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)

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 2

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

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Horne: We have a political science class from the University of Victoria spending the afternoon meeting with members and learning about civic engagement. This course, "Public Policy and Analysis: the Art of Engagement", is led by Prof. Sarah Wiebe, a former legislative intern from 2007. Would the House make them truly welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call in this House second reading continued on Bill 24, intituled the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be continuing the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry Responsible for Core Review. Should that finish, we would then move to the Ministry of Finance.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

J. Shin: I'm happy to resume my place in this debate. Before we rose for the break, I was sharing with the House the history of the ALR, as I have learned it, and the public reception of the legislation at that time, in 1972, when the announcement was made.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

Understandably, the legislation announcement set off a frenzy of rezoning applications by the landowners hoping to make changes before the legislation went through. The Agriculture Minister then responded by introducing a farmland freeze order-in-council, which halted the agricultural land subdivisions immediately. The new statute created the Provincial Land Commission as well, a five-person body then tasked with designating ALR sites around the province. The commission, as it turns out, set up their headquarters in a long, narrow office in Burnaby, actually.

[1335]

Now, what became apparent in this process was that saving farmland was one thing, but saving the farmers was another. The two needed to go hand in hand for the agricultural viability of this province. The New Democrats — the government then — recognized more so than the Socreds ever did at that time that farming was a tough gig. It was a tough gig to be in, especially in terms of its profitability.

While many farmers held profound pride and found joy in their trade — planting seeds, watching them produce, supplying the market with the harvest — the business didn't command sufficient praise to make reasonable return on investment of all of their work. Unlike other industries…. Let's look at LNG, for example, with ROI expected at about 15 percent of the capital. We can't expect that kind of a return, that level of return, in farming.

It is known to most of us that farming is a perennially difficult business economically for any given farmer, especially when Mother Nature throws a curveball at you every now and then with severe frost just as the apple blooms are opening, drought or hailstorms, for example.

Something had to be done. If you take from the farmers their pension plan, which depended on the eventual sale or non-agricultural application of their property, you need to give them something else. You need to equip them with a better alternative for more profitable prospects in farming that would allow them to use that surplus towards their retirement plans.

That's, essentially, exactly what Dave Barrett came up with, which was called the "four pillars," that included the Farm Income Insurance Act, the Agricultural Credit Act, the Farm Product Industry Act and the Agricultural Land Development Act.

The farm income insurance program, in particular, is what I think is worth for us to spend a bit of time on. Not only was that program precisely the kind of support we should be exploring for our farmers today, but it's just the right way of doing things, period, instead of fracturing a perfectly sound and ever more imperative ALR.

The Barrett government wanted a support program for the farmers structured in an effective way, because nobody wants to see another subsidy program that may be rewarding inefficiencies. The way this farm income insurance program evolved is that the government would guarantee a portion of the cost of production of a particular crop for the farmer.

The cost of production was determined in consultation with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture officials and market experts, based on a rolling average of the production volume. For example, if it is determined that the average industry cost of production is, let's say, ten cents per pound of apples, and the farm typically produces 100,000 pounds annually, on average, then it'd be ten cents times 100,000 pounds. That would work out to be about $10,000, which would be assumed as the general cost of production.

Assuring a part of that — say, about two-thirds of that cost, which would be about $6,700 dollars — that the
[ Page 3864 ]
farmer can count on from the government if the weather events yielded worse returns that year, leaving the farmer without a profit for the year and his investment for the year lost — having that $6,700 — meant a lot for these farmers. It gave them confidence.

The program wasn't necessarily providing income for the farmers, so to speak, but rather, it provided assurance that the natural risks of this farming business would be covered for. For the first time in B.C. history, the farmers knew they wouldn't go broke in a bad year — that they would have some cost recouped for capital to try again next year.

What this program did was give the farming community the confidence that didn't exist previously, and that single stipulation invigorated the agricultural industry in the Okanagan Valley and beyond.

The climatologist that I interviewed last week actually, who grew up on a family farm, jogged his memory during this particular period in the '70s with this insurance program that was in place. He told me: "The farmers were investing in their trade. They were buying new tractors and planting more crops creatively, because they felt so confident about the risks being moderated for them by the government that they wouldn't be hung out to dry in bad years."

[1340]

Farmers could count on a good return, and that improved their finances, which, in turn, allowed them to build their retirement plans without always looking to the potential sale of their land as the only possible exit strategy.

The cost to the treasury to run this particular insurance program was trivially small because it only had to kick in when the returns to the farmer for that year fell below the cost of production, and that didn't happen every year. The weather wasn't bad every year. What it did mean, in addition to the confidence element, was that it actually also encouraged the farmers for efficiency, and I think we have a lot of appreciation for efficiency in this chamber these days.

Since the cost of production was based on the industry average, if you were able to produce the same volume but with less cost by increasing the efficiency of your farm, it meant that you could get, in a bad year, from this insurance program more than what you actually spent.

With the farm income assurance program, the Barrett government not only made it financially feasible for farmers to continue their services through the good times and through the bad times; it also effectively incentivized efficiency. At the same time, it allowed the farmers to support the ALR, which they were initially against, because everybody saw the value in the ALR being put in place for the kind of discipline that we all needed to preserve our farmlands.

As a result, as we all know, the legislation quickly not only became accepted, but it earned widespread popularity among British Columbians and the farmers themselves, and to this day, for four decades, it is rightfully considered to be the most progressive and visionary policy of its kind in North America, which many other jurisdictions are modelled after.

As life would have it, when the Socreds came back in power, within a few years they did start to chew away from the income assurance program. Ideologically, they saw it as a subsidy program, which it really, clearly wasn't. Despite the fact that the purpose of the program was to provide assurance so that the farmers could continue farming through the tough climate and the fluctuating market conditions, eventually, over a successive series of legislation, this program was killed.

This sent farmers right back to that same hole of insecurity, forcing them to reconsider all options outside of farming to make a living, to plan for retirement — be it working, finding another job, repurposing the use of their farm or seeking subdivision and rezoning, which they couldn't with the ALR in place.

They've been kept this way without much of a choice for the past 20 years. I think the hardships that the farmers have continued to face since then are not because of the ALR but because of shortsighted and what are, I think, just plain bad decisions by the Socreds then. I feel as though we're about to see another one being made right here with this Bill 24.

When I hear the members opposite I try my best to be respectful and to really listen and to see it from the other side, but when they say that Bill 24 supports farmers, I disagree. I can't help but disagree. I disagree not because of the e-mails and phone calls and letters in utter opposition to the bill that I get. I disagree not because I'm sitting on this side of the House. I disagree because I've actually combed through…. I haven't slept in the last week because I got so fired up about learning the history of how this came to be, and I wanted to see it for myself.

When I combed through the historical accounts and saw the programs that were in place, why ALR came to be and the science and the ethics that all of this was based on, I just have no other logical choice but to side with the public and the subject matter experts on this particular matter in asking this government: how on earth is corroding the ALR the right way to support farmers? This is not right.

[1345]

In fact, I think what's more disheartening and disenchanting — I'm pretty disenchanted already, after a year in politics — and what's actually even insulting is that the government uses farmers as their excuse, when you should just say it like it is. This is not about supporting the farmers. This is just really about opening the door to chew away on our reserve for money, for profit. It's about bottom dollars in the end, and you want that now. I think that's what it really comes down to.

If this government is truly about farmland, if it's about
[ Page 3865 ]
farmland preservation, if this government truly supports farmers, this is not only the worst way of showing that, but I think that it's just plain wrong. I mean that with a lot of respect.

I think the members opposite have to know. They must know that this is the case. They're looking at the same facts, the same history. I also understand that politics is not evidence-based decision-making, but it's decision-based evidence-making, so I get it. I understand.

Now we have the government that's set on ramming through this bill — against the public, despite the evidence, regardless of many better options that I think the government can really champion. Where do we go from here? As an opposition MLA in the House, I feel just as defeated as many British Columbians whose voices are falling on deaf ears with this government.

That's a little too depressing, so let's talk about all of the better things that I think we could focus on, that I think we should work on. Despite having some of Canada's most promising agricultural potential, the government provides the least amount of support for this industry out of any other provinces in Canada. As disappointing as that sounds, the flip side is that there are many great strides to be made.

One of the things, of course — the members all heard it: the government eliminated the Buy B.C. program in 2001. I understand that it was a hugely successful marketing initiative that was championed in partnership with farmers, the grocery stores and consumers throughout B.C. The program managed to resurface in 2005 with funding that was coming, really, just from the companies, at which point the government left it entirely to the industry to carry the costs of the program. There is now a remnant of this program, renamed, and I think that's the angle that we can continue to put more resources into.

The 25 percent funding cut in the Ministry of Agriculture in 2005 left the ALC with not a whole lot of resources to respond to the growing non-compliance problems, like the fill dumped on prime farmland, the case that we saw with tonnes of construction materials and trash on Babe's Honey Farm in Saanich. That's another area that I think this government needs to take seriously.

Of course, because of large agribusiness and the government subsidies to the industrial food system, it is often very difficult for our local farmers to compete in the market with their price points. Knowing that 95 percent of what B.C. eats is imported, when we can grow all of that right here in B.C…. That's $25 billion that is leaving this province. Why can't we work towards bringing some of that money back right here and putting it into the hands of our local farmers?

It turns out that the ALC also used to have an acquisition and leaseback program for young farmers, to encourage young farmers to get engaged in the trade — 20-year leases with option to purchase after three years. It was a very successful program, but that, too, didn't survive long. It was scrapped in 1976, the first year the Socreds came back in power.

While I appreciate all the little programs that the government puts forth, because everything does help, at the end of the day I think that these piecemeal efforts that we've been seeing in the last decade…. We really need to do more than that. I think we are past the point of doing more because we want to do more. I think we're also past the point that we need to do more because we have no other choice.

We have no other choice at this point. There are alarming signals, and industry is raising flags everywhere. I think we really need to start paying attention to those things, and I feel as though Bill 24 is not taking us in that direction. If anything, it's taking us backwards. An average B.C. farmer is 56 years old. Young farmers cannot afford to take over their farms. B.C. is growing less than half of its own food needs.

[1350]

We've heard of the extreme weather conditions and climate change forecasts, and all of those point towards our support of the local agriculture here being more imperative now than ever.

Yes, I agree we can update and modernize the ALR, but Bill 24 I think does it in a very negative way. Positive changes that we need to see are more definitive, real measures, some of which the government is already taking on, but we need to do more in that direction. Also, we need to stop pinning farmers as an excuse to open more doors to rob land out of reserve. I think that's the ultimate, the last, straw there for me. The farmers are speaking out against this bill, yet the government continues to talk about the fact that this is how they're supporting the farmers. I can't make that logic work.

We are talking about our land, our food security here — something as incredibly important as this. I think every citizen of this province owns a piece of this, and they have the right to be informed and the right to be consulted. Another thing to add is the fact that this bill was crafted out of what feels like a special interest. It's just heartbreaking.

Hard-working farm families deserve to make a decent living again. Reconsidering the assurance program that was in place, reconsidering the lease buyback program for young farmers, reconsidering more resources into the Buy B.C. program — those are all things that I think we should be doing.

The ALC, of course, requires adequate support to continue conducting sound research, make evidence-based decisions and be able to do that independently in good faith for the public.

Despite its warts over the decades, the B.C. agricultural land preservation program remains the most successful program of its kind in North America. Here in B.C. it's unlikely we would still have commercial agriculture
[ Page 3866 ]
in places like Richmond, Delta, the lower Fraser Valley and parts of the Okanagan if we didn't have the ALR. It's important to remember that the ALR was intended as a permanent zone, not subject to rezoning, not subject to a rationing exercise, not a zone of convenience. This is a cause above all special interest.

British Columbia's ALR system has weathered various challenges, as we know, and reorganizations over the more than 38 years of its existence, and there's no doubt that it will have to continue to evolve as the administrations grapple with this challenge of preserving farmland for future generations. We do need to meet the needs of the land, the current inhabitants and the owners.

But all of those changes that need to be made, all the adaptations that we need to make…. I believe that the commission as it stands right now has the capacity to remedy the deficiencies, make the decisions based on the available biophysical data and fine-tune ALR boundaries accordingly. We can always fine-tune and improve this particular data and the inventory and our mapping, but that will take resources. That will come at a cost. Those are the kinds of investments that I think the government needs to make.

When British Columbians have been asked whether they support protecting the agricultural values and land for security, 95 percent said yes. More so, we are seeing a growing number of groups and individuals that are catching on to the severity of this bill, and they're speaking out more. They're organizing, and they're calling out to the government to get their voice heard. My staff just told me during the lunch break that we had three new e-mails just come in on this particular issue.

The questions are clear, I think. Is this bill serving our farmers or our landlords? Is this bill protecting food security for our society, or is it for short-term profitability for special interest? I think I've really tried to go beyond my briefing notes and listened and consulted with market analysts, with climatologists. I've talked with farmers.

I'll just finish with that. I urge the government to listen to British Columbians and reconsider this bill.

R. Lee: May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: In the House today we have 32 very enthusiastic students from the Holy Cross Elementary school in Burnaby. I met with them at the front of the Parliament Buildings.

