalize the ability of that area to give us life and sustain us.

When you see in the history what was occurring post-war…. I know that my colleague the previous speaker talked about the post-war years. In fact, that was when the first really big onslaught…. Up to that point, I think there was a great balance between farming and using the rich delta lands for the purposes that they were intended, using the grassland out into the rest of the province for what it was intended — cattle ranching, raising grain and that kind of thing — in harmony with, of course, a robust fishing and forest industry in British Columbia.

But as this area in the Lower Mainland began to develop, we saw that immediately we began to pick away piece by piece, parcel by parcel, at the area that was a rich farming area. We began to build on it, we began to pave on it, and we began to develop ports on it. Recklessly, in a way that no other creature would do, we began to destroy the very areas around us that we needed to sustain life and sustain food growing.

I think the natural evolution of good governance and good public policy came about probably too far along in the process for us to have really done the best possible job of protecting this land. Certainly, by the early 1970s or through the 1960s, it was controversial. There were some attempts to put together some kind of reserve, and it wasn't until the '70s that we managed to get a bit of a toehold. We weren't the only civilization doing that; we weren't the only society doing that. In fact, if you look at the history of land reserves, you'll see that other countries and other areas were doing very similar things.

In Hawaii in 1961 the land use law created a commission charged with regulating how rural and agricultural land could be used. Hawaiians to this day are very fierce because they know exactly the importance, especially on an island, of food production. That kind of discussion and that kind of evolution of thinking were going on elsewhere around us at the same time.

Under California's 1966 Williamson Act, farmers limited development on their properties and gave development rights to the state, while local governments were compensated for property tax losses. So they immediately saw the importance of preserving those lands. In fact, California has become one of the richest food-producing states in North America, partly based on the fact that they had some wisdom, some foresight and forethought.

[1825]

So it would seem to me that the evolutionary stage we got to eventually in the 1970s was a right and just piece of legislation, which I suppose is why it has remained to this day.

As my time in this debate wears on, I would like to reference some of the pieces of reading that I have done to justify and lay out my rationale and reasons for opposing Bill 24.

M. Karagianis moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, 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. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:26 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. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

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

D. Routley: The government has not provided any new funding for apprenticeship and has indicated that industry should step in and provide additional funding. How much does the government expect industry to pay?

Hon. S. Bond: We were very proud to roll out the new skills-training blueprint several weeks ago. I think by now it's probably a couple of weeks. It's not about a quota for industry. It's certainly not that we're expecting
[ Page 3816 ]
industry to deal with the budget for the skills training of British Columbia. We do recognize, though, that partnerships with industry are absolutely critical today and moving forward, and that's always been the case.

We have industries across the province that sponsor programs, that partner with post-secondary institutions. We want to continue to enhance those relationships. But as I said last week when we met, the budget for skills training and education in the province is over $7 billion. This is a matter of looking at balance in the system to ensure that students have the broadest opportunities possible.

D. Routley: The systems and institutions the minister mentions are already stressed to deliver the basic programming and in fact are, in many cases, cutting back on programming, streamlining courses in order to accommodate inflationary pressures that aren't supported by increased funding. How does the minister expect these institutions, already stressed to the breaking point and having to cut programming, to be able to deliver and reinvent themselves without additional support?

Hon. S. Bond: I think we've all been very impressed with the reaction of our institutions across the province. We've met with a number of them both before and after, and even since the rollout took place there's been very positive feedback provided about looking at current course offerings, looking at how the system is aligned to the job needs of the future.

From our perspective, we believe that taxpayers invest over $7 billion. What we're saying to post-secondary institutions, colleges, the Industry Training Authority, which is also a key partner…. Looking at our own programs, like labour market agreements, all of the funding that adds up to that $7 billion of taxpayers' money needs to consider the demands that we have based on labour market data.

In essence, we've made no…. We certainly have been talking about re-engineering the system since we were elected. In fact, that direction was included both in my mandate letter and that of the Ministers of Education and Advanced Education.

[1435]

D. Routley: Is the minister suggesting that the institutions have poorly planned their programming and are delivering students that aren't able to achieve employment after their graduation? The SFU rate of graduation to employment for students with a bachelor of arts degree is over 95 percent within, I believe, two years. Just where is the inefficiency in the system that the minister is pointing to?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't think we've written a document that's at all critical of post-secondary institutions. In fact, as I alluded to earlier, we've had a number of discussions with them directly. It's about ensuring that we use the best labour market data that we have, working with industry and project proponents, generally looking at that data across a number of areas and saying to institutions — and also in my case particularly, the Industry Training Authority — that when we invest those dollars, over $7 billion, we want to look at what the need is that lies ahead.

In fact, in the case of post-secondary institutions we're not saying that 100 percent of their funding needs to be re-engineered. We're saying that there will be some targeted funds that would be lined up against the highest demand occupations based on labour market data.

I think that's pretty pragmatic. Many of the courses that are offered today will actually fit and line up very nicely. In fact, it's about looking at a system and making sure it is reliant on the best labour market data that we have, and also saying that a portion of the money, more than $7 billion, will be lined up with those demands that will have the highest degree of need.

D. Routley: It seems to me that the institutions are already using labour market data and already designing their programs to provide opportunities for students and that the students are graduating and finding work in their chosen fields.

So if there's no problem there and if that is being efficiently done, then I'm asking the minister specifically where she sees a lack of targeting — specifically where $188 million next year will be coming from. Which programs will be repurposed? How did the government arrive at a number — $188 million — and not have a specific idea of where that would be coming from and which programs would be dropped or cut back on and which programs would be augmented or targeted?

Hon. S. Bond: As I have said in our previous session, we don't intend to dictate to institutions which courses will continue and which won't. What we've laid out clearly is a road map that shows British Columbians where the jobs will be in demand, particularly over the next eight to ten years. This is a ten-year strategy.

We're saying that the system of training in British Columbia, which is broader than just institutions…. It includes the Industry Training Authority, labour market development programs, Canada job grant programs. We should at least give parents and students the best information possible to make decisions about their futures.

As a result, we're going to ensure that there are some targeted funds that would line up with those demands in the future. It really is, from our perspective, very pragmatic to say to families and students in British Columbia: "With the best labour market data we have, we can tell you that here are the areas of greatest need."

I think the other thing that's been made clear in the plan is the fact that we want to start earlier. We want to
[ Page 3817 ]
make sure that we have young people and students in K to 12 having experiences that they need, expanding on some of those things. This is about a ten-year lookout, doing that as well as we possibly can and providing that information to families, students and, also, to institutions. And saying we need these to line up. We want this to be a demand-driven system.

D. Routley: I'm assuming that the $188 million that will be repurposed and retargeted this year — that that work and that targeting is being done, as the minister has indicated, on the best labour market data available. What labour market data was used to determine that $188 million was required this year to repurpose and retarget programming?

[1440]

Hon. S. Bond: There are a variety of sources that we are utilizing in looking at the data. There would be B.C. Stats and Stats Canada. There is industry consultation. In fact, there is also an ongoing look at economic forecasts. We look at GDP, where the growth has been and how the economy is expected to grow in the days that lie ahead. It's actually been a great deal of hard work from a fantastic team of people.

As I said in last week's session, we're actually leading the country. The federal government has indicated that one of the discussions they want to have is how we actually put together better labour market data. I know that I'm often asked about the Stats Canada results that come out. Just last week we saw an article that said it's basically it's poll. It's a survey — hardly statistical in the way that it should be for determining how we plan a system moving forward.

There are a number of pieces that we bring to the table. We've also created a new labour market priorities board in government, which brings together at least five ministries, including Aboriginal Relations, AVED, Education, ourselves, to make sure that we have all of the players who deal with training in any way making decisions together about how best to spend the taxpayers' money.

D. Routley: What specific mechanisms were used to determine this year's target? This year's target is a very specific number — $188 million. It is a part of the re-engineering and the beginning of the repurposing of programming in post-secondary education. What exactly was used to determine that $188 million would be needed? Which programs will that money be directed towards? Who's making that decision, and which programs is it coming from? This is this year — not a ten-year outlook but this year. So we should be able to derive some very specific ideas of how that number was created or derived.

Hon. S. Bond: It represents 10 percent of the budget of Advanced Education in terms of how that is going to be determined. As I've said to the member on numerous occasions, we're not going to say to institutions: "This is how you will do it." We're saying that we expect there to be a focus on labour market data. We will be working across the labour market priorities board to ensure that the dollars are indeed directed to areas of highest need. There was a view that 10 percent is a reasonable beginning in terms of looking at what is in most demand.

I think most parents in British Columbia and families…. Certainly, the response we've had has been very, very positive, saying: "We actually want the information. We want to know what the options are for our kids and what the best possible chance is for them to be successfully employed with a career over their lives."

It certainly has been very well received. So the amount is 10 percent at the beginning of this year. As I said, we are not being prescriptive to say: "No, you can't offer that" or "Yes, you can offer that." We will, though, when we look at money, for example, through the Industry Training Authority, which is almost $100 million…. The board will be using the labour market data that has been created and working closely with the labour market priorities board to make sure that we're actually meeting the needs of British Columbians.

D. Routley: The minister may not dictate to institutions exactly which programs they should invest or disinvest in. I agree with most parents that the minister is referring to. I, too, would like that information. I, too, would like to know what information led the government to what appears to be an arbitrary decision to repurpose 10 percent of the funding.

What indicators and upon which grounds was the decision made that 10 percent was the number? Is it just a number that the government thought was a good number? They may not be prescribing to institutions exactly which programs they have to fund or not fund, but they're saying: "Okay, 10 percent. You're repurposing 10 percent. That's our number." How did the government arrive at the number 10 percent or $188 million?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is incorrect when he suggests that we're taking back or we're repurposing. In fact, many institutions today have courses that would line up perfectly with labour market demand. We are not saying: "You can't offer courses for poets, but you're going to offer courses for plumbers."

[1445]

What we're saying is there needs to be balance in the system and that that balance needs to be determined by labour market data that is accurate and current for British Columbia.

I think it's a pretty sensible approach. From that perspective, we believe that 10 percent was a reasonable expectation. That will grow over time. This gives institu-
[ Page 3818 ]
tions a chance to look at their programming and where they fit in that continuum.

The great news is the response has been excellent from institutions. People are excited about stepping up, looking at how they can help contribute to making sure British Columbia has the labour market and skilled workforce that it needs. We have had very, very constructive and positive discussions with institutions, right from presidents on down to instructors at those institutions.

As I said, it has been a very successful rollout, and now we're going to roll up our sleeves and work with institutions, working alongside them, ensuring that together we can meet the workforce needs of our province.

D. Routley: The minister believes that 10 percent is a reasonable number. It's a belief. What does she ground that assumption or belief on? Why 10 percent? Why 10 percent this year?

Hon. S. Bond: Based on labour market data and current needs, we assessed all of the funds that were going out. We have to remember — and I'll put it in context for the member again — we spend over $7 billion on training and education in our province.

There's a view that $188 million of $7 billion is actually a modest beginning to the change in a system, which does requires some transition. There will be decisions for institutions to make, and it will transition to a larger percentage over time. But it's based on labour market data, the pressing needs that we have for industry in the province for other professions.

It isn't just about trades as we would typically think of them, as steel-toed-boot types of training; it's about professionals, as well, about engineers. In fact, when we looked at liquefied natural gas and the top ten jobs that are required, project managers, for example, were part of that group.

It is a very broad spectrum. We're going to have needs across all of the sectors, including tourism and hospitality. We believe that a phased-in approach was the most prudent way to begin. Again, we've had very positive feedback.

G. Heyman: To the minister, prior to the last election, during the election writ period, her party, in claiming what it would do if it formed government, made a couple of proposals with respect to the film and digital industries. One was to extend the rural-distant tax credit to the Victoria region to increase that credit to 12 percent. The other one was to extend the digital animation or visual effects tax credit to post-production work.

In this budget the promise to extend the distant-location tax credit to Victoria was kept, and the Minister of Finance, when asked about that, said: "Well, that was a promise we made during the election, so it's a good idea to keep it."

[1450]

But there was no mention of the extension of the digital animation or visual effects tax credit to post-production. I'm wondering if the minister can explain the rationale behind that and if there are any plans to bring this in, in future budgets.

Hon. S. Bond: There were two things, certainly, that we talked about in our platform. The distant-location regional tax credit. In fact, Budget 2014 did extend the distant-location tax credit to the capital regional district effective immediately, so the credit now targets productions north of Whistler, east of Hope and across Vancouver Island.

The second piece was the digital animation or visual effects tax credit. That work continues to be underway. The Ministry of Finance leads the initiative. Obviously, it's a tax credit. That's not my jurisdiction in terms of moving that forward, but I have been working with the Ministry of Finance. The member is welcome to ask the minister, when his estimates take place.

We certainly intend to meet the platform commitment. That work is underway.

I should point out that digital animation and visual effects in the province are doing exceptionally well. We have a rapidly growing subsector of film and digital media. London, not in terms of Canada but in the U.K., is considered No.1, and B.C. is rapidly becoming recognized as No. 2.

B.C.'s production spending increase in 2012 came from a jump in animation and visual effects, with more than 30 digital animation and visual effects project undertaken in B.C., with expenditures surpassing $200 million.

G. Heyman: One of the comments in the Liberal Party's platform was that extending the DAVE tax credit, as it's known — digital animation or visual effects — to post-production work would create a lot of new jobs in British Columbia, attracting them here from where they're currently being performed.

My question to the minister is: what work or analysis has been prepared by her ministry or elsewhere in government to determine exactly what the job benefit of extending the tax credit to post-production work will be?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, one of the challenges in looking at post-production tax credits was the definition of "post-production" and what it actually means. So a lot of work has been done on that. We've met with stakeholders. I know the Minister of Finance and his team have met with them as well.

One of the things since we've had the film file in the economic ministry…. By the way, the sector was very appreciative of the fact that we moved film and digital effects to an economic minister because of what it is. It's
[ Page 3819 ]
a driver of the economy and a job creator. We've had a very, very constructive relationship with the film sector, certainly since we were re-elected and I became minister and the film file moved over.

The data around digital effects and job creation and flow-through benefits, those kinds of things, are not well documented, so we are in the process of doing some more extensive work on looking at what post-production is, what the benefits are. That work is underway.

[1455]

I would expect that at some point in the fall we'll have far more specific and clear data about the benefits of digital effects, looking at how the film sector contributes, how they compare to one another, where it's best to invest — those kinds of things. For that work, we have not really had a lot of specific data in the past, so we are doing that work as we speak.

G. Heyman: Yes, I agree that a lot has happened, and the tax credits have played a role — a role that's returned more revenue to government, I think, but also increased employment in this important industry.

As the minister may know, I've had some back-and-forth with both her and the Minister of Finance on the question of tax credits in the last session. I quoted some studies that were done for the Canadian Media Production Association, while I recognize that there's always a use for further study.

There are, within my constituency of Vancouver-Fairview, a lot of people who are employed in the film industry, generally, and in digital animation or visual effects, specifically. They are very interested in seeing this extension of the tax credit to post-production work. They believe it'll be beneficial.

I'd simply thank the minister for her answers but also ask that as more study is done and as she has information, if she would be able to share that with me. It would be much appreciated.

D. Routley: The plan of the government points to, perhaps, more front-loaded training for students in the skilled trades. Some critics have pointed out that this puts a large onus on the students to come up with their part of the funding at the very early stages of their training. It puts their investment at greater risk and makes it overall more burdensome for students. How will the minister accommodate those potential effects on the lives of students?

Hon. S. Bond: There isn't one route or one pathway, so it won't be about front-end-loading, necessarily. We're looking at expanding opportunities for students, with dual-credit programs, for example. This has a number of benefits, not the least of which is that you'd get the first year of apprenticeship under your belt while you're still in high school. It would allow you to move into the job market much more quickly.

The plan also outlines our view that there needs to be some targeted financial support for students who are engaged in programs that are in the high-demand occupations. There is a series of financial things that we will be looking at.

I think there isn't a one-size-fits-all. We're saying students should start earlier. They should start and…. We love the dual-credit program, where a student…. We've met countless students who are involved in those programs who just love what they're doing, and they want the chance to start earlier. Having the opportunity to do that while you're still in high school is an enormous benefit financially, but it also gets you out into the job market that much sooner.

D. Routley: Thompson Rivers University is doing a pilot project, front-loading training for commercial truck and transport mechanic apprentices. This began in October 2013. I'd like to ask the minister: how will the success of this pilot project be measured?

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: The TRU program is what we view to be some of the innovation that may be necessary to increase completion rates in apprenticeships generally. I've certainly said on a number of occasions that apprenticeship training in the country needs work. British Columbia is part of that.

What the program at TRU allows is all of the technical training to take place at the beginning of an apprenticeship and then on to the worksite. I can tell you this. One of the things I've heard from both apprentices and employers is that they don't like the fact that people actually have to leave their jobs for periods of time to go and take the technical training.

This is one of the ways we're looking at innovation. We believe that if you…. And the outcomes, the measurables, will be that if these students actually are successful in their technical training, they will potentially have a pre-contract to go to work with their employer, and it will increase the transition rate.

Where we lose apprentices is often partway through that technical training, having to leave their jobs, leave their families. This is a way of saying: let's compact the technical training at the beginning and get a pre-contract to allow that transition to take place to the workforce. The measurables will be: are they successful by doing the technical training in 61 weeks? Are we successful in getting pre-contracts for those employees?

Where we see the attrition rate, which is about 50 percent of apprentices…. We could potentially see this class have 100 percent transition as a group of apprentices into the workforce. We think that's worth exploring. It's certainly not the way that every trade will be delivered in the province, but it's only one of the models we're looking at.
[ Page 3820 ]

We're looking at a shared apprenticeship model, as well, which is reflected in the document. Many small business owners can't manage to have an apprentice. We actually need to have more apprentices in the system, so we are contemplating how you would have a shared apprenticeship model. We're looking at how you can deliver training differently: on line, closer to camp. How do you do all of those things differently? This is one of the ways we're looking at innovations to try to improve the completion rates for apprentices in the province.

D. Routley: I agree that the shared apprenticeship model holds some very promising possibilities for small business people to participate more frequently in trades training for British Columbians, so I'm glad to hear that from the government.

[1505]

I'm concerned about this model, though. Is the front-loading being considered for implementation on a broader scale, including other trades?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, we're going to wait to see the outcomes and look at how the program unfolds. There would be two considerations. One would be whether this same program should be offered at other schools — that would be an expansion with this program — or whether or not other trades should be considered.

There will be a number of things we look at, but it's going to be based on outcomes, and I have every confidence that the new board, working with the executive team at the ITA, will take a good look at whether or not there was success and whether it should be replicated in its form at other schools or whether or not we should add other trades to the model.

D. Routley: I believe the minister received a letter from the B.C. Building Trades regarding this issue, dated February 26, 2014. One of the concerns expressed was the fact that students will have to come up with the full cost of their coursework without the guarantee of a required replacement to fulfil certification requirements. How will the minister ensure that apprentices do not have to experience unnecessary financial risk by having to finance the full scope of their technical training up front?

Hon. S. Bond: I think we're concerned about barriers to students, and cost is a legitimate issue. I do know this: the class is full.

One of the things that is being used in the program is prescreening, which is very successful for trade unions. When you think about the building trades, for example, they prescreen when it comes to apprenticeships, which is actually what helps their completion rate be higher. They do a very good job of that.

[1510]

In fact, in this class there is a prescreen, and these students are set up for success. If they are successful, there are pre-contracts that are set up with employers.

The training plan also refers to additional student financial aid for high-demand labour priorities, so we'll be looking at how we can expand and enhance those opportunities. But the class is full. That's the reason we're trying it with one class before you move on to whether or not it should be replicated elsewhere. There is a view that these students have the potential to have a 100 percent transition rate to successful apprenticeships with employers.

D. Routley: Based on the concerns detailed in the letter from the building trades, will the minister commit to consulting with B.C. Building Trades before the delivery model is expanded into the construction trades, if and when it is? Does the minister feel that more study is needed before the expansion of the program?

Hon. S. Bond: I have every confidence that there will be a direct impact, because Tom Sigurdson is actually on the board of the ITA, as well as Lindsay Langill, who has spent a great deal of time researching apprenticeship models in the province.

I can assure the member opposite that there will not only be input, but there will be a hands-on approach to shaping apprenticeship in the province. I feel very good about the fact that we have expertise on that board that will very much look at apprenticeship, where we need to improve and what are the things we can do.

Part of that will be looking at the model that the building trades use in British Columbia. Their numbers are very strong when it comes to apprenticeship completion. I think there are things to be learned there, and that's why I was very pleased to invite Tom Sigurdson to sit directly on the ITA board.

D. Routley: The report on page 43, the Jessica McDonald report, states that unspent training delivery funds totalled $4.7 million in the last fiscal year. This is mainly caused by public sector institutions returning 70 percent of their funding for a class that did not occur in the sector.

"The continuation rate from pre-apprenticeship foundation program to apprenticeship in 2012-2013 was 51 percent. In that same year $21 million was invested in foundation programs, resulting in over $10 million in lost investment or unknown outcomes."