[1355]

This group of students was led by 18 adults and three teachers — Sabina McCloskey, Kristina Manfron and Carlo DeFazio. They are joyful and energetic. I believe they have brought us the sunshine as well. Would the House please join me in making them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

K. Corrigan: It gives me pleasure, I guess, to speak on this bill, but I'm disappointed that I have to speak very negatively about it. This is a bad bill for British Columbia.

It's a particularly bad bill in that with Bill 24, we are essentially dismantling, or at least partially dismantling, the agricultural land reserve, which has served this province very well for over 40 years. It's really difficult to be a part of history that is so unfortunate. So it is with very mixed feelings that I get up and speak, but I am going to do my bit to try to convince the members on the other side of the House that this is a bad bill.

I'm glad that some of the company across the way…. I can't mention individual members, but I am pleased that I get a chance to speak when some members are in the House that I hope will listen. So many of us have been speaking so passionately on this side of the House about the importance of the agricultural land reserve.

I don't believe that all the members on the other side of the House, in their heart of hearts, are supportive of being the party whose legacy is going to be taking away the preservation and the protection of farmland in British Columbia that all parties have supported, and continue to support, over the last 40 years — all parties, even those that may originally have spoken against it many years ago.

The agricultural land reserve — when it came down to it, all parties have respected that this is an institution, that this is a program that is working for British Columbians, that it is in fact effectively preserving farmland and that it needs to continue to be protected, until now. Very unfortunate.

So what does Bill 24 actually do? It dismantles or, as I said, partially dismantles the agricultural land reserve, which has done what it was designed to do since it was created back in 1973 by an NDP government, and that is to protect farmland from development.

The thing we have to remember about farmland is that you don't get to take it back and forth — that once a piece of property is paved over, that once a development has gone in, that once the subdivision is there, it is gone. Once it is gone, it is gone. Now, I know that in some cases there is the ability to rehabilitate land, but it's very limited how we can rehabilitate land. For the most part, once it's gone, it's gone.

So how is this bill dismantling the agricultural land reserve? What has happened with this B.C. Liberal bill is that there are two things that are going to lead to the dismantling of the agricultural land reserve. First of all, and the biggest thing, is that the province will be divided into two zones. Zone 1 is the Lower Mainland, where I live. I represent Burnaby–Deer Lake.

It is wonderful to see students from Burnaby who have just been introduced. Thank you for coming.
[ Page 3867 ]

[1400]

The province is going to be divided, as I said, into two zones. The first zone includes the south coast, Vancouver Island and the Okanagan. The sweeping changes will not happen in those zones. That's important, but zone 1 is also vulnerable for different reasons.

Zone 2. Zone 2 contains 90 percent of the ALR. It is all of the province other than the south coast, the Okanagan and Vancouver Island, as mentioned. It contains 90 percent of agricultural lands. In that 90 percent of the province, the Agricultural Land Commission is forced not to prioritize farming within the agricultural land reserve, with those areas that are within the agricultural land reserve, but to give equal weight to economic, cultural and social values, regional planning objectives, and any "other prescribed considerations."

It often concerns me that we have bill after bill after bill coming into this House, laws coming in to be debated, which have large parts of them that we essentially can't debate because it's something that will be decided in the future. It'll be decided behind closed doors by cabinet.

When it says any "other prescribed considerations," this means that cabinet, behind closed doors, gets to write regulations and say what other considerations have to be considered by the commission when somebody is trying to get land out of the agricultural land reserve. We have no idea what that is.

I mean, it could be a consideration that if a pipeline is coming through this area, then that has to be a priority or that needs to be a priority. We don't know. It could be anything. I'm not saying that that's going to happen. But when you compare what has been the priority for the last 41 years, that farming and food security will be the primary consideration, and you replace it with these other things, including a bunch of priorities that we have no idea what they are because it's not in the legislation, it concerns me.

Those changes make…. There's no doubt that what the result of this is going to be, the obvious result, is that there will be far more exclusions, far more land taken out of the agricultural land reserve in this province.

The other thing that Bill 24 does which concerns me is that it shifts decisions — key decisions, with regard to exclusions and with regard to land in the ALR — away from the commission, which has been independent and has made decisions over the years on the basis of what is best for farming and farmland in British Columbia. It has been insulated from local pressures and had as a priority and has had as its modus operandi to preserve farmland in the province.

Now what's going to happen is that there will be six panels that are going to be populated by Liberal government appointees who will be responsible for making the decisions about what land comes out of the agricultural land reserve across the province. That's in both zone 1 and zone 2.

You know, it really concerns me because those individuals…. Number one, they are political. They will be political appointments. So we're taking the decisions away from an independent commission, and they will be political decisions that are made. In addition, those local panel members will be under a great deal more pressure and will not have the insulation that the commission does. They will be under pressure from those that are making applications. It really concerns me that that is going to happen.

The tension with regard to agricultural land is a natural one. What's happened over the years of development in British Columbia is that population growth has generally been in the prime farmland area, because that's where populations grew. It was what we did when we were forming as a country.

[1405]

People came and, for the most part, came for resource development, for farming, for fishing. Certainly, the forest industry was huge, and the coal-mining industry was huge as well. But a large part of the reason for population growing in much of the province had to do with the fact that there were good farmlands.

So it creates a natural tension. In the place that has had the most growth, the Lower Mainland, where I live, there has been a tremendous tension. It was because of that tension and the fact that thousands and thousands of acres were being removed from agriculture to sprawling development in the Lower Mainland and the fact that we were losing prime farmland…. That is the reason that the agricultural land reserve was created by the NDP government in 1973. There was a recognition that we needed to preserve the land.

I wanted to say that I appreciate the background paper that I read that was done by Emily Yearwood-Lee, a reference librarian. I believe she still is. I still see Emily, I believe, up in our wonderful Legislative Library here in the Legislature. She did a history of the agricultural land reserve back in 2006, updated in 2008. As she pointed out in her history, only a small fraction of British Columbia's land is considered arable and an even smaller proportion of the soil is rated top quality.

Historically, British Columbians have settled near that prime soil in valley bottoms or in river deltas. But what happened…. What she points out is that after the Second World War there was rapid housing and industrial expansion in B.C., and that started to prompt concerns about the loss of valuable farmland. She also points out that 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.

She also points out in this history how all parties recognized…. In the run-up to the agricultural land reserve being formed in 1973, all parties expressed concerns about the loss of farmland and realized that we needed to do something — there may not have been agreement,
[ Page 3868 ]
but that we needed to do something. I'm proud that it was our party that, when we were elected in 1972, created the agricultural land reserve. I think it's been seen as a legacy, as a real highlight for this province and made it somewhat unique. Although similar laws have been brought in, in other provinces and other parts of the world, it was certainly seen as visionary at the time. It was visionary, and it worked.

It was interesting that when they were bringing the agricultural land reserve, after the announcement that there was going to be an agricultural land reserve, or legislation brought to protect farming, there was a frenzy of speculation. So then there had to be a freeze on the sale of those farmlands.

I mention that now because it's interesting. I've heard from many different sources, friends in the development community and from all sorts of different sources, that exactly the same thing is now happening — that there is rampant speculation of land that is presently within the agricultural land reserve. You know what? Speculators, people who are investing in property, if they're not doing it for farming, are only doing it because they believe they're going to make a ton of money, make a bunch of money, by investing now.

There's a real confidence, I understand, that land is going to be much easier to remove from the agricultural land reserve. So the investments come. That's not good for farming in British Columbia. It's very unfortunate for farming in British Columbia.

I would also note that the commission, the first Agricultural Land Commission, set up headquarters in a long, narrow office in Burnaby, my community, and was fondly dubbed the yellow submarine by staff. The Agricultural Land Commission headquarters continues, I believe, to be in Burnaby, just across the street from the border of my constituency.

[1410]

But it's an important institution, and as I said earlier, it does continue to do the job that it was meant to do.

There's a lot of support for the land reserve as well. There was an Auditor General's report. For those that don't know, the Auditor General is an independent officer of this Legislature and reports on the effectiveness and the efficiency of the use of taxpayers' money — takes a look at projects and institutions and the finances all across government to decide whether or not taxpayers' money, as I said, is being used effectively and efficiently.

The Auditor General did a report on the agricultural land reserve and the commission in 2010. I remember reading the report, because I've sat on the Public Accounts Committee for several years now. One of the observations that the Auditor General made was: "Recently the commission reported that 95 percent of respondents to a public survey supported the agricultural land reserve and the policy of preserving agricultural land."

It went on to say: "Preservation of agricultural land is fundamental to securing food production for future generations, particularly given the uncertain effects of climate change on our food imports and our agricultural systems."

The report also points out that only 5 percent of the province's land base is suitable agricultural land and much less is considered prime agricultural land, so this is a precious commodity. It is a very serious decision to expose that precious commodity to being more easily removed from the Agricultural Land Commission. In my submission, it is shortsighted. It's a shortsighted decision to do this, and it's a shortsighted potential sacrifice of food production and food security for future generations.

I was reading the Globe and Mail this morning, and coincidentally, one of the stories that I read was the fact that two new groups of scientists — one of them from NASA and not sure what the other one was — were saying…. Here's the headline: "Ice-Sheet Melt and Collapse Now Unstoppable, Scientists Warn." The story in today's Globe and Mail says:

"'The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable, with global warming accelerating the pace of the melting,' two groups of scientists reported on Monday….

"'This is really happening,' said Thomas Wagner, who runs NASA's programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research. 'There's nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.'"

The story also points out:

"'Whatever the mix of causes, they appear to have triggered a retreat of the ice sheet that can no longer be stopped, even if the factors drawing in the warmer water were to reverse suddenly,' the scientists said."

These are the realities. We have the ice sheet of the Antarctic. More scientists are saying that it has started to melt and that it may be, no matter what we do, impossible to reverse that.

At the same time, we know that California is experiencing record-setting droughts. California has been, basically, the food production centre, certainly serving British Columbia, serving the west coast and much of the whole of the North America. We have irrefutable evidence that we do have climate change. We have we have serious disruption to food production in California.

[1415]

That should be a sign for all of us that we have to think very seriously before we do anything that makes it harder for us to protect farmland or anything that makes it easier to remove it from production.

You know, even the Liberals, a few years ago, were speaking language that made it sound like they were very concerned about local production and about farmland. Here's a quote from the provincial B.C. Liberal campaign, Eat B.C. I remember this: the vegetables and fruits in the schools. It was all part of Eat B.C.

A provincial campaign to promote local food explains — and this is a government press release:
[ Page 3869 ]

"By supporting local growers and suppliers, you help the environment, reducing your carbon footprint by limiting the amount of shipping and fuel consumption needed to get the seasonal foods to you.

"The more local food we consume, the higher the demand, which equals the more farmers that are needed to supply the products. And voila, a healthier local economy, more local jobs within agriculture and a stronger, more vibrant local food system.

"B.C. food and beverages. Fresher, faster. It's fresh, local and tasty. Eat B.C."

It's a B.C. government press release from just a few years ago. Yet here we have the same government that is overseeing the dismantling of the agricultural land reserve.

The Agricultural Land Commission has been doing a good job. There have been times when it's been a government priority. There have been times when decisions have been made to remove land, and that's appropriate. It's appropriate if we all have the confidence that the mechanism, the way that is being done, is transparent and fair and open.

There are times when it has made sense. Members have talked in this House about times that there have been exclusions that are appropriate exclusions. But again, it has to be done in a way that people believe is fair, and it has to be done by an independent ALR. The ALR needs to be independent.

This bill is no longer ensuring that we are going to have independence in those decisions. In fact, by having political appointments and local panels making the decision, we are going in the other direction. I think that overall the Agricultural Land Commission has been reasonably balanced.

The Auditor General's report that I mentioned before has acknowledged that there needed to be improvements, and the Agricultural Land Commission accepted, acknowledged and welcomed the suggestions for improvement.

Some of those improvements…. Well, they were talking about things like doing a better job of mapping, having a better understanding of the boundaries and making sure that much work was done, and also promoting agriculture.

The reason why they have not been able to do those things over the last several years, unfortunately, is the funding issue. There's a funding issue. The budget for the agricultural land reserve has been consistently cut.

I look back at the Auditor General's report again. The budget in 2002-2003 of the Agricultural Land Commission was almost $3 million — $2.93 million. As the Auditor General points out, since that time, the budget has decreased. This is up to 2010. There was an increase more recently.

The commission's most recent detailed budget submissions in November 2008 estimated that with the 2008-09 budget, it was operating approximately 20 percent or $530,000 below its minimal requirements to maintain its core business.

If you take a look at the Auditor General's report and also the review that was done by the Agricultural Land Commission, headed up by Richard Bullock, over and over again, the Auditor General indicates and the response from the ALC indicates that the problem was with the starving of the funding.

[1420]

I mean, I don't know what the plan was by the Liberal government. It looks to me like there was an intentional starving of the ALC to make it less effective. It's an old political ploy. You take away the supports for a good public service. You starve it, and you starve it. Then it doesn't become effective, and then you say: "Well, we'll have to get rid of it." That is what is happening in this case, so I'm not surprised with the cuts to the ALC, because it gets in the way. It gets in the way of Liberal plans to dismantle the ALC.

Over and over again. For example: "The commission has carried out preliminary estimates of the resources and the necessary funding" in order to respond to the recommendations that the Auditor General made. "The commission appreciates that the audit recognizes the commission's concerns about not being positioned to significantly enhance its efforts without the necessary resources and tools." That report….

There are seven or eight, nine or ten references to lack of funding being a fundamental problem with the agricultural land reserve. The Auditor General recognized it. Certainly, the response from the Agricultural Land Commission to that report said very clearly that that was the issue.

The budget was, as I said, almost $3 million in 2002-2003 and reduced to $2.4 million and reduced, I believe, in 2010 to $2 million. I mean, a huge decrease. How can you expect to do the work not only of adequately assessing requests for removal and exclusions but also the other work that the Agricultural Land Commission was supposed to do, which is to promote farming in British Columbia?

There has been an increase. It was down as low as $1.2 million in 2012-2013 — in other words, only two-thirds. Ten years later, only two-thirds of what it had been in 2002-2003. So, of course, they had struggles trying to do the work they did.

Now, to the government's credit, there was an increase in 2013-14 and planned for 2014-15. That allowed Richard Bullock as the head of the ALC, the commission, to start to do the good work — the mapping and so on — that needed to be done. I've got to give credit to Richard Bullock. Since his appointment a few years ago, he has stood up for the ALR. I think he's provided sensible leadership, and he's done a good job on behalf of British Columbians. So I appreciate his work — and the work of the commission, the good people of the commission.

As well as the Auditor General's report, we had a review done by the Agricultural Land Commission, tak-
[ Page 3870 ]
ing a look at itself. They again made it very clear that the problem is with funding. The recommendation is that they needed to have sufficient funding and resources for compliance and enforcement to fully implement its on-line application tracking system. There were many recommendations, but many of them said that really, essentially, the biggest problem is funding. That's unfortunate.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Not possible.

I want to talk for a second…. I guess what I want to do is sum up. This is a move that has happened without consultation. Apparently, the core review was supposed to be….

The member for Vancouver-Kensington found out with surprise that the Finance Committee meetings were actually the core review hearings, and nobody was apparently aware of it. That's where people were supposed to be making submissions on the future of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve.

So there has been no consultation, very little consultation. Consultation was promised after the present minister was appointed, was made Minister of Agriculture. That was one day that we were going to change the bill. We were going to listen, but in fact, what has happened is that there has been no consultation. There's been reading of e-mails.

[1425]

The people of British Columbia are very concerned about this. I was hoping to get a chance to get to some of the people in my community who have expressed concern. The city council had passed a motion a month ago condemning Bill 24 and what it is going to do to farmland in British Columbia. The Lower Mainland Local Government Association has very recently, as have other local government associations, passed a motion condemning Bill 24.

We are getting thousands of e-mails. I'm hearing from my constituents. There have been individuals. There have been academics and soil scientists. There have been people all over this province that have expressed great concern about this bill, which is going to dismantle.

I want to finally say that the answer, instead, is something positive, like the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who has brought a very thoughtful B.C. Local Food Act to this Legislature. That is worthy of support.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I, like everyone on the New Democratic side of this House, every one of the independents — and really, the Agricultural Council, the Cattlemen's Association, the Lower Mainland government association, the Kootenays governing association, the north, soil scientists, the farmers and on and on you go — oppose this legislation and call on this government to kill Bill 24.

The minister himself seemed to think that maybe we should kill Bill 24 at one point but was quickly drawn into line and had his wings clipped. That independent spirit, which I saw him once have in this House, seemed to vanish in the air. One day maybe we will see it arise again, like a phoenix, out of the crater that he has created in his credibility on this legislation.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: He laughs about that, but alas, this is not a laughing matter. This is a bill which makes British Columbia less resilient, less sustainable, which puts our children, our children's children and on into the future, I would say, of having a province with "Splendour without diminishment" at real risk.

Of course, that is our motto as a province: "Splendour without diminishment." Well, for me, splendour without diminishment means that we have farms and farmers and ranchers on into the future in all parts of this province, not just in a small window that the minister thinks is appropriate or that the Liberals think is appropriate but every part of this province that has arable land.

Hon. Speaker, you know that we don't have a lot of arable land in this province, but what we have, we have to protect. In the end, what else do you need in life? You need water, you need food, and you need air. By putting our food-growing parts of this province at risk, as this government does with its blacktop politics, with its belief in paving over things as opposed to growing food from those same areas, we are challenged.

This is not a bill that will leave us more resilient. It's a bill that decides that 90 percent of the province's agricultural land should be open. It should be open to say: "Maybe you want to put a condo on there. Maybe you want to put a parking lot on there. Maybe you want to cover it over in garbage." Well, those are all possibilities now under the B.C. Liberals' legislation.

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: "Contaminated soil," a friend says in this House. Maybe we don't need to be growing food. Maybe we need to be growing garbage. Maybe we need to be growing blacktop, rather than food that sustains us all.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

"It's delicious," says somebody in this House. "Blacktop is delicious." Well, no, I think good cherries, good hay for the cattle and other things are delicious, not blacktop over good farmland.

This bill leaves us less resilient as a province. It leaves us less sustainable. It puts our food sovereignty and our
[ Page 3871 ]
food security at real risk, just at a time when we need to be considering this more than ever.

We know…. The science has been telling us. Scientists have been shouting, in their scientific way, saying: "Well, the probabilities say that climate change is going to make it harder to eat. Climate change is going to put the food prices up." That's what we used to be told we should be worried about, because sometime in the future it might happen.

You know what? A government in the '70s heard cries like that, heard cries for food security, and brought in the agricultural land reserve. That was the Dave Barrett government, of course.

[1430]

That was the NDP at the time thinking long term — thinking more than the day in front of us, thinking about the future, something that we all should do more of. Thinking not just about making a quick buck today, but thinking about whether or not that buck will be able to buy you any food at all tomorrow.

Let me think about it. Just yesterday I was reading an article about limes. Now, they don't grow limes in British Columbia. They may try to in the future with climate change, but maybe there won't be any land for it, because the Liberals will have paved it all over.

But limes. You can't get them anymore. You go to the pub. You go somewhere. You want a little lime in your guacamole. It's pretty difficult to do. And you know why? A variety of reasons — climate change, disease, etc. So the costs are shooting up.

Now, if you don't want to get scurvy, limes are good things to have. If you like a margarita, limes are good things to have too. But what that points out to me is that if you can't get those today, it's because you can't grow them somewhere else. It shows how dependent we are on food from elsewhere — not food grown here but food from somewhere far away.

With gas prices climbing, with the climate change changing the environmental systems and killing off crops — with droughts in California, with ice sheets falling into the ocean, tidal waves increasing, storms, incredible amounts of water, flooding, etc. — you won't be able to get the same food that you thought you'd be able to get today because of that. What does that do? That puts more pressure on British Columbia to make sure we can feed our people ourselves, feed people within this province from our own land, from our own farmers.

You know what? People want that. They want to be resilient. They want to know where their food is coming from. They no longer think that it's okay to just look, and it says: "Where is your food from?" It doesn't tell you. It's just from some box somewhere far away. Because you know what? People want to know their food is healthy. They want to know that the people who made it are paid fairly. They want to know that the food they're eating is not creating climate change, creating environmental devastation somewhere else. That is why people are buying more and more local food.

But just as people want to buy more and more local food, the Liberals seem to want to create less and less of it. They've cut the Agricultural Land Commission's budget year after year after year. They put a little bit back, saying: "Oh, we learned our lesson." Now what do they do? They want to take an axe to the whole agricultural land reserve itself. They've decided that partisan self-interest, pavement politics, is more important than food security and resilience, and that is wrong. That is sad. It's angering. It's ridiculous. It is just wrong.

Nobody in the food system seems to want this. None of the consumers want this. The local governments don't want this. The hon. members over there — some of them clearly don't want it, since they won't even get up and defend it. And when they do even get up and defend it, the ones that do want it won't even talk about what's in the bill itself. They won't talk about the bill itself.

They'll talk about spin, about claiming this is helping farmers when what this is doing is helping land speculators pave over farmland. That's what this bill is about. It's about partisanship, going to the developers who paid for some of their election campaigns and asking for favours, them getting favours. "You scratch my back, and I scratch yours." That's what it looks like to me, because they cannot argue and they cannot show why this is necessary. They have not shown that in any sense.

Now, of course, when we talk about climate change, when we talk about resilience, we should talk to the farmers, something this government really didn't do when they introduced the legislation at all.

The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, the B.C. Agriculture Council — they're doing that. They're going out saying, "Agricultural is threatened by climate change. Let's talk to farmers about what they need help with to adapt, where possible; what risks are going to be created that we can't adapt to; and what challenges that puts on each of us as British Columbians both for our export, because we of course export so much of our food" — which is great because people want it, and it's healthy food — "but also for our own people to eat, because that's what people want."

Do you know what they're finding out across this province? Well, up in the north, they're saying that huge storms may cause incredible damage to the crops. In the Kootenays you've got challenges of drought. In Vancouver, again, rain could wash the food away, and then droughts could dry it out so that you don't have the food security that you thought you had.

But in some areas they say — and this is up in the Peace River country; I was reading about it — that you might be able to actually grow more hay, more wheat than you are currently, possibly, unless the storms get at it first.

I know the minister…. He is not the Minister of
[ Page 3872 ]
Agriculture but seems to think that he gets to say what happens here, and nobody else in the Liberal caucus seems to tell him otherwise. He said that well, you could only grow hay in his area of the Kootenays and, really, that was somehow a bad thing.

[1435]

Well, I tell you, I come from a family who, in Alberta, grew a lot of hay. They fed a lot of cattle, and hay was something you needed if you were going to feed things. You needed hay. You needed wheat. You needed to be able to use that for your farms or to sell to other farms and that that was important. If the Liberals don't think hay farmers are important, that's their choice. I think they are.

I think they are very important for the whole cycle of farming in this province and, of course, across this country. It's also made our province and our country a lot of money over many years. They may dismiss it, but I think it's important. I'd much rather have a hayfield than blacktop. I'd much rather have a hayfield than a parking lot.

You know what? The members opposite seem to think that if you live in Vancouver, you don't have the right to even ask about agriculture.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the member from Surrey, who's now chittering away here, doesn't eat. Maybe he doesn't eat at all. Maybe he can get rid of his belt, and he won't even need to worry about that anymore. I know that new MLAs often — and I'm not talking about that member; I can only speak about myself — put on a little bit of weight because in this place you do eat. You eat a lot. People feed you — like last night at the B.C. Agriculture Council. They fed us because they wanted us to know how important good B.C. food was.

Whether it's in Vancouver or Surrey, we all eat. Whether it's in the north or the Kootenays, we all eat. If the food prices are being driven up because the member for Surrey seems to think that we should have higher food prices by getting rid of the agricultural land reserve, that'll lead to some people eating less.

Now, maybe he doesn't think that's the case. Maybe he thinks this will drive down food prices. If he thinks that, he should get up and speak in the debate. If that's his belief, he can share it. But not one person I've met says that this bill will lead to lower food prices. This bill will lead to higher food prices, just as climate change will lead to higher food prices and less resilience in our people's lives and more challenges when we know we already have the worst poverty in Canada.

Local food. Why do we need it? We know that climate change is threatening it across the world. We know that people want it — our farmers markets. I'll be ringing the bell at our local farmers market, which has food from all across B.C. from farmers across B.C., this next weekend in the West End — good local food, farmers meeting the people that eat the food, people supporting each other.

Well, what could we be doing instead of deciding to pave over farmland to help farms, as the Liberals seem to suggest will happen? Well, what we should be doing is eating more local food. What we should be doing is ensuring that our hospitals, our schools, this Legislature itself, our local governments…. Everybody in B.C. has a connection to a farmer and supports it through buying local.

That's exactly what the NDP has called on this government to do. The bill sits there on the order paper again and again and again. We talk about it. The public says they love it. The government says, "Oh yeah, we love it too," but do they do anything? No, they do not. Instead, they bring in the "Pave Over Farmland Act," the "Get Rid of Farmland and 90 Percent of the Farmlands in B.C. Act." That's what they do, because it would help their supporters, I suppose, but not the farmers, not the farmland. No, it doesn't help those at all, not at all.

If they thought that it would help their supporters and their voters, they would have run on it in the election, but they didn't. They didn't say a peep about it — not one word. Maybe they did behind closed doors — we don't know — but they certainly didn't say it in public.

Now they bring in a bill to take a hatchet to something that we all love in B.C., and that's our agricultural land and our farmers. Of course, if you take care of the land, that takes care of farming. If you take care of the farmers, they take care of us. There are few other professions, in this world, certainly not MLA, that you need to rely on three times a day. A farmer is that kind of profession. That's certainly what my grandparents taught me as a young boy, when I got to visit their farms. You have to take care of the land, you have to take care of the farmers, and then you'll get some pretty good food, which will take care of you.

Well, it's not just, of course, the farms and the food that we've got to consider. As Environment critic, I also look to this bill and say: "Will this help the environment?" Well, we know it won't lead to resilience for food and food security in this province. It will lead to less. It will lead to higher prices. But what about the environment?

Well, I received a letter from William Harrower, Judith Myers, Sarah Otto, Eric Taylor, Elizabeth Kleynhans and signed by biologists, naturalists, environmental assessment specialists, conservationists. They wanted to take a look at this bill from a slightly different angle.

[1440]

We know this bill doesn't help farmers; it helps developers. Does this help the critters, the animals, that rely on farmland, the elk that hunters look for, the moose that also sometimes use the farmlands in this province? Well, on that count, this bill fails as well.