This is on page 44 of the report. This indicates a certain amount of wasted or unspent trades training money. How will that loss to the system be reduced under the new plan?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that's exactly why we're looking at programs like the front-end-loaded training, where we're looking at shared model and looking at prescreening of applicants. We want to make sure that every dol-
[ Page 3821 ]
lar that is invested in apprenticeship ends up as a good investment for taxpayers in the province.

We're concerned about the attrition rate, for sure. As I said, if it were just British Columbia, then obviously we would need to take an even more critical look. We actually are above the Canadian average in completion rates, so it's a national problem that we need to work on. But I think that with the board we've created and the ability to look at some innovative programming like the front-end-loading aspect, our goal is to increase the transition rate. Right now it's about 51 percent. As has been noted, we hope that with the front-end-loading type of program, we could move that transition rate potentially up to 100 percent.

If you take the combination of the prescreen, the ability to have a pre-contract with an employer and the fact that you're not leaving your family or your home at certain periods of time…. That's why we're being innovative — to try to actually reduce the problem that Jessica has identified.

[1515]

D. Routley: Ms. McDonald's report also shows that the Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training Ministry's current labour market analysis is inadequate to allow for predictable provincewide planning. We also know that the labour market outlook has not been updated since 2010. It was promised it would be done annually. As of 2013 we were 58,500 jobs short of the labour market outlook predictions.

Does it concern the minister that her government is making planning decisions based on what the Toronto-Dominion Bank has identified as a "shaky growth accounting model"?

Hon. S. Bond: The blueprint is actually based on data from 2012 to 2022, so it's not based on 2010 data. We intend to post the most current data on Work B.C., on the website that we have. That will be updated as frequently as we are able to do that.

For example, if an LNG company comes to a financial investment decision, then that will adjust the timing of their needs. That would be the same with any major project. We will continue to work project by project, in many cases. As I said, we have very explicit data on dozens of projects, including projects like Site C and others.

As timelines are adjusted, the data would be adjusted, and we intend to be very public about it. We would post that data on Work B.C. a minimum of every year, making it more current. But our intent is to update it as frequently as necessary once that project information is available.

D. Routley: Okay. The report recommends that the employer engagement, training plan validation, and standards and program development setting functions of ITOs should be brought into the ITA, with industry expertise and the infrastructure of industry subject matter expert committees that ITOs have developed to inform standards development and updating incorporated into the ITA's core functions.

[1520]

When most of the responsibilities of the ITOs are brought under the ITA, how will this affect the ITOs? Many of them deliver other important programming elements. For example, go2 receives 30 percent of its funding from an ITO but also delivers many other important programs. How will these ITOs be affected, and what will be the process?

Hon. S. Bond: The Industry Training Authority does not control the ITOs. One of the things we have done in the past is provide funding. As a result of Jessica's recommendations, we have met with all of the ITOs and made it clear to them that funding, from the ITA's perspective, will end at the end of October this year.

Now, some of them will choose to carry on. Some of them are very effective and, I am certain, will choose to continue their work. Certainly, go2 would very much be one of those. But we are taking Jessica's recommendation that rather than having the ITOs provide direct advice to government, to the ITA, there will be a series of sector advisory councils created. In fact, they will have a very significant role.

Not only will they be involved in providing advice and reviewing labour market data, but they will also have to work to endorse that data basically to confirm that it reflects the needs of their sector. They will also be involved in the validation of the plans that are being created. There will be a very significant role for industry through a series of sector advisory councils to actually review and confirm data and plans that the ITA makes.

D. Routley: What is the timeline for the creation of the ITA's new board and implementation of the board?

Hon. S. Bond: The ITA board had an inaugural meeting on Friday of last week. They are up and running and very actively engaged already. That is critical because they will be responsible for the last recommendation in the report, as one of their first responsibilities. That will be to create a 90-day transition plan to move forward with the recommendations.

I know that in my discussions with them, they're very, very energized about the opportunity. One of the things they're going to be looking at is prioritizing the 29 recommendations. You obviously can't tackle them all at once, so they're going to look at them from…. At least, their initial discussion was sort of short-, medium- and longer-term things.

Some of the longer-term recommendations would be things that we would be involved in directly as a government — things like harmonization of the apprenticeship
[ Page 3822 ]
system across the country. Those are bigger than the ITA board alone and will certainly be part of my primary work plan for the next number of months.

[1525]

D. Routley: Your suggestion of an annual bid process for training organizations to compete for funding seems in contradiction with the recommendation of a greater multi-year planning certainty for training providers. How will the ITA balance the need for innovation in training programs with the long-term planning needs of students and institutions?

Hon. S. Bond: The plan is to have a three-year rolling plan so that institutions and, obviously, the ITA will have a chance to think beyond simply: what are we going to do for this year? The challenge with that is that….

One of Jessica's recommendations is that government change its funding mechanism regarding the Industry Training Authority to allow them to roll over funding and look at it over a three-year period of time. That isn't a recommendation that's going to happen overnight.

In fact, it certainly has been brought to the Finance Minister's attention. He's interested in having a look at that, but that is certainly not government's current practice with regard to the ITA. It does not stop us, though, from having a three-year rolling plan, which would be updated annually — obviously, with the support and endorsement of the sector advisory councils.

We think that's a reasonable approach. Again, the funding mechanism piece will take more work. It is far more complex and won't happen overnight.

When it comes to bidding, I guess the way to describe that is it's a way of invoking or inspiring innovation. We've had a very good response from training providers, institutions that are looking at that and, in fact, quite welcome it.

What we're saying about bidding means that rather than simply allocating dollars just across the system, what we'd like to say is, "Here's how many welding classes we need, this is how many welders we need, and this is where we need them," and then allow institutions to say: "We can do that, and here's how we can get the best value for the dollars that are going to be invested."

When we talk to institutions, in particular, they were very energized about that. They basically said: "Bring it on. We are competitive. We're talented. We can do this. We'd love to do a greater share of the training, and we think we can give you a plan."

I think, rather than just assuming you're get funding, there's an opportunity for you to get more courses to train more workers if you can actually show that you can use that money in an effective way. We think that will actually help spawn some innovation, and I think institutions are up to that challenge.

D. Routley: I recognize the potential value of innovation that could be derived from this approach, but I also recognize that there is an inherent risk that the interests of an organization could lead to, if we don't have proper monitoring, challenges to the safety and training needs of students. What steps will be taken to ensure that those standards are maintained?

[1530]

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: I think that's just a wise reminder that this isn't about compromising standards or safety. Standards are standards, and they would still have to be met.

It may be, for example, in whether or not you could provide training directly at a campsite, and I don't mean the campsite where you bring your RV. In a camp setting, is there a possibility that you could train on site? We've seen some really innovative models where employers are having the training done while workers are actually at their workplace.

Looking at innovation in delivery, perhaps you can offer more sections at a particular institution, those kinds of things — but definitely not moving away from the standards of expectation. We want the best-trained workers in the province. In fact, we're looking at standardized tests across the province in order to ensure that there is a quality control mechanism wherever a program is being offered.

D. Routley: I'd like to move on to the Canada job grant and the B.C. labour market agreement. The agreement seems to be funded by removing $300 million out of the labour market agreement, which provided provinces and territories with money to support people who were not eligible for employment insurance — specifically older workers, aboriginals, youth and the disabled — helping them enter the workforce through programs such as literacy training.

The question is sort of: what now? What will be done to ensure that those people, their interests and their training are not abandoned?

Hon. S. Bond: The member's concerns reflect the ones that I had when we were asked to lead this file by the Council of the Federation.

We have managed to protect what we call, basically, stream 3, which is $37.26 million. British Columbia's portion of the $300 million is $37.26 million in years 1 to 3, and that would protect programs similar to the current labour market agreement. That really was the heart of the debate that we had with the federal government: making sure that those kinds of programs were available — particularly for marginalized British Columbians, people who are having enough trouble getting into the
[ Page 3823 ]
job market.

[1535]

Provinces were absolutely united that we needed to have a stream that reflected our ability to provide services very comparable to the ones that we're currently offering.

We're also looking at a phased-in approach to the Canada job grant itself, which in year 1 for us in British Columbia amounts to $3.25 million. There are a number of ways we can reach…. That piece is under the labour market development or own-source funding.

There is a transition period. We are working to look at how we're going to bring employer cost-sharing to the table, and I did express concerns to Minister Kenney about how employers will react to this. Certainly, we've seen a reduction in the requirement for small business owners to contribute at the rate that the federal government had initially proposed, so there's been significant movement on this. We do believe that employers do need to help cost-share for the Canada…. We agreed with them fundamentally on that issue.

I think the best news is that we have a two-year period where there will be no clawbacks of funding from the federal government. That was hard-fought, particularly by British Columbia. In fact, there will be an evaluation after the two-year period, in 2015, to make sure this is working before there's any reaction by the federal government to how the Canada job grant program is working.

We do have a protected stream for employment services and supports which would see similar programming to the programs we have under the current LMA. That was a hard-fought discussion, for sure, and we were very pleased to see the federal government protect that stream.

D. Routley: The latest B.C. report on the LMA involved the results of a survey sent to over 13,000 participants three months after their training program was completed. The respondents — 94 percent said they were satisfied with the program and felt it improved their employment opportunities. Their mean hourly wage after the program was $16.16, compared to $15.59 before it began.

It seems like it's a system that wasn't broken but has been fixed. I wonder what the minister thinks about how we can continue the benefits to trainees, given the changes.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, that was pretty much the argument we used with the federal government. I think part of the challenge we faced was that there was at times a lack of awareness, partially due to the fact that the provinces and territories may not have been as effective in talking about the success of these programs as we should have been.

We eventually did do a report, which was presented to the federal government, that talked about the success rates, looked at individual programs right across the country from coast to coast to coast that talked about the success.

The original language in the labour market agreement was very clear that there needed to be consideration of marginalized and vulnerable Canadians. That was the point that I pressed with Minister Kenney — that moving away from that principle was not acceptable to any of the jurisdictions in our country. We were very pleased to be able to retain, out of the entire $500 million, $300 million that would meet the needs of those individuals. That was extremely critical to us.

We want to see the same kinds of expectation in the other program streams. I think it's fair to say that one of the lessons I hope was learned through all of this was that the federal government agreed with us that perhaps before they announced the program, they could have spent a bit more time talking to jurisdictions about what was needed, what was successful and what wasn't.

I think we have made significant gains. I have to credit where credit is due. Minister Kenney did listen and worked very constructively. The other two lead ministers and myself met with him on numerous occasions to make this very argument. We were pleased to see that we were able to retain it in the final version of the Canada job program.

[1540]

D. Routley: The jobs grant will provide up to $15,000 to train an individual. The remaining $5,000 of the up to $20,000 of training funding would come from the sponsoring employer. This seems to suggest that it will be even more difficult for trainees to find sponsoring employers if the employer has to agree to that sort of a commitment up front.

There has been moderation of that in that small businesses, small employers, can include future wages as part of their contribution. But this seems to set up a situation that could be, according to several commentators, vulnerable to fraud and abuse if employers aren't adequately monitored that they are going to, in fact, fulfil their obligations and if the system is unable to have adequate oversight.

Minister Kenney said that the intention of the grant was to train workers through employers without "cumbersome bureaucratic oversight." This seems to indicate an interest in minimizing the amount of oversight, yet this system, according to the opinion of several observers, sets up a potential for fraud and abuse.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I do want to clarify a couple of numbers. First of all, there were changes made to the program. In fact, the Canada job fund, which it's now called…. I called it the Canada job program. That was a mistake. It's actually called the Canada job fund agreement. The maximum amount from government would be
[ Page 3824 ]
$10,000 and $5,000 from employers, for a total of $15,000.

When it comes to small business, there is some flexibility in how they contribute toward the program. Small businesses can contribute as little as 15 percent cash toward training costs and count wages to make up their one-third contribution. So government would be a two-thirds grant and one-third for business, and small businesses could pay as little as 15 percent of that.

[1545]

In terms of guaranteeing work, that's one of the major tenets of this new program. The federal government wanted to see a much more direct link to a job at the end of the program. So, in fact, employers will have to apply for the money. It's not about their employee or a prospective worker looking for anything here. The employer would decide. They would find a particular employee that they'd like to hire, that they would want to have and provide a job to at the end of that training. The employer would decide who gets the training and what type, and there is a job waiting for the person at the end of that training.

The employer contributes financially to the training — 50-cent dollars, as we noted. This is where the quality assurance comes in. Training is provided by a third-party trainer. In other words, the employer can't say: "Come along to my shop. I'm going to have Joe, the chief mechanic, do the training." There has to be a third-party trainer involved.

Our responsibility will be to ensure that the employer is meeting all of those principles when they are applying for their grant. Individual employers and organizations acting on behalf of employers — in other words, union halls, industry associations, employer consortia — can all apply for these funds. It can be in the private and not-for-profit sectors.

Workers can use it — if you are unemployed and seeking training to do a job, if you're employed but underemployed and seeking to do training for a better job, or if you're already employed but seeking training for a better job. What the Canada job grant can pay for are tuition fees or fees charged by the training provider, mandatory student fees, textbooks, software or other required materials, and examination fees.

There are specific things that the employer must do in order to qualify for the grant. The most critical of those is to have a job at the end of the training for the employee that's involved.

D. Routley: The minister is quoted in the Vancouver Sun on April 4 of this year: "I certainly anticipate holding on to a lot of programs, modifying them. There may be some we need to drop, but we get a chance to shape them under the Canada job grant category."

Can the minister give me an idea of which programs will be cut due to the new agreement?

Hon. S. Bond: I was concerned about that, too, because there are fantastic programs. No one will be automatically eliminated. What will happen is there will be a competitive process. Anyone who wants to apply to be part of the program will have an opportunity to do that. We expect that many of our providers will be able to qualify or to shape their programs to fit the criteria, which was absolutely essential to ministers right across the country.

No one will automatically be eliminated, but it will be a competitive process. They will have the opportunity later this summer, although we were just…. My assistant deputy minister and I would agree that putting out an RFP in August is probably not the best thing to be doing, when people are busy doing other things. We will make sure that it works efficiently for those service providers to be able to be involved in that process.

No one is being arbitrarily removed from the programs. However, we will use a competitive process in order to meet the criteria set out in the new agreement.

D. Routley: I understand the answer from the minister and the implications of it. It re-emphasizes the need to have adequate oversight over employers who participate in the programs. I'm wondering how the minister plans to ensure that oversight is maintained so that the possibilities of fraud or underservice don't develop.

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: There are performance standards on any contract, and I'm told that the way we monitor the contracts now is that we have staff that actually monitor every single contract we have in place in terms of the deliverables they have. This will be no different. There will be an ongoing expectation around meeting their performance standards, because we will also have to demonstrate to the federal government that we have met the intent of the Canada jobs fund agreement.

So staff will monitor each contract that is in place, and again, those will be derived after a public competitive process for our service providers. It would be a similar process for employers. Any contract we came to an agreement on, there would be monitoring expectations that all the principles have been met. In fact, our staff would monitor those arrangements.

D. Routley: What specific steps are being taken by government and all of its agencies, including the Crown, ITA, to attract and recruit more employers into these various training programs — Red Seal apprenticeship programs as well as labour market agreement–supported programs?

[1555]

Hon. S. Bond: There are a number of ways, because it is important. We need more apprentices in the system,
[ Page 3825 ]
and we certainly need more employers to step up and help with that.

I am reminded, however, that one of the things the federal government talked about, in terms of the reason for the changes to the Canada job grant, was that employers were saying: "We want more involvement." In many ways this is an opportunity for us to test that principle. Thankfully, we have a two-year evaluation period. I am hopeful that B.C. employers will step up and take advantage of the program.

We do have, obviously, a tax credit system where the B.C. training tax credit — it's obviously administered by the Ministry of Finance — is designed to integrate with other programs that are offered by the federal government. So we have a B.C. training tax credit which benefits current and future apprentices, employers, industry associations and labour organizations. So that is a monetary incentive.

But I think it's things like putting back, and putting in place, the apprenticeship advisers. We know that they've played a critical role. Jessica was pretty clear about the fact that we need to have those people on the ground. We think that will be another avenue for connecting industry with apprentices.

Work B.C. will also have a role in doing that. And new models of delivery, things like…. The member opposite mentioned his support for a shared apprenticeship model. We know that so many small businesses struggle to be able to manage.

The other thing we're looking at is how we can…. When we discuss the harmonization of apprenticeship across the country, we want to work on a principle that would say that if you can do year 1 and 2 in New Brunswick, we'd like to be able to arrange the standards and harmonization so that you could do years 3 and 4 here in British Columbia. We should have that opportunity.

So it really is about taking a new look at how we can do this better. I'm told — by some of my colleagues across the country and, certainly, by Minister Kenney — that there is a great deal of heightened interest by employers in terms of stepping up and being engaged. We need to make it easier for them and get rid of some of those barriers. I think a number of the things that we're doing will help to do that.

D. Routley: I'm very interested in the challenges for small employers and how this might be structured. Could the minister give me some idea of how she envisions smaller companies cooperating with apprenticeships — what that would actually look like? I can imagine that the circumstances would be as varied as the number there are. How does the minister envision this?

Hon. S. Bond: I think we're in the early days of it. Some organizations have already moved in this direction in terms of looking at an umbrella organization matching and sharing apprentices. For example, we think that there could be leadership in the Construction Association of B.C., where they would help take a number of apprentices and they would be shared between a number of smaller businesses. But that doesn't preclude two or three small business owners coming together and saying: "We can't manage an apprentice by ourselves. How can we do it together?"

[1600]

So we're early days. There are some models in existence. But really, it's about how we can facilitate smaller businesses that, typically, wouldn't be able to take an apprentice on their own or large industry associations that could take on a number of apprentices, ensuring they meet all of the requirements by sharing them across the sector.

I'd be more than happy, as the work progresses, to inform the member and certainly welcome his input. I know he's very interested in this, and I'd be happy to have advice.

We're in those early days of looking at how to deliver it, but our goal is to be more innovative, to try to include more employers, certainly, for the benefit of those people seeking an apprenticeship. It's really hard for them at times to lock down that employer, so we want to make sure we facilitate that.

D. Routley: At the other end of the spectrum from small business, we have the larger employers in the province that face an impending — or actually, currently have — a skills-training gap, a skills shortage.

I'm thinking, in my own constituency, of Catalyst, the pulp and paper company. They've told me that over the next three years they would be able to take on approximately 25 apprentices per year. I appreciate the complexities that the government has faced in negotiating with the federal government on the Canada job grant, but these companies now are, very late in the day, trying to meet the gap that they're facing, losing the master tradespeople who are required to mentor apprentices and really facing a crisis now.

Can the minister suggest ways that these companies — particularly Catalyst and other forest industry companies — can respond and get these programs in place as quickly as possible?

Hon. S. Bond: Catalyst Paper I would certainly encourage to either contact the Industry Training Authority or our staff. We'd be happy to work through whatever we can do to be of assistance. Our goal is always to get more apprentices hired, so we'd love to see them move forward with that. It would not preclude them from applying for funding under the Canada Job Fund.

I should also say that the Canada Job Fund is much broader than just apprenticeships. For example, if there
[ Page 3826 ]
were other training needs that a company like Catalyst had, it would be absolutely acceptable for them, along with anyone else, to say: "We would like to participate as an employer in this program." I'm assured Minister Kenney thinks there's a lot of pent-up demand there for this program, so we'll wait and see.

Absolutely, Catalyst would be able to apply for those grants. We would provide the $10,000 as long as they matched it with $5,000 and they meet the employer criteria. On the apprenticeship front, we'd be happy to have a conversation directly with them to see if there were some barriers that they're experiencing that we could be of assistance with.

D. Routley: In the Apprentice and Sponsor Supports Consultation Summary there were a number of concerns raised by both apprentices and sponsoring employers.

[1605]

One of them was the post-registration barriers, and there were a variety of problems. Worksite-based training standards were a problem to many. Mediating work-based issues was a problem. There wasn't support for mediation. Reporting hours was…. Actually, most apprentices thought they were not given the access to the full range of available worksite learning opportunities, and a majority suggested their employers were not mindful of their obligation to provide full scope-of-trade experience.

These are obviously difficult problems for the government to mediate or to intervene in because, of course, employers have different scopes of business practice. Some can and some cannot deliver full-scope training. How does the new model attempt to address this problem? It has always been a problem but seems to be a problem for the majority of apprentices now.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the most direct way to work on some of those problems will be through the apprenticeship advisers. I think Jessica pointed out in her report that tracking was not at its optimum and there were some of the barriers the member opposite points out. I think that the apprenticeship advisers…. Jessica — Ms. McDonald, I should probably say, so people know who we're talking about — recommended that…. I think the complement was 15 that was noted in the report — that they be expedited so that we can get people out on the ground, I think to deal with the very kinds of issues that the member opposite is raising.

I think those are legitimate concerns, and certainly they were highlighted in the industry training review report. It's our hope that as the new board grapples with the recommendations, one of the things they will look at is how to expedite the balance of those apprenticeship advisers being put in place.

We currently have four in the field and are looking at how we will move to the next 15. I think that the advice was by year's end, or at least within this calendar year, but again, the board will have to decide how quickly they can do that.