I'll quote from the letter, because maybe for once the Liberals will actually hear this. "Agricultural lands that occur in all regions of the province hold many values
[ Page 3873 ]
other than simply crop production. These areas contain wetlands, streams, ponds, riparian areas, woodlands, hedgerows and uncultivated grasslands that are either adjacent to or integral to farm operations."

I think that's a very important point, because I know the cattlemen, the cattle ranchers and farmers work very hard to try to improve the resilience of their farmland but also the natural species that rely on it, and this bill does not support that.

The letter goes on. "These areas are instrumental in protecting functioning, healthy ecosystems, and in many cases these diverse services help boost agricultural production." Certainly, when you have more bees buzzing around, you have more flower production. Again, when you have a healthy ecosystem, you can have those ecological services provided for you free. You don't need to pay somebody to go around doing that, as I've seen and read about in some other countries where the bee population crashes and they try to pay for that service by hiring people to go around and pollinate the flowers. That's an insanely expensive proposition, and the bees do it for us for free, when we take care of the land.

"Many of the ecosystems encompassed by the agricultural land reserve are rare in British Columbia, and they provide habitat for a number of the province's most threatened or endangered species, such as the burrowing owl, American badger, yellow-breasted chat, sage thrasher, Nooksack dace and westslope cutthroat trout.

"Other more common species that occur on the agricultural land reserve land are integral to agricultural production. These species range from" — stay with me, hon. Speaker — "soil microbes that sequester carbon below pasture lands to birds such as the western meadowlarks, swallows and common nighthawks whose populations, unfortunately, are already declining.

"Species prized for hunting, such as deer and elk, also use so-called marginal agricultural lands. These species decline when agricultural lands are removed from production, marginal lands are converted to more intensive uses or non-agricultural developments are permitted on agricultural lands."

And this is in bold. Not my bold but the authors' bold — in fact, all the many, many signatories' bold.

"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."

As one of only two provinces in Canada without endangered species legislation — the Liberals have refused to take action to support our endangered species in the province — we need to sit up and take notice of this because, of the endangered species we have, a number of them continue to be on the decline.

What we seem to see here is again more shortsighted actions by the Liberals: pave over the farmland; ignore the endangered species; ignore food security; ignore the impacts of climate change; and as they did with Bill 4, ignore our parks; ignore the people's demands to support our parks and put pipelines through.

As we've seen again with their abandonment of any action, really, on climate change, this continues a short-term focus with long-term consequences — very long-term consequences. "Splendour without diminishment" indeed. Well, that's a lot of diminishment under this government.

It didn't have to be this way. They could have consulted the public. They could have consulted the food growers. They could have consulted the agricultural communities. They could have consulted the people of B.C. and said: "What do you want to do? Do you want to support more local food in this province? Do you want to support food sovereignty? Do you want to support us continuing to grow local food and also our ability to export food?" They could have asked those questions.

They could have supported our local food act. I'll read the explanatory note, since the government seems not to have read it. If they had, they probably would have implemented it. "The British Columbia Local Food Act seeks to improve and maximize food security, economic returns…from protected farmland through the creation of a British Columbia local food and agricultural strategy. This plan requires the Minister of Agriculture, in collaboration with the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia's...Agriculture Committee…" — which should actually meet.

That's a little aside here, since the committees never meet. The government decides democracy doesn't matter, and the voices of people in this House, who represent communities across B.C. don't matter. They, instead, decide backroom conversations are consultation. I disagree.

[1445]

But I digress. Allow the Agriculture Committee "to determine recommendations and targets on increasing local food production, processing, distribution, marketing, plus increase public sector organization purchasing of B.C.-grown food. The minister is required to report annually on the progress made and expected under the strategy. The act also re-establishes the Minister of Agriculture's Buy B.C. marketing program that is universally accessible to all B.C. farmers."

It's a good act. I give credit to my colleague the member for Saanich South, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who introduced the legislation, the current Agriculture critic, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, for their continued advocacy. But indeed, to all food growers, processors, distributors across this province and all eaters who want to support B.C. food, this make sense. This would be a huge improvement upon the current legislation, which goes backwards with the attempt to allow more non-agricultural uses on agricultural land.

But we've also got to, of course, consider the farmers. We know that this act that we suggested, not the government's act, would actually support farmers. We know it would actually put more money in farmers' pockets. We know it would lead to longer-term success to keep the kids in farming if they want to be. We know that an agricultural strategy would actually come up with real ways to allow more people to farm. Let more farmers farm. That would be a good demand. Not "let more pavers pave over farmland," but "let more farmers farm."
[ Page 3874 ]

We can do this. It's not difficult. All it requires is sitting down and focusing on it, rather than focusing on the short-term buck of flipping your land that you bought two months ago and saying: "Jeez, agriculture — so hard now. I didn't know it when I bought the farmland, but now I'm getting out, two months later. I want to flip it to put condos on it, because that'll help." Well, that's not farming. That's farming condos, perhaps. That's farming development, perhaps. But that's not farming food. That's not farming things that we rely on in this province. No, that's shortsighted greed — greed, plain and simple.

No consultation, no resilience, no action on actually supporting farmers when you could. That's greed, and that's shortsighted beyond belief. It goes with this government's track record when it comes to the agricultural land reserve. You think about certain areas of this province. I go around. I visit farmers. I talk to people across this province, people who are farmers. But they tell me: "You know what? I care about the environment first." Or: "You know what? I'm a farmer first, but I also care about the environment."

What they tell me is that they are being undercut by people who've decided to use their farmlands as fill land. Bring in some garbage and fill it up. That's not farming food. That's farming garbage. What do the Liberals do? Oh well, we've got two agricultural enforcement officers in the entire province — only two. So what do they do? Well, they go in and say: "You're not allowed to do this."

Well, what do the Liberals do? They roll over and play dead. They say: "It's okay. You can build on that farmland. Let's put a parking lot up there. Oh, let's fill it up. Put on the garbage. You can do it. Jeez, this is a quick buck for us, a quick buck for you." And "Oh well. Jeez, we really care. We're so concerned. We furrow our brows. We say to the media that this really shouldn't happen. Oh, they know that the rules are bad. Oh, I'm going to slap their wrist. Oh, that's a bad idea."

Meanwhile, some of these goons are making out like bandits. Some of these people who've decided to destroy our agricultural heritage are making out like bandits through the quick buy, the quick flip or the quick garbage fill, and that's just dead wrong — dead wrong.

So no, we need to support our farmers so they don't get undercut by those who've decided to break the rules. We need to support our farmers so they can get their food into our hospitals, into our schools, into our Legislature and the public buildings all across B.C. We need to support our farmers so that their food is sold in every supermarket with a big buy-B.C. logo. We can do this. That's called foresight. That's called foresight for our grandchildren and our children's children's children.

You know what? As the long saying goes, as the saying many in this House have heard before, when will we realize that we can't eat money? We cannot eat money. You could try. Maybe the member from Surrey would like to try, but you can't eat money. It's not good for your budget, it's not good for your wallet, and it's not good for your belly.

[1450]

No, you need good food. You need good food from the Creston Valley. You need good food from the Kootenays. You need good food from up in Peace River country, from every little piece of that agricultural land that we've got in this country you could develop. Vancouver Island — you've got good food on Vancouver Island, incredible food on Vancouver Island and even in the Surrey. There's lots of good agricultural land in Surrey, and you could be eating from good agricultural land. Sunshine Coast as well.

Our province is rich in agricultural land. But it doesn't need to be rich in the short term by paving it over, because once it's gone, it's pretty darn hard to get back. Once you develop it…. Look in B.C.; look in the Lower Mainland. We had so much good farmland, and it got paved over. People didn't think about the long-term effects of it until the agricultural land reserve was brought in, and they said no. They said: "No more. We need our food. We need our farmers; we need the farmland for our province."

That's when they said no, and this government has decided, "Too bad, we don't need that future. We need to put it in doubt," despite everybody saying no, despite almost everybody in the agricultural system saying no. Now they say change is good. Change can be good, but this is a bad change. This is a destructive change. This is a change that should never have ended up in this Legislature and never would have if they'd actually asked the people what they thought. But no, they didn't.

As the Liberals consistently do, they think might makes right. They think brawn is better over brains. Well, no, brains are important. Thinking long term is important. Greed is not a long-term strategy. Greed is a short-term strategy which will leave you in pain and will leave our communities less resilient.

This strategy the Liberals have brought forward with this bill is about greed. It's not about food. It's not about helping the farmers continue to farm. No, that's not what this legislation is about. We've shown how you could help farmers farm. We've shown how they could be more profitable. They've shown it, too, and they've told us that they've shown it. They've told us to listen to them, to let them do their work and to support the farmland in a real way — not in a way that's about supporting a developer make a quick buck off flipping the land, but about farmers digging in the earth and planting the seeds so that we can have true long-term prosperity.

I've been doing some reading about it. We of course had one of the Premiers in this House, who — mixed record — was successful in some regards. John Oliver high school was named after him, of course — "Honest John" as they called him at the time. He was a salt-of-the-earth kind of guy, they said. Mud Bay, I think, in Surrey was
[ Page 3875 ]
the area that he farmed. At the time he said that his vision was B.C. as an agricultural powerhouse. That's where he saw B.C. going. He saw the land; he knew what wealth it created. He thought that this was something that would lead to long-term prosperity in this province, as did the founders of the colony of Vancouver Island, the colony of the mainland, the Vancouver area, which became British Columbia when it became united. They saw that as a crucial building block for this province.

Of course, the First Nations knew this long before us — that we have incredible abundance when we treat this land well. But this government does not treat the land well and does not support those that do treat the land well, either. That's, again, why this bill must be defeated. They could change their ways. They could think about our grandchildren. They could think about the future. They could think about the realities of climate change breathing down our necks today. They could think about the fact that we've lost billions upon billions already due to climate change.

If you look to pine beetle, forestry of course, like agriculture, was one of our founding industries — hugely important with many, many jobs and lots of tax revenue for our province. But the pine beetle, in part largely because of climate change, have wiped out billions of dollars in that industry.

Well, the Liberals seem to be continuing on a course of stick their heads in the sand, ignore the realities of climate change and ignore the realities of the need to support food security and long-term benefits of the agricultural land reserve for our children and our distant grandchildren — instead, choosing short-term greed.

Now, if the farmers don't support it, if the communities don't support it and if the public doesn't support this — and they don't — why is the government continuing? Why? They've yet to provide any rationale that actually adds up. The scientists don't support it. The academics, as well, don't support it. You might want to listen to somebody once in a while who has researched these topics for their whole life — just a thought that could lead to longer-term benefits for this province than short-term greed of paving and garbage-filling. But no. The government refuses. They go back to their little room, talk to each other, pat each other on the back and say: "Let's let 'er rip. Let's fill it up, and let's forget the future."

[1455]

That's what they're doing with the bill. It's not about sustainability. It's not about resilience. This is about the short term.

Resilience is what we need. A sustainable future is what we need. Supporting our Local Food Act is what we need. Supporting our farmers is what we need. Taking care of the land so it takes care of us is what we need. We need a vision that embraces agriculture and all that it can truly be for this province. It has done so much for us so far, and it will do so much more for us when we take it seriously and when we care for it, when we really feel for it.

"We've all got to eat to live," as the member for Delta South used to say so memorably in this House, and as this government used to seem to believe. No more. Under this current Premier and current cabinet, they've forgotten the future. I regret that very much and will fight to kill Bill 24.

J. Kwan: I rise to enter the debate on Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014. Now, there has been a lot of public outcry. My good colleague the member for Saanich South has been out in the community talking with stakeholders, with people across the province of British Columbia. And do you know what they're calling for? They're calling for the government to kill Bill 24.

I've got to say those are pretty strong words — an adjective that really speaks to, I think, the deep feelings that people have around Bill 24. You might ask: why are people concerned about Bill 24? Why do they want Bill 24 gone? Members of this House will know that the B.C. Land Commission Act came into effect on April 18, 1973. That's 40 years ago. Stemming from that act was the agricultural land reserve, known as the ALR.

The ALR was created to protect B.C.'s agricultural land and to ensure that it is available for agricultural use — not for non-farm uses and subdivisions of the ALR land, not for developments. Why? Because agriculture is an important, sustainable industry in British Columbia. It is a food source. It is a valuable economic driver. It is a vital local food source.

Today agriculture generates approximately $12 billion for our economy and provides approximately 45 percent of B.C.'s food source. It employs some 61,000 people, and it contributes $2½ billion in exports. So it is a significant sustainable industry, and all of this comes from less than 5 percent of our land base. It's not a lot of land which many stakeholders in our community are calling for protection of.

You know, prior to the introduction of the ALR British Columbia actually lost 15,000 acres of agricultural land to urban growth each year. That's not unsubstantial, given that there's less than 5 percent of our land that could support agriculture.

Today we're debating Bill 24. By the government's own admission, they did not do proper consultation with key stakeholders, let alone talk to British Columbians, on the whole, about Bill 24. Of course, we know that during the election there was not one whisper from the Premier or any of the cabinet ministers or candidates about any changes to the agricultural land reserve. This government here today is overhauling the way we protect agricultural land.