D. Routley: One of the issues that Ms. McDonald's report points out is that there is a lack of information available as to how many people are registered, which sponsoring employers they are with, what sponsoring employers are available. This is also reflected by opinions from the apprentice and sponsor support's consultation summary, where sponsoring employers and apprentices call for the establishment of a central registry of sponsors. Congruent with that is the customer service issue.

They point in the summary to a lack of general information being available, different answers being given depending on who they talked to and a lack of direct answers. This overall impression of a lack of larger-scale or broader information available to the system to plan and the lack of information to individuals to ascertain how to proceed through the system and advance their training seems to be a problem that everyone is identifying. How does the minister plan to address that?

[1610]

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things, as I was thinking about what we're doing, is that the Industry Training Authority is going to start a job match system that will be part of Work B.C. What it will allow apprentices to do is to go on line and say: "I'm a second-year carpenter, and I would like to relocate or work or do these things." Employers will be able to choose or match and also post. Those are the kinds of things we want to do.

We do have a central registry at the moment. That has to be improved, and we're going to work to do that. But the most significant recommendation is No. 22 in the ITA report, which really says we have to do a better job of improving data collection, reporting, focusing on accuracy, looking at what else we need to do to provide information to government each year so that we can line up demand and supply. I think everyone recognizes that. I think the apprentices did reflect concerns.

One of the things that I think was really helpful about Ms. McDonald's report is that she went out and listened and talked to a lot of people. One of the reasons that her report was widely accepted is because she reflected their views in the report. It is very straightforward, and it does reflect apprentices and employers who have said: "You need to do a better job of this." I think recommendation 22 is geared at exactly what the member opposite brings up.

In addition to that, we're quite optimistic about the job match portion that will be on Work B.C. I'm advised that it should be up and running by the end of June so that we're not waiting; we're trying to move that forward. We definitely need to do a better job of the data collection, looking at the broader piece of informing employers,
[ Page 3827 ]
working more closely with apprentices. I think that's why there's a decision to return to a model of apprenticeship advisers, who are critical, to be those guides on the side for people who are going through what is a pretty complicated situation in many circumstances.

D. Routley: That ends my questions on this portion of the estimates. I'd like to thank the minister's staff for their contribution and thank the minister for her efforts at answering the questions. I want to wish them luck in addressing the significant problems that exist, but they're challenges that arise out of opportunity, so that's a positive thing. For the people of B.C., so much of our future well-being depends on how this all turns out.

To the staff as well as to the minister: I thank them for their dedication and devotion to the well-being of the province and the students of the province, and wish them luck in dealing with the problems.

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to say to the member opposite that I appreciate that the questions were very thoughtful. I think there are some areas of interest to both him and me that we could have some further discussion about, particularly the shared apprenticeship model. I think that is a critical thing, and we're looking for advice and input.

[1615]

I appreciate the commendations to the staff. They have worked incredibly hard over the last number of months to bring us to this place, and now we're going to work hard to implement. I appreciate the time spent with the questions from the member opposite.

L. Popham: We're going to switch to Small Business now. My first question is: what is the budget for Small Business? If the minister could tell me the list of priorities for Small Business and how much funds are allocated to each priority, that would be great.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm going to give you two numbers. The first one includes the program's strategic initiatives. They were Small Business Roundtable, Small Business B.C. and BizPaL The second number actually includes regulatory reform. I wasn't sure if the member opposite wanted just the small business. The first number is $2.475 million — almost $2.5 million. The second number, which would be $3.7 million, includes the reg reform.

Our priorities are funding Small Business B.C., making sure we oversee the BizPaL program and the mobile business licence program. We have the secretariat work that we do to support the Small Business Roundtable.

[1620]

Our strategic initiatives are the B.C. small business accord, procurement initiatives, succession planning, mobile training and the small business awareness strategy. Within each of these, obviously, there are some programs and things that we do. Once we get the program breakdown, which has not been finalized yet, we will be pleased to send the member opposite that information.

L. Popham: My next question will be around government procurement.

In the minister of state's mandate letter a key goal was to increase the percentage of government contracts procured by small business to at least 20 percent of the total contracts available. We chatted about that, and then I guess we decided that it was actually going to be a 20 percent increase in small business contracts. At that point we didn't have a baseline. I'm wondering if the minister has a baseline at this point?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The baseline actually is just an approximation, because from year to year we saw such huge differences in small business procurement. But the baseline that we've determined is $210 million. That's the amount of contracts that small businesses have received from government. So a 20 percent increase would be about $42 million.

L. Popham: One of the things about procurement contracts and using a baseline of dollars rather than the number of contracts is that we don't know how many small businesses are participating in those procurement contracts. Does the minister have a total?

[1625]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I apologize for the delay. One of the reasons that it took us so long to get to this baseline is that we actually don't have a provincewide accounting system that tracks contracts or discrete contracts. What we do have, though, is an accounting system that actually tracks payments.

What we have done, though, is eliminated from the total, from the overall purchasing of government, payments that were made — for example, GST payments, vacation payments, jury expenses, board and commission fees, debt-servicing payments. We have removed that out of the mix.

We've also removed non–business sector payments as well. We're not including that in the $210 million. That's removing any payment obviously made to a college or a university or a Crown corporation, the health authorities — things like that. We also removed any payments made to non-business entities, so bands and councils, committees, commissions, criminal record checks, election expenses or award ceremonies — things like that.

We also removed non-business payments from individual ministries. For example, from Education, we removed exam invigilators — I'm not exactly sure what they do — inspectors and curriculum reviews. From Advanced Education, we removed individuals who sit on degree review committees — so you can see that we've removed from various ministries. And government pay-
[ Page 3828 ]
ments — things that actually don't go to a small business and shouldn't really be counted in that.

I just wanted to set the context for the member opposite of how we came up with the $210 million. We don't have a single contract management system at present. As a result of the information on the number….We don't have information on the number or the value of the contracts that government gives to small businesses, so we're tracking the payments that we've made.

All procurement opportunities that businesses could compete to win were included while other provincial expenditures, as I just mentioned, were excluded.

[1630]

A. Weaver: I'm sorry. I missed the transition from the two members here. I was just hoping to ask a number of questions of the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and hope that at some point in the future I could be provided written answers. If I could pass them through you, hon. Chair, by the attendant here.

Hon. S. Bond: I would be delighted to do that and happy to meet and discuss them as well. Happy to do it.

L. Popham: I appreciate that answer. I understand what the minister is saying. But just to break it down a little bit more…. The $210 million that's left over after everything else is extracted — we're assuming that those are small business contracts. How can we make that assumption?

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: What we had staff do was select a random sample of 371 businesses. They were actually contacted personally. We found that they were indeed small businesses, although there is a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent. So 19 out of 20 of those 371 businesses that we contacted were, in fact, small businesses.

L. Popham: Are we sure that these are all B.C. businesses?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's fair to say that the vast majority of those businesses actually are British Columbia businesses. But because of the trade agreement that we have, the new west partnership, we can't actually exclude or have a government policy that only includes businesses from British Columbia.

L. Popham: Is the minister considering having a different type of tracking system so we can actually track the number of contracts and how they're broken down within the small business sector? Why I'm asking is because when I'm talking to the creative sector or the culinary sector, I am letting them know that government is open to increasing their small business contracts. But I don't know how we would ever reflect that that has had any effect.

I also at this point don't understand the steps that are being taken to increase those contracts.

[1635]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There are no plans right now to implement a contract management system. But the current system doesn't actually reside in the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. That would be something that would be decided corporate-wide. I'm actually not sure who owns that system right now, whether it's the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services or the Ministry of Finance.

The member opposite asked about how we would plan to increase the amount of small business procurement completed by government. One of the documents that I would draw the member opposite's attention to is the Doing Business with Government Project, the final report, which is dated March 2014. I'll just briefly go over the 12 recommendations and then provide the member opposite the report, because it goes into much more detail.

One of the things that came out when we talked to small businesses is that they were actually not aware of all the opportunities that they had to sell to government. So implementing a cost-effective small business outreach training approach to the existing business networks…. It doesn't have to be through us directly but through the chambers of commerce or CFIB. Community Futures was identified as one of our top recommendations.

The second one is to improve B.C. Bid functions to make it more user-friendly.

The third recommendation was to implement a strategy to communicate about existing and future contract opportunities that would likely be of interest to small businesses.

The fourth is to explore establishing a supplier management tool that facilitates an increase in small business procurement while meeting the needs of various programs and priorities of government.

The fifth is to encourage government's larger suppliers — I'll give you an example, like Telus — to actually promote opportunities to subcontract out their larger contract that they receive from us to small businesses and also to encourage and promote and recognize those large businesses that currently do that.

The sixth recommendation, generally, was to improve information and resources to support small businesses. So the sixth, seventh and eighth were to do that.

[1640]

Then the ninth, tenth, 11th and 12th recommendations all had to do with kind of cutting red tape and increasing small business participation by streamlining the procurement process and template.

As the member opposite knows, 98 percent of all busi-
[ Page 3829 ]
nesses in B.C. are small businesses. How we define small business is: any business that has 50 employees or less. But the overwhelming majority, over 80 percent of that 98 percent, actually have five or fewer employees. We need to make sure that we actually have a procurement system, an RFP, that is easy for small businesses to handle.

Then we want to implement a new policy, an approach for welcoming new ideas. In other words — and I love this one — government doesn't often know what it doesn't know. What about those opportunities that small businesses see and can identify that perhaps government is not actually looking out to procure but perhaps could save government money or do something differently. We're looking at avenues to do that.

We want to explore further ways to achieve government mandates and objectives through government's procuring decisions. How we'll do that is to develop recommendations and feedback and ultimately make changes that are necessary when small businesses are asking us, or asking government, on how to better sell to government.

We often don't do a good job of actually getting back to businesses that, frankly, don't win a contract. So the 12th recommendation is: establish clear accountability for reporting out on all results and tracking through the Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business. Accountability for implementation of each recommendation is detailed in this report. We'd be pleased to provide that to you.

L. Popham: I'd appreciate a copy of that report.

One of the things that I'm finding…. I know that the minister mentioned that there are ambassadors for this idea within the business community. A lot of times I feel like I'm also an ambassador of this idea. I completely support the idea of increasing our procurement contracts — 100 percent. But one of the things I'm finding is that we are still, I believe, missing part of the sector.

I'm not finding that there's any knowledge of this within the creative sector, as one example. The book publishing industry — that's just one of them, I guess. But any group within the creative sector is unaware that there might be an opportunity. I'm wondering how we can maybe work on that. Also within the culinary sector — the restaurant industry, the catering sector — just another example where I'm not finding there's a lot of knowledge of this idea. I'd be really happy and enthusiastic to hear the minister's answer.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: To the member opposite: thank you for your enthusiasm and support of this. I'm equally as excited about the opportunities. One thing that the report and our consultation showed us clearly — and I've mentioned it already — is that most small businesses actually don't know how government works. Most small businesses don't know even how to access opportunities. So it is a huge communications gap that we need to close.