[1500]

Now, you hear the government say: "Don't worry. Trust us." I know that MLAs in the House have spoken, and
[ Page 3876 ]
they have said: "Hey, we love agricultural land. Don't worry. Trust us." Well, the truth is, given their record, it's pretty hard to actually just trust them. As my good colleague, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, has said, this is not an agricultural land protection act. Let's be clear about it. This is a development act. That's what it is.

Now, the government says: "Don't worry. We want to protect agricultural land. You guys are fearmongering. The opposition is fearmongering. The stakeholders, the farmers — they are fearmongering."

Well, now, let's just look at the history and record of how well this government has done when it comes to agricultural land protection under their watch. Let's just take a look for a minute. Now, by way of comparison, between the years of 2001 and 2012, many of B.C.'s most agriculturally productive regions have actually lost agricultural lands. Under this bill's definition of zone 1 and in this period, B.C. actually saw a net loss of 3,867.9 hectares of zone 1 agricultural land.

Mr. Speaker, if you just look at the land area under the zones and juxtapose that to the time period of the Liberal government's watch, we've seen a substantive net loss in prime agricultural land. Now, this compared to the period between 1991 to 2000, there was actually a net increase to the agricultural land reserve of 15,323 hectares. So that's under the NDP government. Agricultural land — actually, an increase in prime agricultural land. Under the Liberal watch, a net loss of prime agricultural land.

When you look into the details of this, it is interesting to note that from 2001 to 2012, land excluded from the ALR is concentrated in the Okanagan, in the south coast, in the Kootenays region, and the gains were actually primarily in the north, which the government would deem to be substandard agricultural land under Bill 24.

The government will say, then: "What's the big deal? There was actually a net increase of agricultural lands." Well, the big deal is this. Under the Liberal watch, prime agricultural lands were lost to developments. The south coast region excluded 178.5 hectares of prime agricultural land in Abbotsford — prime agricultural land.

The Island excluded 140 hectares of agricultural land in Courtenay in exchange for the inclusion of 318 hectares of agricultural land in Comox. The south coast panel — the people that were in charge of making these decisions — allowed for 64 residential villas to be built at a golf course on agricultural land in Sechelt. Not exactly farm use, I would say. Nonetheless, that decision was allowed and went ahead.

In the Kootenays it excluded 267 hectares of grazing land, near Invermere. If this could happen with prime agricultural lands, what do you think will happen when the government considers agricultural land that they are now wanting to call, under Bill 24, a substandard agricultural land, under a definition of what the government will now define as zone 2?

Under Bill 24, I believe that the government is looking for ways to allow for the erosion of agricultural land through this new zone, zone 2. The government will have you believe that zone 2 lands are unproductive, so it's no big deal if you lose those lands.

[1505]

You would ask the question then: what is the difference between zone 1 and zone 2 agricultural lands? Now, I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on soil or climate when it comes to its use related to agriculture. So I went and actually researched expert opinions on this matter. Here's what they have to say. In fact, this information is shared to all MLAs, including the Premier.

In an open letter to the Premier the experts say this:

"In Bill 24, B.C. creates a two-tiered ALR, and a lower-quality of agricultural lands and climate in zone 2 has been stated and assumed several times. However, these assertions are patently false when examined in the light of objective soil science data and agriculture capacity ratings, ratings that incorporate a substantial body of climate data gathered during the Canada land inventory. In actual fact, there is far more class 1 to 4 land in zone 2 than zone 1 — about 85 percent, or two million hectares, in zone 2 versus 15 percent, or 350,000 hectares, in zone 1.

"This is not to say that lands of the same capacity are directly comparable. A class 3 soil in the Fraser Valley is different from a class 3 soil in the Peace. 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 climate.

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

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

This is coming from a group of experts in soil, scientists who've actually dedicated their lives in understanding this particular subject.

This open letter is much longer than that, but for the purposes of this debate, I won't read the entire letter into the record. But suffice it to say, every member of this House has a copy of it. Suffice it to say, it was particularly directed to the Premier, so presumably, the Premier would have taken the time to read the letter. Then she would have known and understood about the differences between zone 1 and zone 2 agricultural lands and the value that both zones, under Bill 24, of these agricultural lands contribute to farm production in British Columbia.

If the approach that this government is adopting was taken when the ALR was created 40 years ago, then today we would not have the growth and successes in cranberry production and processing, B.C.'s award-winning wines and associated tourism economic activities. These industries grew out of what was deemed as "marginal or class 4 or 5 agricultural lands."

These so-called marginal agricultural lands support
[ Page 3877 ]
important industries today in cranberry production and processing, in fine wine, in B.C.'s vineyards. I've visited them on a farm tour with a number of my colleagues.

[1510]

When Corky Evans was in this Legislature — when he was the critic for Agriculture, back then, formerly a Minister of Agriculture and now a farmer in his community — he talked with expertise around the farming industry with love in his voice and his heart. I actually don't know anybody who knows as much as Corky does on agricultural lands and their value to British Columbia's economy and the sheer love of it — except for maybe the member for Saanich South, I've got to say.

On this tour we actually took the Shandong Satellite TV people with us to tour B.C.'s agricultural know-how — what we produce here from local soils, and the farmers and the production, in an attempt to not only promote Buy Local, Buy B.C., but also showcase to the rest of the world what we've got to offer: the incredible produce that comes out of it and the processing and technologies that we have and the wines that come out of British Columbia.

Once upon a time people said it was impossible, that B.C. could not possibly produce passable wine, let alone award-winning wine. But we beat the odds because of the dedication of the farmers in our communities, advocates of the people in our community and the foresight 40 years ago from the Barrett government, which took action to preserve agricultural lands and not to make a distinction to say that some lands are second-class citizens but, rather, that the less than 5 percent of the lands in British Columbia that can produce agricultural goods are valued and valued all the same so that we can maximize all of the opportunities that the abundance of the lands of British Columbia could give to all of us.

That's what those 40 years meant. Fast-forward to today, and where are we at? We're in a situation where the government, under Bill 24, will actually allow, I believe, other uses ahead of agricultural lands. If the government wants to protect agricultural lands, then let's maintain the notion of preserving agricultural lands based on the principle that the ALR was founded on: that it is a provincial interest to preserve agricultural lands.

Now, "What does 'provincial interest' mean?" you might ask. This means the preservation of agricultural lands as a sacred and non-renewable resource and the promotion of agricultural land use. That's what it would mean. There are four conditions that should be tied to the definition of "provincial interest" — that it is provincewide in its context and its application, and that it provides for long-term consequences. You need to consider long-term consequences. It means that the decisions around the agricultural land should be open and accountable in its decision-making and that the preservation and management of sacred and important provincial assets need to be considered as well.

The conditions or definition, if you will, of "provincial interest," I would argue, ought to be defined in the act explicitly and reaffirmed explicitly. That would be a good place to back up the government's claim that they want to protect agricultural lands when they say: "Bill 24 is not going to harm agricultural lands at all, so don't worry." Well, stakeholders are worried. The opposition is worried. We happen to disagree; many of my constituents happen to disagree.

[1515]

But let's start with this. If in fact that is the overriding principle that we can all agree on, which the government says they agree to, then let's start with that. Let's put on the table clearly defined "provincial interests" and what that means — including the four principles of provincewide content, long-term consequences, open and accountable decision-making, and the preservation and management of scarce and important provincial assets. On the table, as you define agricultural land protection — that would be a good start, and that would be a good place where the government can then say that they want to protect agricultural lands.

The issue, of course, is that that definition is not there. The government has done no such thing around it. Again, doing the research and looking this up — there was a report that was done to actually look at the issue of provincial interest, what it means, and to evaluate it against agricultural lands. The conclusion of the report came back to say that we should absolutely reaffirm the term "provincial interest" in the act and clearly define what it means.

I want to spend a moment talking about long-term consequences, because I think this is at the heart of the matter. The time element is significant. We're talking about trying to protect an asset that ought to belong to all British Columbians and is known as agricultural lands, and the provincial interest around these long-term consequences would be to ensure that these lands are available and continuing their use in perpetuity.

Often, though, and what we see in Bill 24, politics and economics tend to be based on what, I would argue, are short-term cycles, and that challenges the notion of provincial interest. I think that the government is willing to sell its soul and its commitment on the agricultural land and its preservation through the creation of Bill 24, allowing for the erosion of agricultural lands and therefore shortchanging the long-term consequences of losing this land base.

The issue of zone 1 and zone 2 is not the only issue in Bill 24. There are other issues with it as well, and that actually, I think, warrants some discussion in this debate. The creation of zone 1, zone 2 absolutely is critical around the preservation of agricultural land. I disagree with how the government's proceeding with that. I think we should clearly define a public interest with the preservation of agricultural lands — to reaffirm that commitment; to state clearly by legislation what that means; and to get rid
[ Page 3878 ]
of this two-tier system, this substandard notion or notion of substandard agricultural lands that the government wants to define, now known as zone 2.

The government, in this bill, is also creating the six panels, the regional panels. It goes to the accountability and decision-making question. In 2002 the Liberal government attempted to decentralize the Agricultural Land Commission by creating six regional panels consisting of three commissioners each. The panels at that time, when it was created, were deemed to be discretionary.

Now, the Auditor General, as we have heard from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, has said, in identifying…. We have all seen this report. He pointed out the deficiencies with the panels, not the least of which is a cost analysis around the panels.

In Bill 24 it actually makes these panels mandatory and ensures that the key ALR decisions, such as applications for exclusion or subdivision of land in the reserve, must be decided by the panels.

[1520]

The net effect, I think, is that this will subject the Agricultural Land Commission to the pressure of local land issues. That, I fear, would result in the loss of agricultural lands.

Now, Mr. Speaker, don't just take my word for it, though. People might just say: "Hey, you know what? That's your problem that you might have those worries. That's just your problem." I think we should actually go back and look at the record of how these panels have functioned since their creation, even though it was discretionary, to see how well it's worked on the principle of protecting agricultural lands.

There was an analysis that was done, which I researched and was able to find. The analysis was done by Ryan Green from the environmental law clinic at the University of Victoria. This report is a case study of Agricultural Land Commission decisions. With the creation of the six regional panels, the analysis shows that "it appears that the regional panels are not adequately protecting B.C.'s scarce agricultural land." That's the finding of the report itself.

The study examined and rated how the regional panels have approved exclusions from the ALR between the period of 2002 and 2005. The study shows that it approved 70.5 percent of the hectares of ALR land that were proposed for exclusion. That's more than a third of the lands for which exclusion was applied. The regions with the highest rate of ALR exclusions were Vancouver Island, at 89.1 percent; the Kootenays, at 83.6 percent; and the Okanagan, at 82.5 percent.

The report goes on to say that "the significant exclusion rates of southern regional panels are consistent with the general trend in the ALR's history, in which the ALR's total land base has been kept fairly consistent by replacing excluded agricultural land in southern British Columbia with relatively less productive lands in northern British Columbia."

What exactly does that mean, you might ask. It basically means that the government, under their watch, allowed for exclusions of land, prime agricultural land, in exchange for what the government would call substandard agricultural lands — right? — and lands that are now primarily in the north, which the government classifies as zone 2 lands. The government will say: "Zone 2 lands are less productive, and therefore, if we let go of some of that land, it's not a big deal."

You can see the erosion and the pattern of behaviour that is exhibited here by this government in their attempt to erode agricultural lands, the sacred land of which we have less than 5 percent in total. When you look at the analysis of the report, where these lands were lost…. These lands were lost for developments. Make no mistake about that. They were lost for non-farmland use.

Let's be clear. Once you lose that land and you put developments on it, you can't get it back. Even if you are able to buy the land back, it's questionable whether or not you can use that land for agricultural production purposes because of contamination and a variety of other factors. The long-term consequences are significant and very potentially irreversible. That's what we're dealing with, with Bill 24 today.

I know that the members of this House will say: "But you folks from the Lower Mainland don't understand about agricultural lands." The interesting thing is that people from across the province of British Columbia are calling for the government to kill Bill 24. It's not just a phenomenon in the Lower Mainland, although the voices in the Lower Mainland are very strong. Make no question about it.

[1525]

I have received a large stack of correspondence and letters — and voice mail and e-mails and on Facebook — from people in my riding, calling on the government to back off, to stop what they're trying to proceed with and to kill Bill 24, because agricultural lands ought to be kept sacred. It is a sustainable food source and provides for a strong economy for British Columbia. And once you lose that land, we cannot get it back.

I support my colleagues who have spoken on this bill and are opposed to Bill 24. I hope that the government members will pause and take a moment and listen to their constituents, to hear what they have to say about Bill 24 and their concerns around it. If they truly believe in their voices and respect their voices, then they will agree with us that they should stand down Bill 24.

Kill Bill 24, and let's start with the place of agreeing that we want to protect agricultural lands and with the principle of defining in the bill a provincial interest of what that means, with the four principles around that, so that we can preserve agricultural lands for generations to come — not just for today but for tomorrow and for your grandchildren and their grandchildren, Mr. Speaker.
[ Page 3879 ]

D. Routley: I am going to take my time in this second reading debate — most of my time, actually — to read a letter that I received through my colleague the MLA for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the Agriculture critic.

Also, I'd like to commend him on the fine work he's done on this file — and at the same time, the work that the previous critic, Saanich South, did on this file as well. I think both of them have demonstrated what it means to be really committed to public interest and to be activist politicians representing not just their constituents but primary and most important issues of the province.