[1645]

When I mentioned to the member opposite that we are working with the B.C. chamber and other broad-based business organizations, it doesn't preclude working with the agriculture sector — buying local or buy-B.C. types of programs.

The member opposite mentioned the creative sector, book publishing, the culinary sector. We have a Small Business Roundtable with representatives from various sectors, and we'll certainly use the Small Business Roundtable to consult with and push out those ideas.

I'd welcome the member opposite, if there's anything the member would like to help us support, in particular. We would be more than happy to get the member opposite's input. As the member opposite mentioned, this is really important. There are a lot of businesses out there, and most of them, frankly, aren't aware of the opportunities. Having said that, there are a few sectors that really understand this well, but we do certainly want to increase the awareness overall.

L. Popham: I appreciate that. I'd love to participate in any way I can.

One of the topics I brought up last summer is one of my hobby horses, I guess: that is, trying to find ways to get more of our B.C. products on our B.C. ferries as a showcase to the tourism world. I'm wondering if the minister has had any conversations with B.C. Ferries. I know that B.C. Ferries purchasing does not fall under the purview of the responsibilities of the minister, but I think it's an avenue that we are often missing.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, I remember the member opposite asking that question last year. We did contact B.C. Ferries and asked about their policy. What they did tell us is that they don't have a formal policy requiring the gift shop to buy B.C. But they do know — because they're smart marketers — that there is a demand for B.C. products.

What they did let us know…. I don't have a complete list here, but they do carry food products. This is not just in the gift shop. In the ferry lineup there are the markets and booths. They have clothing, jewelry, books, artwork or crafts that they know people actually do want to purchase. They seem to be doing well, because apparently, they've seen revenues actually increase year over year.

[1650]

L. Popham: That's good to know.

I'm going to be switching to a topic that is a…. I understand the general idea of it doesn't fall under the purview of this minister, but I think it's something that affects small business greatly. That's the policy that's coming into place on Monday — MMBC.

After a lot of pressure, there were some exemptions
[ Page 3830 ]
made for small businesses, and given that they met at least one of the four criteria, they were going to be exempted from the program. But there are still very many small businesses that are going to be affected by MMBC. So I just wanted to touch on a few things that I'm concerned about around small business.

The small businesses that I've been talking to that are going to be severely affected are recycling businesses. This would include Return-It depots; hauling companies, like Alpine; processors, like Syntal and Fraser Plastics. The list goes on and on, and I'm sure the minister has heard from many of these businesses as well.

I'm just wondering if the minister is concerned about the effects there will be on these small businesses. Also, does the minister have any idea how many small businesses will be affected negatively by MMBC?

[1655]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I recognize that there will be some businesses, large and small, that are going to be impacted by small business…. That's why I did work with my colleague in the Ministry of Environment to look at ways that we could exempt as many of the small businesses as we could from being captured under that umbrella.

MMBC has anticipated that it'll be about 2,000 to 3,000 businesses in British Columbia that will be captured under the MMBC umbrella. That's about 1 percent of all businesses in British Columbia. The overwhelming majority of the cost of the MMBC program will be actually borne by about 150 companies, and these are fairly large companies in British Columbia.

I'm not trying to minimize the impact that MMBC will be having on some of the businesses in British Columbia. But what we did do was to work with the business community upon hearing their concerns and, as the member opposite knows, came up with the three criteria, of which the businesses had to meet just one of the three and they would be exempt from MMBC's fees.

The member mentioned four, but I'm going to mention the three that I know of. That is, a business in British Columbia would be exempt if they put less than one tonne of packaging or printed paper into the residential waste stream, or if they have less than $1 million in annual revenue, or if they operate as a single point of retail sale and are not supplied by or operated as part of a franchise, a chain or under a banner.

L. Popham: I am quite familiar with that. I guess my concern is not only for the businesses that aren't exempted. There are businesses that don't fall under the requirements of MMBC but are still going to be affected by MMBC due to losing contracts, such as the recycling companies.

Has the minister called a specific meeting of the Small Business Roundtable on MMBC?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The Small Business Roundtable did have a meeting where MMBC was discussed and concerns were raised. One of the avenues we had to address the small business concerns, obviously — and it fed into the exemption limits — came from the Small Business Roundtable, although the B.C. Chamber of Commerce network and the chambers were certainly very influential in that respect.

The contracts to the recycling companies and the bidding process were open and transparent. It was market-driven.

I'll just remind the member opposite that the authority that MMBC has been provided to issue an RFP to select recycling providers and the conditions of the agreement are actually under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment.

L. Popham: I understand what the minister is saying, and I understand it's under the Ministry of Environment. But as a champion of small business, I would expect that the Minister of State for Small Business would be especially concerned about this.

One of the things that the ministry is touting as quite a large success is the reduction of red tape. MMBC is considered a red-tape monster. In fact, the requirements for paperwork with MMBC are enormous, and some businesses are publicly stating that they don't have the employees or the departments in order to fulfil the requirements of the paperwork with MMBC.

[1700]

How does the minister explain that we may have reduced some red tape over the last year, but we have now increased it substantially?

I have one business that doesn't necessarily fit under the MMBC requirements but lost out on a bid for a contract, was not able to even grapple with the paperwork involved, so after 20 years of being in business, is now going out of business.

There may have been, in the mind of the minister, a fair process, but there are businesses that didn't even have the time to deal with the mountains of paperwork that came in, in order for them to even be in the bidding process.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member is aware of the small business policy, which we just talked about. As a champion of small business, I didn't just champion within government. My colleagues who are responsible for the environmental stewardship policy…. We also championed this with MMBC as well.

One of the things MMBC did that we were quite pleased with is they created two levels for low-volume producers so that small businesses weren't overburdened by paperwork. I don't have it in front of me, but depending on the volume of recycling or the printed paper and packaging, if you're between one…. If you didn't fall within the small business policy and you were just over
[ Page 3831 ]
that, then if you produced anywhere from, I think, one million to 1.5 million tonnes or two million tonnes — there was a second tier after that — you would just have to pay a flat fee of, I believe, $550. It could have been $1,200 for the second level.

Again, it was so that small businesses or businesses did not actually have to weigh and measure and do all the paperwork, which we recognize would be considerable. This would help businesses not have to do all the onerous weighing and reporting but simply remit a flat fee.

[1705]

L. Popham: I think the point I'm trying to make is that there are unintended consequences of MMBC, and that might apply to some businesses. But there are other businesses that fall outside of that, and the red-tape burden is massive.

There are also businesses that are going to be paying up to $10,000. That's money that's not going into their pockets anymore. It's hard to run a small business. I know the minister knows that. An extra $10,000, an extra bill of $10,000, does make a big difference in the small business world.

MMBC will be collecting $100 million from business in B.C. In fact, on their website they have now increased that to $110 million per year. How much of that will be levied on small business?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No, we don't actually have the breakdown for the cost to small businesses or large businesses, other than what I previously mentioned to the member opposite — that 80 percent of the cost of the program will be borne by about 150 companies and then the balance of the program by the 2,500 or so businesses. I would suggest to the member opposite that she best direct that question to MMBC.

L. Popham: Again, I'd just like to, I guess, make a statement before I move on to my next question about unintended consequences of MMBC.

One of the sectors that's going to be affected in a huge way is the newspaper sector. I know that's not under the responsibility of the minister, but what the newspaper sector has stated is that because of the $13 million that they will now be responsible for, their business plan won't work. They're already struggling as it is. This is the final nail in the coffin, and they will have to shut down community newspapers. Specifically, I'm talking about Black Press.

The unintended consequence of that for small business is that our small business owners in our rural communities use these newspapers as one of their only ways of advertising within the community. I'm wondering if the minister has had conversations at the Small Business Roundtable, specifically, about advertising and small business.

But I'm going to move on to something else, because I'm probably going to be running out of time. Can the minister tell me how many small businesses in B.C. are part of the recycling sector, and do any of them sit at the Small Business Roundtable?

[1710]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No, there is not a member from the recycling sector on the Small Business Roundtable. From what I understand, many of the small community newspapers actually fall within the small business exemption, so they will not be captured under MMBC. These are the smaller ones that are the one location or sales under $1 million or revenue under $1 million. They will not have to pay a fee or be captured under MMBC recycling regulations.

Just as an additional comment because I failed to make this point in the previous question the member opposite posed, I've been told there are about 20 small businesses in the recycling sector that actually will be receiving contracts. These are subcontracts from the companies that were the successful bidders to recycle for MMBC.

L. Popham: Can the minister confirm for me how many independent newspapers there are in British Columbia?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No, I can't, but we can get that information to the member opposite.

L. Popham: This isn't so much a question. But I would assume that the majority of community newspapers probably fall under Black Press in B.C. — or a huge majority of them. I do believe that they fall under the MMBC guidelines. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Actually, I'm not even sure of the member opposite's first question. I believe you asked whether the community newspapers that were under the Black Press chain would be captured. I believe the answer is yes. They would be under MMBC. But I do understand that the Minister of Environment is talking to the newspaper community to address some of the concerns that they do have.

L. Popham: I also failed to mention Glacier, which is also going to be in charge of community newspapers in B.C. And I'm not hounding the minister at all on the newspaper issue. I understand that should be directed towards a different minister. But I'm just trying to establish that there are unintended consequences, and if these newspapers leave our communities, it does have an effect on small business — not necessarily under the regulations of MMBC. But certainly, if there's a void in their advertising ability, it's a huge thing.

[1715]

My last question will be regarding…. As the minister reports out on successes of the ministry annually, will MMBC be part of the reporting, included in the reporting requirements and red-tape requirements? As the minister shows the success in reducing red tape, is MMBC going to be included in that equation?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Currently the red-tape count, the regulatory reform program, does not include organizations, agencies or Crown corporations. It only includes the regulatory count within government. MMBC is not part of that. It's a not-for-profit organization that has been created by the private sector.

B. Ralston: I'm going to switch topics to the provincial aspect of immigration. I don't know whether the minister may want to draw some other staff forward to assist.

I appreciate the minister drawing the staff together. I don't know whether she wishes to introduce them at this point, but perhaps in her first answer she'll have that opportunity.

As the minister knows, under section 95 of the Constitution Act, the provinces have concurrent power over immigration, which is only the case in agriculture and immigration in the Canadian constitution. I'm quoting from an authority in Canadian constitutional law, lest the minister feel that she has to rely on my mere assertion for that fact.