I will first read this letter, because it's a long letter, and I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have left for my own comments at the end. I think it's important because the substantive issues of the day are too frequently debated without the witness or participation of those to whom the consequences have the most gravity. So many British Columbians are left out of the public discourse in this province and feel absolutely unheard.

Now this is my effort to allow this one person, Jim Wright, to be heard in this Legislature. I think he has written a very salient and important piece of work here. He's from Richmond, and he's a longtime Liberal supporter. In fact, he has never voted NDP, but he's had to resort to having one of our members read his letter into the record, partially because his MLA is the Speaker herself. He admires her as a person, but he's most upset with this legislation.

I want to read his letter into the record now.

"Dear MLAs of British Columbia:

"I've been following the Bill 24 debate closely, mostly through Hansard, and I love hearing letters from citizens. It is almost like we're being consulted. I have an excellent MLA, who shares many of my values, but she is the Speaker. That means she's not able to speak for me in the Legislature. I therefore sent this letter to the Agriculture critic, who arranged for an MLA to read it.

"An NDP member is representing me at this pivotal time, and that is ironic. I happen to have never voted NDP in my life. Late last year, as a longtime Liberal supporter, I received a Today's B.C. Liberals message about standing up for taxpayers, through core review, November 29, 2013.

"The message states: these goals for the core services review 'to save taxpayers money, reduce the regulatory burden on the private sector and make public services more focused and efficient….'

"Wow, I thought. I stand for all of that. But it reminded me of something that happened four months earlier in East Kootenay. It was reported in the Cranbrook Daily Townsman as: 'Agriculture Minister sees local farmers' struggles.' It got wider attention in the Vancouver Sun. The Agriculture Minister, who was new in the job at the time, had been taken under the wing of the minister responsible for the core services review. After this, I'll call him the core minister, for short.

"The core minister had invited his protégé to tour parts of East Kootenay to see the terrible things the ALR and the Agricultural Land Commission were doing to farmers and ranchers.

[1530]

"I should pause here to say that I'll go into a small number of matters in detail in this letter instead of dabbling in everything. I'll fill in gaps I've noticed from Hansard. For broad knowledge, I suggest watching the video of the MLA for Vancouver-Fairview's speech at the end of last week. For informed passion, I suggest the early presentation by the MLA for Saanich South. Many other MLAs have spoken well, so it may seem I'm left with just a few details, but they fill out the picture.

"Let's get back to the end of July 2013 in East Kootenay. As we visualize the sunny scene, the core minister, who is the MLA for Kootenay East, is tutoring the fledgling Agriculture Minister. According to the Cranbrook Daily Townsman, the local MLA, Minister for Core Review, focused on a key issue for local farmers — the seemingly arbitrary boundaries of the ALR, the agricultural land reserve and how it restricts farmers' ability to make a living.

"I agree that there are boundary problems, but there was one huge omission that stood out like a chasm in all the articles. The core minister never mentioned that the Agricultural Land Commission was already immersed in a solution at that very time in that very same region, Kootenay East. The omission makes all the difference between a valid observation and a confusing message from a person who should have known better. Politics is not known for fairness, but that went too far.

"At that, let me pause once again in this story. We need to go into the background of the ALR boundary reviews in East Kootenay. It begins with the audit of the Agricultural Land Commission by the Auditor General of British Columbia, who released his report in September 2010. The very first of the Auditor General's nine recommendations is this: 'Ensure that ALR boundaries are accurate and include land that is both capable of and suitable for agricultural use.'

"In a core review of the ALC, surely a key thing to look at is the highly relevant report by the Auditor General, along with the Agricultural Land Commission's systematic response to the Auditor General's report. If the Auditor General is ignored by the government even on the occasion of a core review, the efficiency that the Auditor General aims to enable cannot possibly occur. The Auditor General's staff are experts in efficiency. I should mention that the ALC is headed by Richard Bullock, an expert executive, who is building on a distinguished career as a farmer, business leader and public servant.

"In any case, one could assume that the core minister had not read the Auditor General's report and did not know how the commission was implementing it. The appearance is that the core minister was ignorant of at least three factors: (1) the recommendations in the Auditor General's report; (2) the strategic plan of the Agricultural Land Commission that the commission was systematically implementing; and (3) the comprehensive set of East Kootenay ALR boundary reviews, which were a major event in the core minister's own constituency.

"Besides ignorance, the only other possibility I can think of is that the core minister was concealing his knowledge of the ALR review while criticizing the ALR boundaries and the Agricultural Land Commission, but entertaining that possibility would lead to conclusions that I don't want to believe. I therefore choose to assume that the core minister was not trying to influence the commission to laxly exclude too much land from the ALR in the boundary review. Similarly, I will not assume the minister was deliberately misleading his trusting constituents so as to make a case against the ALR.

"In short, it is fair to give the core minister the benefit of doubt that he just didn't know what was going on. That benign view also fits with the Cranbrook Daily Townsman's other details of the core minister's orientation tour with his Agriculture Minister pupil at the end of July 2013.

"According to the article, the core minister cited a particular Agricultural Land Commission decision in East Kootenay as 'just plain wrong.' However, the core minister missed the purpose that the applicant stated in their well-written application, which I located and read. The intent of the application, which was good for farming, was 'to create a residential parcel for the owners, a retiring farm couple, so their daughter's family could succeed them in owning and farming the farm.'

[1535]

"The ALC decision showed that the applicants could already ac-
[ Page 3880 ]
complish their stated goal under the ALC Act. It happens, though, that the part of the act's ALR land use provision the commission had to apply is clumsy. Fortunately, the commission followed up, working with the farming family to meet the spirit of the law. As an administrative tribunal, the ALC has more leeway than a court to collaborate like that to flexibly meet the intents of the law. In my view, the regulation needs refining, but the ALC should have been commended for using common sense in the interim. The core minister's lambasting of the ALC's actions as 'just plain wrong' was at best an uninformed and unpleasant thing to do.

"The problem with all this is that it doesn't matter how genuine the core minister is in not knowing what's going on. The problem is that it's doing harm in a range of important ways, and Bill 24 is extending the harm. To stay with the damage in East Kootenay, let's look at what has happened with the set of boundary reviews there. One can do that from the home page of the Agricultural Land Commission website, since the ALC is as open as possible.

"We see from the ALC site that the commission completed the Elk Valley ALR boundary review on February 18 of this year. As of early March the ALC was progressing well with its other four East Kootenay reviews. By now the planning of the concurrent boundary reviews in the Cariboo and the north would have begun, but I suspect that Bill 24 has thwarted that.

"There is no sense in reviewing ALR boundaries in the Kootenays, Interior and north when Bill 24 would practically eliminate the ALR in those regions. ALR boundary reviews are an efficient method, and the ALC used the Elk Valley boundary review to fine-tune the system.

"Instead of that modern adaptation of the tried-and-true system of ALR boundary reviews, we're headed for an avalanche of applications that will have to be handled individually. I gather that it began months ago, after the core minister and former Agriculture Minister spurred land speculators with their comments. The avalanche will certainly gain momentum if Bill 24 goes through.

"Of course, though, Bill 24 makes it super easy to stack the ALC panels with commissioners who will approve anything, and maybe that is the idea. Otherwise, the massive inefficiency will be exactly opposite to what the core review was supposed to accomplish. This is a reason to take time to think about how the core review went wrong, before going headlong downhill into the abyss with Bill 24, the bill to kill the ALR.

"I hope the review of the core review will look at all the other inefficiency that Bill 24 would impose by law on the Agricultural Land Commission. Trying to find anything anywhere in the bill that might improve efficiency, you're more likely to find that anything in the bill that's a real change is an added burden on the ALC and the citizens it works with. According to today's B.C. Liberals' message I began with, the core review was supposed to 'save taxpayers money' and 'make public services more focused and efficient.'

"In Bill 24, in my view, every one of the real changes adds a burden of bureaucracy. It is bound to cost more money while doing harm to farmland conservation, food security and the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission as a tribunal. If this perversion of the core review is applied to large ministries, it will bankrupt the province. Applied to the ALC with its tiny budget, the bumbling under the cloak of a core review can't do that, but the effect on our future could be as bad.

"Let's go through Bill 24 sections that involve significant change. Section 2 of Bill 24 divides the provincial land use zone, called the ALR, into two zones. Since a zone can't be two zones, this section creates two ALRs. ALR 1 is a weakened version of the existing ALR. ALR 2 is an anything land reserve, which keeps agricultural land in a land bank until anything else that is wanted more comes up.

"Administering two ALRs with two sets of rules is bound to cost more while largely protecting farmland for non-farming uses. By the way, that is how there is an element of truth to the seemingly absurd talking point that Bill 24 protects farmland. The catch is that the bill to kill the ALR would actually protect farmland as a reserve for non-farmland uses. That is obvious in ALR 2 and less obvious, at this time, in ALR 1.

[1540]

"Section 3 of Bill 24 adds a whole lot of commissioners, eliminates the current efficient means of quality control, makes the tribunal more like six tribunals and enables almost instant stacking of the tribunal panels with chairs and other members who think approved thoughts. That applies to ALR 1 and ALR 2, so forget about the supposed status quo in ALR 1.

"From a focused efficiency standpoint, most of the increased costs are self-evident, so I'll comment only on the stripping away of quality control by taking away the ALC chair's right and duty to consult on appointments. That greatly increases the likelihood of unsuitable appointments.

"All of us who have dealt with the consequences of being stuck with bad team members know that it's far more efficient to get the selections right to begin with. There is little cost for the quality control of the chair's involvement in hiring the chair's team members, but there's unlimited cost to the consequences of the bad choices that Bill 24 makes more likely.

"Section 5 of Bill 24 is related to the panels that would become nearly independent tribunals. The review of Bill 24 by the B.C. Food System Network's expert panelists brings out that the routine decisions would lack provincial context because the ALC chair does not participate; that previous experience with regional panels shows they can be costly and awkward to manage; that there would be increased concerns about unfairness and inconsistency, both between regions and over time; and that there would be increased danger of collusion, conflict of interest or outright collusion between members of the regional panels and regional or local governments.

"In the ALC's strategic plan the chair came up with a hybrid approach that includes representation from each region while avoiding the pitfalls, and there has been evident progress toward that efficient and regionally fair model. As I've mentioned, chair Richard Bullock is an executive with a record of success that has been evident in his systematic modernizing of the ALC. But Bill 24 would trash that progress by Mr. Bullock and the ALC team.

"The Bill 24 plan that would turn past mistakes into law is financial idiocy. If we recall the stated goals for the core services review, it certainly does not 'save taxpayers money' or 'make public services more focused and efficient.'

"Section 6 of Bill 24 amounts to bureaucracy at any cost. Some key words in that section are 'the commission must submit to the minister….' We know from a leaked memo that the intent has been to bring the Agricultural Land Commission directly under the Minister of Agriculture's thumb. This section is the main means.

"Richard Bullock, the current chair of the ALC, already does a lot of reporting on the ways the ALC is systematically improving service while limiting costs. It makes no sense to go further to the ten listed kinds of ways in which he is supposed to submit to the minister. That level of micromanaging could be prescribed for entry-level clerks on probation to get them to quit, but even then it would be unsavoury.

"The excellent B.C. Food Systems Network analysis once again provides insight with this comment: 'Opens door for government pressure that could compromise regulators' independence and fairness.' In other words, this section introduces pointless cost, hampers the commission's freedom to do useful work and compromises the independence of a supposedly independent tribunal.

"For section 8 of Bill 24, I'll conserve time by just commenting on the way the bill leaves no stone unturned when it can add to the bureaucratic load on the Agricultural Land Commission. In the current act cabinet can make regulations that establish policies and procedures, and the amendment changes that to policies, procedures, rules and regulations.

[1545]

"Why add rules and regulations? The likely reason, given the
[ Page 3881 ]
previous Minister of Agriculture's leaked intents, is to put the ALC more firmly into the ministry without officially doing so. Cabinet would theoretically be setting rules and regulations for the ALC, but they would come from the Minister of Agriculture or, possibly, the core minister. But that's a problem too.

"Throughout the sections of Bill 24, the powers of the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission are curtailed. Someone with the skills of a Richard Bullock would still find a way to make the best of a bad situation, and his recent comments to Metro Vancouver leaders show he is already looking ahead to doing so.

"However, turning a tremendous asset like Mr. Bullock into a much more limited asset is not the purpose of a core review. As I pause to reflect about that, the phrase that comes to mind is from the MLA of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. In his presentation to the Legislature on this topic a few days ago, he used the expression 'decision-based evidence making.'

"The evidence making that the Globe and Mail sought to obtain recently was not available because 93 pages of it was redacted. Mark Hume's article summarizes the core minister's assertion that the changes are warranted because the ALC has been keeping too much land locked up in the land reserve.

"The obvious solution was the ALR boundary reviews that the ALC was doing and that Bill 24 is blocking, so the assertion is false. However, it would be useful to see the 93 pages for insight into the core minister's decision-based evidence making. I even wonder if those 93 pages have always been blank.

"In lieu of the missing 93 pages, I will have to rely on evidence from the core minister at and around his media party, March 27, 2014, to celebrate what appears to be a life dream of vanquishing the ALR. At the media party he 'could not contain his excitement,' says Vaughn Palmer.

"There are stories about how the core minister botched the supposed consulting that the B.C. Food Systems Network policy leaders tried to take part in, but to be fair, it seems that the core minister did get ideas from his Kootenay East constituents.

"At the media event one of them said her children might build a prison or a motel on ALR land. That is a valuable insight into the purpose of Bill 24, especially since the speaker had been selected and brought across the province to represent the source of the core minister's evidence.

"Talking to the Cranbrook Daily Townsman that day, the core minister said: 'If I was going to point to one aspect of the ALC that people in my region really don't like, it's the fact that they apply, and they get they turned down by essentially bureaucrats who live in the Lower Mainland.'

"That stirs local pride, but it is false evidence. As the Agricultural Land Commission website shows, ALC commissioners live in five of the six regions. There's one apiece in the Kootenay region and south coast, which includes the Lower Mainland. The ALC panels also meet in the regions. I think there should be swift action to add a qualified commissioner from the north, but we don't need Bill 24 for that.

"The core minister implied that Cranbrook, where he lives, has no local food, but the ALC's Cranbrook commissioner produces free-range beef. Even if the core minister is genuinely ignorant about other local agriculture around Cranbrook, he should at least have known that fact if he is to have any credibility about the value of having commissioners from the region.

"To be clear, I agree with that value. In the context of the balanced way that Richard Bullock's hybrid model values it. The core minister said the bill would allow farmers to do 'canning or making jams or cheese or wine.' To that I say: what?

"Within reason they've always been ALR uses, and Bill 24 doesn't change that. The core minister complained that a constituent was stopped from mining gravel from a farm. But that was the Mines Ministry that turned it down. That's the same minister's own ministry. Why is Bill 24 needed to fix the minister's ministry? Can't he just take his fingers out of the ALR pie and tend to his own problems?

[1550]

"The core minister whined again about the bad local lands stuck in the ALR. But the rest of us all know that the ALC is doing an ALR boundary review in Kootenay East. We all know that it implements the Auditor General's advice and that the core minister appears to have slowed it to a standstill. Bill 24 is not needed to enable the ALC to go back to solving the problems they were already solving.

"At his media party on March 27 the core minister did admit confusion and mentioned that he had not consulted for Bill 24. True. He didn't even consult the ALC chair, Richard Bullock. All we know is that he consulted the woman who sees motels and penitentiaries on farmland in her children's future. Even for decision-based evidence-making, that is not much evidence.

"This government got accolades from people of all political persuasions for its Water Act consultation. Now, on this matter, there have been many calls for consultation, including a recent one from Metro Vancouver. Surely, the bill to kill the ALR can be put aside until the fall sitting for that.

"I have been offering this input as a non-partisan view of how Bill 24 fits with the stated purposes of the core review. Since those purposes have a financial emphasis, my letter has had that emphasis too.

"However, I should add that I'm also president of the Garden City Conservation Society, I am well versed in the values of the ALC Act for agriculture and ecological conservation, and I have followed the ALC and ALR, with firsthand involvement, for many years. I am also active in the Richmond Poverty Response, and food security is important to me because it is so important to the least privileged members of society.

"If Bill 24 were actually good for protecting farmland, for agriculture or for food security, I would be singing its praises. The unfortunate reality is that it is dreadful for protecting farmland and dreadful for protecting food security. The day of reckoning for ignoring those values is fast approaching.

"Ideally, please put Bill 24 out of its misery. If you can't bear to see it go, please at least give it a summer vacation. At the same time please urge the Minister of Agriculture and the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission to consult widely together.

"With best wishes,

"Jim Wright,

"Richmond"

I have rarely taken such time to read someone's thoughts, a citizen's thoughts, into the record, but I think it's really important for a government that refuses to hear the voice of the people it represents, refuses to consult with British Columbians about the valuable, important issues of gravity that affect them. This government is deaf to the voices of British Columbians. This government is blind to the values of British Columbians. This legislation and other legislation brought by this government fail the public interest.

I've been here for nine years, and I've seen it over and over and over again — from land removals, from forest protection that the Auditor General condemned as a failure to the public interest, to the sale of public assets against promises made by that government in campaigning for power. This government is failing the people of B.C. This government is betraying the public interest.

This government is so loathsomely and contemptibly arrogant as they sit there and laugh, whether we're talking about homelessness, whether we're talking about
[ Page 3882 ]
the environment and protecting the coast of this province, whether we're talking about the ALR and 40 years of preservation of farmland — 40 years of the most progressive land use management regulations on the planet. This government doesn't take it seriously. This government doesn't care.

As this citizen, who declares himself a longtime supporter of the B.C. Liberals, has said, the day of reckoning for this kind of ignorance is fast approaching. I beg the government to hear these voices. I beg the government to act, finally, in the public interest and kill Bill 24.

S. Chandra Herbert: I seek leave to table a petition.

Leave granted.

Petitions

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to table a petition. I've got guests in the gallery. A young woman, Marissa Smithson, and Jasmine Storm have been collecting signatures on a petition, along with Ms. Margaret McCullough.

[1555]

The petition is to call on the B.C. government to ban the sale of shark fin products in the province of British Columbia, with about 1,500 signatures.

Debate Continued

R. Austin: It's a privilege for me to rise and participate in this debate on Bill 24. I'm going to start by quoting a joke that my former friend Corky Evans once told me. In his estimation, there were only two ways to get rich quick in British Columbia. One was to beat all the odds and buy a winning lottery ticket. The other was to be fortunate enough to have a piece of land and, even more fortunate, to have someone who would change the zoning on that.

I think that at the end of the day, that's what Bill 24 is all about. It's about having the ability to change zoning in 90 percent of something which most people regard as sacrosanct: the agricultural land reserve.

My house is on two acres on the north side of Terrace. It's actually in the agricultural land reserve. When I was doing research on this bill, I was actually a little bit surprised to find all the agricultural land that is around my property — surprised because most of the land in that section of the ALR is, by any estimates, unusable for farming.

The land is too steep. It's forested. We have salmon-bearing streams running through the properties close to my area. Yet it's still in the agricultural land reserve. So I would agree with the minister on one point, and that is: yes, when the boundaries were drawn 50 years ago, there were pieces of land which were not suitable for farming which were included in the ALR.

However, where I disagree with the Core Review Minister…. There is a process already in place to solve that problem. If I or any of my neighbours had decided that they wanted to remove our properties from the ALR, we could have applied for an exclusion and we could — definitely, I would say — have gotten it.

Anyone who comes to look at our properties would realize that only at the upper sections of the end of my road is there land that's flat enough, with suitable drainage, suitable for farming activities. Down at my particular end I would certainly have no trouble getting it out of the ALR.

In fact, what's really ironic in this bill…. I have the opportunity to listen to the Minister for Core Review not just when he's speaking on the public record. Sitting so close to him in the Legislature, I even get to hear all of his heckles that he makes when questions are asked about the ALR.

Most of what he is concerned about, as has been alluded to by a lot of my colleagues on this side of the House, is that he somehow has people who come close to him — friends, neighbours, I don't know — who tell him that they want to remove land out of the ALR and have been stymied by the process. As a result of that, we now see Bill 24.

It has absolutely nothing to do with improving farming or protecting land for future generations — nothing whatsoever to do with that. It has more to do with getting land out of the ALR, as my colleague just spoke to from that letter, for people who want to build prisons or build motels. That is not the purpose of the ALR.

There aren't many pieces of legislation that have been passed in British Columbia which have had a broad consensus over a long period of time as having been visionary. Most times in this House we pass legislation with very, very shallow thinking behind it, with not a lot of consultation behind it. Often we have to make compromises, and I'm okay with that. Compromises are what make politics work.

But the ALR is something that was created not for a one-term government, not for a two-term government. It hasn't served us well for just the expediency of election cycles. It has served the province of British Columbia so well for 40 years.

[1600]

Think of this. How many people in this House can say that they have worked on a piece of legislation that was so visionary, so ahead of its time in its thinking, that 40 years later people from both sides of the House look back on that piece of legislation and say how brilliant it was, how great it is that people were thinking ahead long before we knew about climate change, long before we knew about how urban sprawl can destroy cities and make them unlivable?
[ Page 3883 ]

Long before we had any of that knowledge, someone had the vision to sit in this Legislature and to take on landowners, take on farmers, take on all kinds of people who at the time thought that it was a terrible thing to bring in the agricultural land reserve.

Forty years later, of course, with hindsight, we look at that as being a brilliant piece of legislation. The idea that we have to modernize something that was so ahead of its time, modernize something that has worked so well and has continued to work so well, makes absolutely no sense.

Now most of the disagreement in this Legislature around this bill stems from the notion of creating two zones. Certainly, I think that that is a dreadful notion.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I like the idea of there being an independent body — someone outside of politics, someone not involved in the partisan nature of what we do here — who has a vision and a legal mandate to protect farmland, and to look at farmland not just for the point of view of someone who lives in the Lower Mainland and has very rich soil and great land that's able to produce $12,000 a hectare from the product; but for someone who can look at the whole provincial picture and recognize that if land in the north is useful for grazing cattle, it may not bring in anywhere close to $12,000 a hectare. But you know what? For those ranchers out there, it's very, very important that that land be protected for that particular use.

I think it's very, very important that we continue to have one zone and one body, with a legal obligation of looking at the agricultural land reserve from a provincial perspective. Only that person and only that body can recognize the great variances that take place in our agricultural sector right throughout British Columbia.

The other section that people on this side of the House have a real bone of contention with is the notion that we need to have regional panels.

Now, here again, in most cases I am very much in favour of having decision-making that's made closer to home. I'll give you a great example. In all parts of British Columbia we have a centralized Ministry of Education that then sends resources out to approximately 60 school districts in British Columbia. Then local people elected in those districts get to make decisions on how to run the local school district.

The problem with having panels that are locally appointed is twofold. First of all, those panels are going to be appointed by people who are of the same political persuasion, perhaps, of the governing party and therefore would have an interest in politicizing what should not be political. More importantly, it goes back to my quote from Corky Evans. If you have a piece of land and know somebody and can change the zoning, then suddenly you're better off. By having panels that are created locally, it enables the kind of relationships and friendships, which are very common outside of the Lower Mainland, to open this system up to abuse.

We all know that once you get outside of big cities, in small towns and communities right across British Columbia, we all know one another. We all know one another from…. Perhaps, some people would say, we know too much about one another. But we certainly all know one another.

If you were to create panels like this and appoint people locally, inevitably someone you know would be on that panel. If you didn't know someone directly on that panel, you'd certainly know someone else who would know somebody on that panel. By creating panels and having them live in local communities outside the Lower Mainland, you're once again taking away that provincial view of the agricultural land reserve and allowing people to be influenced by local friendships. Who knows what could happen, but it's not a good idea.

Actually, this has already been proven. In 2002 or 2003 there were attempts made to bring in regional panels into the ALR. What do we see from that? We see an increase in the percentage of exclusions that were made under that process when there were panels working.

[1605]

We've already proven our case, on this side of the House, when we say the panels are simply not a good idea. We need to maintain one ALR, one zone, with someone who has the legal obligation to be independent and to take care of the agricultural land reserve.

There are so many points to be made. Let me make another one. We know that in the Lower Mainland, if you are somebody interested in getting involved in farming, the price of land on the Lower Mainland or on Vancouver Island or in the Kootenays, the prime areas of agricultural land…. It would be prohibitive for a young person who decided they wanted to have the lifestyle of being a farmer to actually get in and buy some land. So the easiest way for someone from the Lower Mainland who wants to get into farming is to go and purchase land further north or in a region outside of the Lower Mainland.

What we see here with Bill 24, and the bill hasn't even passed yet, is already a huge amount of speculation on agricultural land — not, of course, to be used for agricultural purposes. The speculation is that as a result of this bill, more land will be able to be taken out of the ALR, and it will have more value for other uses other than farming uses.

What does that say to a young person who is thinking about getting into farming? What it says is that Bill 24 will result in higher land prices right throughout the province as this speculation persists. What we will see is that it makes it even harder for them to go and purchase land.

There are lots of industries that take place outside of the Lower Mainland that have to contend with the ALR and the ALC as it has been in statute for 40 years. When
[ Page 3884 ]
I was visiting the northeast…. People will know that the northeast is the area of the province that not only has a huge amount of agricultural land. It's also an area of the province where we have seen our oil and gas industry really grow over the last 25, 30 years.

The interesting thing, when you visit that part of British Columbia and speak to farmers, as I did last year, is that they have learned to co-exist with the industry up there. In fact, when you speak to farmers up there, many of whom have a gas well on their property or pipelines going through their property, they have come to an arrangement with the industry that enables them to actually get a little bit of rent from whatever is sitting on their land.

They're able to negotiate with the oil and gas industry to see where that gas facility is placed on their land that makes it the least onerous for them, from the point of view of farming. I think that it's fair to say that many of the farmers up there recognize that that extra income that comes from having a pipeline or a small oil facility on their land is beneficial to them, because it helps to bring in some income while they continue to practice the main thing they want to do, which is farming.

What we've seen is an agricultural land reserve and an ALC that recognizes that you can have a prime agricultural part of the province and still have an industrial activity, and it works. So why do we need now to suddenly change the rules when we've already seen so many examples across British Columbia of how the two can work hand in hand? It makes absolutely no sense to change the rules.