All the provinces have immigration agreements with the federal government, and perhaps the most comprehensive — as the minister, I'm sure, is aware — is with Quebec:

"The Quebec agreement grants to the province the authority to set its own immigration targets, to select most of the immigrants who want to settle in the province and to provide social services to new immigrants, such as reception orientation, counselling, language training and assistance in preparing for and finding employment. No other province sets its own immigration targets or selects the bulk of its immigrants."

Obviously, there are some provincial agreements — most notably, the provincial nominee program. I looked at the service plan, and there is a reference to the provincial nominee program.

Is there any intention on the part of the government to pursue, in the provincial immigration jurisdiction, broader agreements with the federal government — not necessarily as comprehensive as the Quebec agreement but, for example, an expansion of the provincial nominee program? I think the numbers are about 4,000 a year. Is there any intention to expand any of those agreements with the federal government?

[1720]

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to introduce the staff that have joined me now. We've had a series of people in and out. I very much appreciate that they've taken a lot of hours out of their days to be here. I think we're in day 4 here now. Trevor Hughes is the ADM for Labour. We have Scott MacDonald, Keith Godin and Ian Mellor, who are all related to the immigration file in one way or another. We very much appreciate their work.

In terms of the PNP program, yes, we are seeking an increase in the number that British Columbia currently is allocated. Prior to this year we had 3,800 spaces. We presented a business case. We have to present a business case to the federal government. In that business case we requested an increase to 5,000 this year and increases in the following years as well.

Unfortunately, we were only given 4,150. I have, on numerous occasions, contacted the federal minister to indicate that we believe that British Columbia's number needs to be proportionate with its population.

[1725]

There are provinces in our country today that certainly do not compare to British Columbia in terms of its population and that have higher numbers of PNP nominees than we do. We are working aggressively to see that number increase. We had requested 5,000 this year, and 4,150 was the change that we were given.

We're also working with the federal government on a program where they are looking at how they better connect immigration with economic immigration — in other words, highly skilled individuals who are needed in our country. It's called express entry. We've had the opportunity to co-host two information sessions here in British Columbia with the federal government, looking at how that might be helpful to our province — again, focused very much on economic immigration, looking at how we can connect individuals around the world with employers and looking at how we can assist them in terms of immigration into Canada.

The last thing I'd want to mention is that our current agreement expires in April of 2015, and we're currently in the process of renegotiating that. We certainly don't expect major change other than the fact that settlement services have been repatriated by the federal government. They are managing settlement services. We're obviously in a transition phase, so that would not be something that would be covered in that agreement.

B. Ralston: As the minister is aware, the immigration system divides professions into four different levels of skill in five categories of the national occupation classification. They usually refer to it by the acronym NOC.

I looked in Work B.C. and in statistics B.C. for the breakdown of the skills of people who enter under the PNP program. Also on the website there's eligibility criteria, and it gives some of the categories.

Can the minister perhaps direct me, if it exists, to where the specific breakdown under those NOC categories — high-skill versus low-skill…? My sense is that, very much like the temporary foreign worker program, the provincial nominee program has been largely focused
[ Page 3833 ]
on low-skilled or lower-skilled entrants. Can the minister direct me to the statistical base for that and prove me wrong or prove me right?

[1730]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: The numbers are not currently published in terms of the percentages of how our nominees line up with the NOC classifications. We are looking at how we can do that, and certainly I'm happy to share those numbers with the member opposite once we can do that post the estimates debate.

What I can say is that the percentage of 2013 nominations…. And there are categories that line up, as the member pointed out.

Skilled workers, which would include NOC zero, A and B, which includes managerial, professional, skilled and technical, actually accounts for 62 percent of our nominations. International students are 13 percent. International postgraduates pilot project is 10 percent. Then entry-level and semi-skilled workers, which would include kitchen helpers, food prep, light-duty cleaners, truck drivers — those kinds of semi-skilled workers — would account for 15 percent of our nominations.

B. Ralston: Just so we're clear, then, the actual total is about 4,000? It's 15 percent, say, of 4,000, which would be 600 workers. Is that right?

Hon. S. Bond: The percentages that I attributed were based on 2013 nominations. At that time, we only had 3,800. For 2014 those numbers will be based on 4,150.

B. Ralston: Just so it doesn't become a private correspondence or communication between the minister and my office, the minister is committing, then, to release publicly the total number of actual occupations selected under this program in each year? The NOC categorization, as the staff will advise, is very specific. There are several thousand of them. You get a fairly good idea of what occupations were being selected under this program.

[1735]

I just want to confirm on the record that that is the intention of the minister and that that information will be provided publicly for anyone who chooses to read the transcript and look for that information.

Hon. S. Bond: To be clear to the member opposite, as I said earlier, I am looking for a way to make these public. But I also need to work within the parameters of the federal program. I'm not aware of whether there's an issue with that. What I am prepared to do, as I always am in estimates, is share the information as a response to the request from the member directly. I'm happy to do that while I continue.

My question has been: why aren't they made public? Are they made public in other parts of the country? We're working on that as we speak. I have no issue. I'm saying it publicly now that skilled workers are 62 percent of 2013, international students are 13, the international postgraduate pilot project is 10 percent, and entry-level and semi-skilled workers is 15 percent.

I am looking to ensure that it is within protocol for us to be able to post that more formally. I will do that. In the meantime, I will certainly respond with this detail and any other that we can around the question the member asked.

B. Ralston: Thank you for that. I think that clarifies that.

On the website speaking of this program there's an entry that talks about eligible employers using the PNP. The reference is to having a history of good workplace and business practices. "Your business must be financially sound and have a history of good workplace and business practices, including complying with all applicable employment, labour, immigration, health and safety laws and regulations."

What independent verification of representations made by employers are done to ascertain that employers who seek to benefit from this program are, in fact, good employers? As the minister will be aware, there are, on occasion, people who abuse the program.

[1740]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, whenever someone is looking to recruit from offshore, there are a number of things that are checked. That would be recruitment efforts — that is critical — and wages that they are paying would be another critical item that would be checked and validated.

We also look at risk. So we look at where there might be more risk, and in that case, there would be a more rigorous process even yet from the one that is done more generally. In that case, things that would be looked at would consider payroll records, looking at whether or not people are being paid overtime — all of those things that would try to reduce the risk in ensuring these processes are followed.

There is a process. The federal government, obviously, also looks at a number of issues, but we look at recruitment efforts to make sure they have made an effort to look for British Columbians, Canadians, first and wages that they're paying. Then we look at a subset in terms of their degree of risk. Are there employers who present a higher degree of risk? We would then look at their payroll records and more specific data around overtime, etc.

B. Ralston: Presumably, there are on occasion complaints. If an employer is investigated and found to have abused the program, first of all, where is the name of that employer published, and where is it publicly accessible?
[ Page 3834 ]
Secondly, are they then denied further access to the program? I believe in other provinces there are provisions to that effect. In Alberta, for example, I understand that may be the case. I'm interested in enforcement and publicity that's directed to people who abuse the program.

[1745-1750]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, any time that a complaint is filed, we investigate to ensure that employers are treating workers appropriately in British Columbia. The most common concern is about the appropriate payment to the person who is working for the employer.

We do not publicly post, and we're unaware…. I don't know whether there's some confusion on my part or the member's part. I'm certainly, at this point — or my team is — unaware of PNP complaints or a list related to the public disclosure of employers regarding PNP.

Certainly, on the temporary foreign worker side there is a registry in Manitoba and there is a mechanism in Alberta which we are currently looking at — whether or not British Columbia would adopt one or both or a hybrid of those. But that is more related to the temporary foreign worker program.

There is also an opportunity for the employer, if it is a wage-related issue, to fix that issue. And we do, in cases where it appears the employer was either unaware or…. There is an opportunity provided to the employer to fix the wage issue. Having said that, there are cases also where we do not proceed with applications and would not continue to proceed with a particular employer based on their record.

So there is a complaints process. We do investigate. Employers, if it is a wage-related issue in particular, are given the opportunity to fix that problem, to protect workers and make sure that they are being paid appropriately.

Again, we certainly, at this point, do not publish those names. My staff advised me that they are unaware as to whether other jurisdictions publish names on the immigration side, the PNP side. Certainly, that is beginning to be the case on the temporary foreign worker side.

B. Ralston: Well, we'll deal with the temporary foreign workers. I have a couple questions there before we end. It may very well be that people don't complain because the prospect at the end of a successful completion here is landed immigrant status and people are prepared simply to suck up a certain amount of abuse just to get landed immigrant status — which may be the reality, although the unfortunate reality in some cases.

In the Alberta program…. This is what they call the immigrant nominee program. For example, in the food and beverage service and room attendants they have what they call a maximum number of allocations per calendar year. For example, in an establishment that has one to 50 rooms, you get two allocations per calendar year; 51 to 100, four allocations; and so on up.

Is there any limitation on the number of provincial nominees that any one employer may employ in a calendar year?

[1755]

Hon. S. Bond: I would like to, first of all, agree with the member opposite. I would certainly hope that, in order to earn landed immigrant status, workers don't tolerate or accept bad or abusive behaviour by employers. I certainly hope that's not the case. We have a role to play in ensuring, when employers do behave badly, that that should certainly be the last time that they are able to bring workers into our country.

Alberta does have a formula. We're not aware of any other jurisdiction. I'm advised that…. Our staff is not aware of any other jurisdiction that has a formula.

What we do is look at the pattern individually for the employers. We look at the number that they have currently. We look at whether or not there are significant increases. More importantly, we look at retention — whether or not there's been a successful engagement with that employee. Admittedly, we use more discretion than they would with the Alberta formula.

So there is not a formula in place. But we do review the cases, look at patterns and would be, obviously, paying attention to the increasing numbers and would look at it from that perspective.

B. Ralston: I now want to turn to a few questions, in the time that remains, about the provincial aspect of the temporary foreign worker program. In the Globe and Mail there was a link to what's called the integrity division of the temporary foreign worker program, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. It's about 75 pages, with 80 employers per page, so it's thousands and thousands of them. These are only in British Columbia.

In that list, which I have here, there are a number of public sector employers. Just let me read out some of the ones I've selected to the minister for her comment: the Minister of Children and Family Development; Northern Health Authority; Northern Lights College; the PHSA; B.C. Cancer Agency; Providence Health Care; Provincial Health Services Authority; Provincial Health Services Authority, B.C. Women's Hospital; Provincial Health Services Authority, B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre; Public Guardian and Trustee, Province of British Columbia.

Simon Fraser University is another one, and the University of British Columbia and Thompson Rivers University. At UBC there are a number of departments: UBC, classics; UBC, department of psychiatry; UBC, anthropology; UBC, sociology. There are various departments at UBC — about 25 or 30 departments and the University of British Columbia counselling service.

Also, the University of Northern British Columbia;
[ Page 3835 ]
the University of Victoria; the University of Victoria, NEPTUNE; Vancouver Coastal Health Authority; Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, psychology internship program; Vancouver Community College; Vancouver Island Health Authority.

Can the minister…? I know there's no registration required, as there is in Manitoba, where employers are required to register so there would be some provincial awareness. Is the minister at all aware of what appears to be extensive hiring of temporary foreign workers by public authorities?

[1800]

Obviously, there are conceivably many legitimate explanations for that — visiting professors or graduate students who take over things, researchers who come from other countries for a certain period of time to work in, say, the Cancer Agency. I'm not suggesting, by any means, that all of these are illegitimate. I just was rather surprised by the number and the range of people who appear to be temporary foreign workers on this federal document who are employed by publicly funded authorities here in British Columbia.

If the priority is, as the minister says, British Columbians first, Canadians second — I suppose landed Canadians and landed immigrants — and then and only then would one move to temporary foreign workers…. First of all, is the minister aware of this? Then I have some follow-up questions.

Hon. S. Bond: This is one of the challenges that I certainly have faced in question period, because taking the time to describe the answers to this is complicated. It's easy to say that there are significant numbers of temporary foreign workers in our province, but there are categories, for which the total of temporary foreign workers in British Columbia today is — well, this would have been as of December 2012 — 74,345.

There are legitimate and appropriate categories, I'm sure. I can't speak to the one at UBC or SFU or other public entities, but there are categories which capture many of those public institutions, I am sure, and they are all legitimately captured under the title of temporary foreign workers.

I have mentioned one previously, which is the youth reciprocal employment program. That is 29,698 of those 74,000-plus workers. That's 39 percent. The next-highest category would be academic. In this case, it is for professors and research-related positions which brings quality…. It is about facilitating knowledge transfer, so it happens around the world. An LMO is not required because this is a permit that is tied to the employer, and there are legitimate reasons for bringing academics into our province — 12 percent of the temporary foreign workers in our province.

We're now up to 51 percent of temporary foreign workers either captured in the youth reciprocal employment program or the academic program. There are intercompany temporary foreign workers — 5,363 of them — employed by a company in the source company in Canada, defined for a very specific project. They bring established leaders and specialists to develop new business opportunities in Canada. There is a very significant number of categories.

When we go to low-skilled, which is where the member and, rightly, British Columbians are most concerned, they represent 3 percent of our temporary foreign workers. As of December 1, 2012, there were 2,186 low-skilled workers. That would include…. And I really think the category title is unfortunate, but that is what it is called. Lower-skilled occupations include truck drivers, food service and heavy-equipment operators.

The smallest percentage of temporary foreign workers in British Columbia today is lower-skilled workers. As of December 1, 2012, out of 74,345, there were 2,186 in the low-skilled category.

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate the minister's attempt to explain that. It does appear that some suppositions are being made. The minister did mention earlier that the Manitoba act, the Worker Recruitment and Protection Act…. I have here a document from their website: "Recruitment of foreign workers employer registration application for certificate of registration." The information is collected, and it's available.

[1805]

Does the minister not see that this is, at the very least, given the very difficulty the minister has had in explaining why a vast range of public authorities are employing temporary foreign workers — albeit some, I'm sure, for entirely legitimate reasons…? The inability to explain it other than by supposition seems to be a real failing, in my view. Does that encourage the minister to consider what is the case in Manitoba, where employers, fully within provincial jurisdiction, would be required to register?

Then there would be some kind of idea and ability to disclose publicly in a meaningful way what categories these temporary foreign workers fall into and perhaps demonstrate to the public, who I think at this point are fairly skeptical, that this isn't simply a low-wage policy for employers to undercut the wages of Canadian citizens and landed immigrants but in fact serves a legitimate purpose in our economy.

Hon. S. Bond: The difficulty in explaining…. It was only referenced because in question period you get one minute to try to explain how there are 74,000 people spread across a number of categories, which, by the way, would include agriculture, live-in caregivers, high skilled, intercompany, spouses. In fact, 7 percent of our temporary foreign workers are related to family unification. When you think about that number, that's over 5,000.
[ Page 3836 ]

I'm acutely aware of the public's interest in transparency. In fact, that's why some time ago I asked my staff to look at both the Manitoba model and the Alberta model, but also being aware of the fact that the federal government is in the process of making additional change.

I have asked for a number of options to be presented to me about whether or not we look at a registry, whether or not we look at, as I said, a hybrid model with some of Alberta's work. That work is underway and has been for quite some time. I think that additional transparency is important for British Columbians. But I also think it is critical that….

I absolutely understand the member opposite's concern, as I have a number of colleagues who have spoken to me about this matter from the opposition. There is also the need for us to recognize that there are legitimate circumstances in British Columbia where temporary foreign workers may be required. Not that they are required or that they should be required — it's that they may be required.

What is incumbent upon the federal government program and the provinces working in collaboration with them is to ensure the program is rigorous, that there has to be demonstrated need and that when an employer takes advantage of workers, there are consequences for that.

My view is that it is British Columbians and Canadians first — absolutely. But I also think we need to be pragmatic. We've had mayors from northern communities and we've had others speaking up over the last number of weeks saying, yes, we need to crack down. Yes, we need to make sure that abuse is not tolerated. But there will be times in British Columbia where there is a legitimate need for temporary foreign workers.

It's a matter of finding the process that works most effectively to ensure that abuses are minimized and that there is a rigorous process in place to make sure that it is a last resort, not a first resort.

B. Ralston: The minister has spoken about the need to crack down. I think this has been quoted to the minister before in question period. She didn't make a comment then. Obviously, I understand the limitations of question period, so I want to give her an opportunity to respond here.

I'm quoting from the federal immigration minister, Jason Kenney, who said in the Vancouver Sun of December 20, speaking of the fines in the Employment Standards Act: "The sanction appears to be quite modest in British Columbia. I would encourage them to consider in the future increasing the fine to send a strong message."

The then minister, Pat Bell, who the minister knows very well, as do we all from his time here in the Legislature, in the Vancouver Sun, January 30, 2013, said he would consider increasing fines and there have been no changes announced. "As a first offence, $500 seems pretty modest. If we have to step that up I'm fine with it."

First of all, a comment on that.

[1810]

Secondly, again, I looked on Work B.C., employment standards and statistics B.C. Could the minister direct me to the location where those employers who have violated the Employment Standards Act in these circumstances — where their names are public, and the fine or other assessment they've been given is published in order that bad employers might at least have the sanction of some minimal public notoriety? I think that's a well-established principle in criminal law and a general deterrence — that the person's name be held up publicly so that they might experience the opprobrium of the community around them.

So those two questions: comment on Mr. Kenney and Mr. Bell and what steps have been taken since January 2013 to do that; and secondly, just the location where — I presume there are occasions when this happens — those names might be found.

Hon. S. Bond: We do not publish the name of employers. It is something that I have asked my staff to look at — not this afternoon but in the last number of months. It is currently not done. It is not the practice, and we have not done that.

As I said to the member opposite, I'm very interested in the Manitoba and Alberta model. We're having a look at whether or not we should register employees. In terms of Minister Bell's comments, I don't disagree with him that looking at the $500 fine is something that is being reviewed. I can't speak to what happened after he made those comments.

But certainly, as the minister now responsible, what I've asked for is…. The federal government is in the process of making a series of changes. In fact, they've already made some. They've announced they're going to make more. So what I've asked my staff to do is look at a suite of options that look at what exists today, what the federal government changes mean in terms of….

This is a federally managed program, and I am not for one moment sidestepping the fact that the province can and should and does have a role in making sure that our employers understand their expectation.

[1815]

There is a large body of work being done that is looking at the very kinds of things the member has spoken about and that Minister Bell commented on: the fines, making the names public, all of those kinds of things. We're doing that in the context of what is a federal program and a series of changes that are underway.

I do want to say this. I think that employers in British Columbia need to understand that if they are interested or find it necessary to seek a temporary foreign worker in our province, they need to clearly demonstrate the need, they need to expressly go through the rigorous pro-
[ Page 3837 ]
cess, and if they decide that they want to abuse that last resort for skilled workers in this province, there should be consequences.

I have no problem. The federal government is now talking about blacklisting employers. We are certainly looking at, right now, whether or not that is a potential here in British Columbia, but we should be clear: abuses of the system should not be tolerated. We're currently exploring where we fit in that federal program and in the context of what has emerged over the last number of months.

B. Ralston: Just judging from the hour, this will likely be the last question. The minister will be relieved to hear that, perhaps, and so will her staff.

There is a deadline looming. Effective April 2011 nearly all temporary foreign workers were subject to the four-year cumulative duration on the length of time they may work in Canada. Now, there are exceptions — NOC A-category workers, seasonal agricultural worker program and applicants for permanent residence who have received approval-in-principle, which includes live-in caregivers.

Those exceptions aside, people who reach that four-year limit are then obliged to leave Canada for four years. One can look south of the border and perhaps surmise that some of the people who are asked to leave, who come to the end of the four years and in fact lose their legal status, will go underground. They will stay here without legal status. In fact, there's a whole host of people, millions in the United States, who — first of all, sometimes enter the country illegally — originally have legal status, lose it and don't leave the country.

What discussions is the minister having with the federal minister for the possibility that people reach this four-year cumulative duration limit, are no longer permitted to be in Canada as temporary foreign workers and fail to leave? What contingency plans are being made to deal with that possibility?

Hon. S. Bond: While there is a concern, the circumstances are different in Canada and in British Columbia. There is a pathway to permanent residency here.

In fact, when I look at the numbers…. When we look at 2011, for example, 18 percent of new permanent residents were previously temporary foreign workers. If you look at economic immigrants, in 2011, 23 percent of economic immigrants were previously temporary foreign workers. We would much prefer to see a temporary foreign worker on a pathway to becoming a permanent resident of British Columbia, so that is different.

[1820]

There is a requirement, in our case, for a temporary foreign worker…. An employer has the obligation to actually physically return that person, by flight, to their country of origin, so there are some different expectations.

I'm not at all dismissing the concerns expressed by the member opposite, but there has been a great deal of discussion at the federal level with ministers from across the country about the evolution of these programs. I am sure that when we next meet again, those will be even more heightened than they were the last time.

I can tell the member opposite that one of the things that immigration ministers across the country agree on is that our focus needs to be on economic immigration, on high-skilled workers where there are shortages. That certainly has been a discussion with Minister Alexander, who is the person responsible for the immigration part of the program.

I appreciate the member opposite's questions.

Vote 30: ministry operations, $183,688,000 — approved.

Vote 31: labour programs, $14,697,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise, report resolution of Votes 30 and 31 of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:22 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