I somehow think that those on the other side, when they focus on LNG, think somehow that if they don't weaken the ALR, somehow this will have an effect on the ability of the gas industry to expand. As I've already mentioned, it doesn't, because this has been going on for the last 25 years, and there have been accommodations made.

I remember meeting with folks from the oil and gas industry and speaking to them about the process and how they approach farms and farm owners, landowners, when they want to put some industrial activity on their land. They said that it's not difficult. They have meetings. They'll go and meet with new farmers, and they'll perhaps take people who have already got a facility on their land. They'll sit down with them, explain what the process is.

Here's the really interesting thing. The attention paid, the detail paid in terms of protecting that land is quite extraordinary. I'm going to go into a little bit of detail here.

[1610]

I was visiting a farm last year. This particular farm had a property on it. The high-grade soil was removed and set aside in a certain area. The second-grade soil was removed very carefully and set aside in another area. The pipeline was installed across the side of this person's property, and then the company that did that then had to put all the soil back in its original place, with one grade of soil going down first and then the higher grade of soil going on afterwards.

What we see is a combination on both sides that recognized the value of that agricultural land and recognized that we can actually have industrial activity and still continue to do farming.

I'd like to speak to something else — that is, what this bill is supposed to do in regards to helping us on the core review. As per the letter that was read out earlier this afternoon, the core review was supposed to save us tax dollars. It was supposed to reduce red tape. That's the mandate that was given in the mandate letter to the Minister for Core Review.

Yet what we are seeing here in this bill is the exact opposite of what the core review is supposed to be doing. In fact, the Agricultural Land Commission does not have the resources to be doing the job it should be doing currently. Now what we're saying with Bill 24 is that we're going to ask them to look at two different systems instead of one, making it even harder for them to do the work that is necessary.

They've been commissioned recently to do boundary reviews right across the province. In fact, even in my area of the northwest — where we don't have a huge amount of agricultural land, at least not in my riding — there are already boundary reviews taking place to try and ensure that the maps that were written 40 years ago make sense today.

What we're going to see now with Bill 24, if this bill gets passed, is an Agricultural Land Commission without the extra resources coming into it suddenly have to attempt to do, or perhaps stop doing, those boundary reviews and, instead, now start to have to take care of a second zone as well as the first zone and to have to look at different criteria between these two zones. That is not a way to save taxpayers' money. It's not a way to save money for the Agricultural Land Commission. It's certainly is not a way to reduce red tape. In fact, if anything, it simply increases red tape.

I'd also like take a moment to simply discuss the lack of democracy around this bill. When the election was taking place a year ago, nobody had any notion in their minds at all that we were going to be seeing changes to the ALR come forward. I recognize that this hasn't had the controversy of the HST, but in many ways it exemplifies what happened with the HST.

We have a 28-day campaign. People go out and put out their platforms. Nowhere in the B.C. Liberal platform was there any mention of making changes to the agricultural land reserve. Then after the election we see, with snippets of information leaking out initially, that the Minister for Core Review was thinking about making changes.

It's no wonder that people get disillusioned with the political system. They elect a government that doesn't talk about what it is they're going to do and suddenly
[ Page 3885 ]
find themselves a few weeks after an election with people coming forward to make changes to something which….

It's not just us on this side of the House who regard this as sacrosanct. Many governments of all stripes have looked at the agricultural land reserve and recognized that it was a piece of legislation that was years ahead of its time. It's not just the opposition who are upset about this; it's the average voter who's sitting there and wondering: "Wait a second here. I didn't vote for this."

My colleague read a letter from a longtime B.C. Liberal supporter who is involved in agriculture, who understands the issues of agriculture, saying: "Wait a second here. I voted for the B.C. Liberals, but I never in a million years suspected that I was going to see changes to something that I value to the very core."

[1615]

This bill is fundamentally undemocratic. When you consider that we live in a system with…. Yes, we have a majority government. The British parliamentary system creates our government so that on election day one group of people wins the election and gets to do what it is that they're putting forward. But this group of people is putting forward something that they had no notion of and the people who voted for them had absolutely no notion of prior to this bill being presented.

Let's think about what the solution to this is. Well, we have seen legislation brought forward here before and, indeed, recently lots of legislation brought forward in the federal parliament where, once that legislation is brought into the House, there is such an uproar around the province or around the country that the government of the day recognizes that maybe they are overreaching, overstepping their boundaries, even overstepping their democratic right as a government with a majority.

I would suggest that this is one of those moments. We have seen people from right across British Columbia, from a whole variety of sectors, including many in the agricultural sector, who say: "Listen, we don't think these changes are a good thing. We don't think these changes are actually going to benefit agriculture. So why would we support them?" They are in the industry. They are in the sector, but they were not even consulted. Never mind the average citizen who didn't know about this; even stakeholders who are involved in agriculture were not consulted on this bill.

The minister, to his credit, has admitted that. He said: "Whoops. Mea culpa. I made a mistake. I'm creating this piece of legislation based on who knows what."

The solution here is very simple. We are in the second-to-last week of this legislative session. We know for a fact that there's going to be a fall session. Yay, for once there's going to be a fall session. The government has said that. So when we come back in the fall….

Between when we finish this session next week or the week after and we come back in the fall, that gives the perfect opportunity for the government to withdraw this bill, to go back to British Columbians, to go back to those who really understand agriculture — the scientists, the soil experts, those who are involved in the industry — for them to sit down with them and come up with changes, maybe even work with the opposition.

We recognize that nothing is perfect and that the ALR act might need some modifications, but creating two zones is not a modernization. It is simply a gutting of 90 percent of our agricultural land reserve by allowing it to be taken out and used for other purposes. That's not a modernization. That's not an improvement. That's actually taking away from the very principles of what has been created here, by doing this.

That's what the solution needs to be. People need to go and sit aside and do the proper consultation that's needed here.

I think we see a government that in some regards was stepping in that direction. When we saw recently that there was a new Minister of Agriculture appointed, he said all of the right things. He said that he was going to take…. I'm going to quote from him: "The opportunity is everything from amending this 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."

I would argue that there has been no consultation process. He's gotten up in the House on several occasions and said that he's read many, many e-mails, perhaps even hundreds of e-mails. But that's not a consultation process, having e-mails sent to you. No one knows what was said in those e-mails. It's not public. We haven't seen what stakeholders who are involved in the industry have to say. That's not a consultative process.

I would argue that there is discord even on the government side on this issue, because while you've got the Agriculture Minister saying, "Yes, I need to go and consult the people," you've got the Minister for Core Review saying: "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. This bill will pass."

We see discord even on the government side with regards to this bill, with the one minister, the minister who is supposed to be in charge of agriculture, actually recognizing that he had taken on a bit of a hot potato and understanding that the ball had been dropped by the Minister for Core Review and there being another Agriculture Minister who was away ill at the time.

We already see some discord here in this government. That alone tells you that this is not a good piece of legislation, when they can't even decide on that side of the House whether they all agree on this act.

[1620]

I would urge them to take this opportunity not just to listen what we are saying here on the opposition benches but to recognize that there are fundamental problems
[ Page 3886 ]
with this piece of legislation.

I'm going to speak to one of the opponents who's in the agricultural sector who thinks this is not a good bill — the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. I would say that most cattlemen live in constituencies that vote for the government. I think that's a fact, if you look at a political map. I think that it's fair to say that most cattlemen, perhaps, are right of centre in their politics. So there's no political win for them by suggesting that they're going to support this just because that's who they vote for.

They recognize what their needs are as people who are producing beef in the province of British Columbia. They recognize that they need vast open expanses of land to graze their cattle — land that is protected right now in one zone in the province of British Columbia, not two zones. They recognize that their land, even though it's not nearly as valuable as someone in Richmond who is growing blueberries…. To them, who are trying to have a successful cattle industry and produce high-quality beef for British Columbians, that land is as valuable as the land in the Lower Mainland is for people who are producing market fruit that sells for a huge amount of money.

That alone speaks to the notion of why we need to have one zone and why we need to have a mandate for a commission that can look at this province as a whole and not piecemeal and not say: "Oh well, your land is worth this much an acre, and this land is worth that much an acre. Oh well, you've got a piece of property. It's not worth that much. Let's take it out, and you can build a motel." No, that's not going to work.

It's certainly not going to work for the cattlemen. Do you think that they want to see two zones where some of their land can be expropriated or removed now to have higher values other than what it's used for, for grazing? That's not in the interests of the beef industry. The cattlemen have spoken about that. We on this side of the House are standing here before you making sure that their case is heard loud and clear, hon. Speaker.

But they're not the only ones. There has been a group of scientists who wrote a letter, a hundred scientists who wrote a letter saying: "Look, we do not think that this bill is in the best interest of agriculture." Here we are discussing a bill all about agriculture, and there are major stakeholders around the province, people who are actually experts in this field saying: "Wait a second here. This is not the best way to move forward with the agriculture industry."

We have a very small part of this province — 5 percent of the land mass of British Columbia — right now reserved for agricultural land production. Five percent — think of that. It is a tiny percentage of British Columbia. So it is absolutely critical that we protect what it is that we have and not let it be given away. Otherwise, we are going to see future generations not looking upon this debate and this government kindly.

We are in a world where climate change is a huge factor, not simply here in Canada but all over the world. When we go to the grocery store, we see fruits and vegetables from all parts of the world. Here in Canada we see lots and lots of our produce coming from California. Now, anyone who has read the papers recently can look and see what is happening in California as a result of drought and heat. We are actually losing the green basket of the western United States in terms of producing the kinds of produce that it has for all of us who live here in B.C.

So it is even more critical today than it was 40 years ago when this was created, even more critical for food security issues to recognize that by protecting our land here in B.C. for local food production, we are continuing to give a gift to future generations that we were fortunate enough to get given to us 40 years ago by a government that had a huge and important vision.

We have a generation that's coming up now who recognize the value of locally grown food, not simply because of climate change. I live in a part of the province where most things that come to the local supermarkets spend two days on a truck. So the food where I live is two days older than the food in the Lower Mainland. Think of the value for those of us who live in Skeena.

[1625]

Next door to me, east of me, is the Bulkley Valley, a hugely great agricultural production area. The value to all of us who live in the northwest to be able to eat food that is grown locally…. It's of huge value to us, not simply because we know we're doing our part for climate change, but because that food is more nutritious and tastes better.

We need to protect the northern part. We need to protect the greater outreach zones, which this government in this bill is saying are not as worthy of protection as those zones on Vancouver Island and in the Lower Mainland. For those of us who live in the north, I would absolutely, fundamentally, disagree with that. We're not second-class citizens. We want to be in one zone.

R. Chouhan: I rise to express my opposition to Bill 24. I know that many of my colleagues, those who have spoken before me, have also provided historical data very eloquently of why this bill, Bill 24, is not in the interest of British Columbians — why it should be opposed and why it should be stopped. The changes this government is trying to make to the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission would leave a very negative impact on our capacity to produce food for a very long time.

The policy to create the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve was made in 1973, after very careful thinking, to ensure that the food production in the future would be secure and safe and protected. It was a very visionary policy for the NDP government in 1973 to protect our farmland from being taken away by the developers. In the last many years we have seen many other places that have taken very strong steps to stop the
[ Page 3887 ]
erosion of the agricultural land.

My family is a family of farmers. I know the importance of farming. I have worked with the farmworkers and the farmers for many, many years before I was elected as MLA in 2005. I understand how important today it is for us to have land where people can go to work and produce food for everybody. As somebody has said, the fruit and the vegetables that we eat every day is not produced in Safeway or Save-On-Foods. It comes from the farmland.

In the face of population growth worldwide and the climate change, it has become even more important that all governments must take the necessary steps to ensure the increase of agricultural land. Unfortunately, this bill, rather than moving forward, will make it easier for the developers to take away our precious land. This will set us back for years to come. That's why many experts are speaking against this bill.

If the government thinks that this bill is good for our province, then why is the government so afraid to take it to the public for proper consultation? The Minister of Agriculture — the new Minister of Agriculture — said a few weeks ago that we should not be proceeding with this bill. I think the minister should stick with that sentiment and withdrawal this bill now, or at least wait till the fall session. That will provide the government an opportunity to consult with the public and get their feedback before they make a decision that would be so detrimental for the food production in British Columbia.

The minister knows how strongly British Columbians are against it. We know it, because the letters he has received and the government MLAs have received, we also have copies in our offices as well. Hundreds and hundreds of those letters we have received and the voice mail messages and the Facebook messages. There are so many. We cannot read all of them. At least, we should put some of those messages on record.

[1630]

One letter I want to read is from the Peace River District Women's Institute. It's dated April 15 of this year, and it's addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. It reads:

"Dear Minister:

"The Peace River District Women's Institute is quite concerned over Bill 24 regarding the changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The Peace River District Women's Institute is one of 14 districts of British Columbia women's institutes and represents agriculture producers throughout the Peace River regional district.

"Bill 24 will, in all likelihood, have a negative impact, rather than preserving agricultural land. The preservation of the Agricultural Land Commission Act needs to remain strong, not to revert back to before it was incorporated. Your recent announcement that two zones have been struck in B.C. is a major concern. Zone 1 of prime farmland and zone 2, with the lower-value crop production, suggest that the B.C. government, in making that statement, have not considered the Peace Valley acres of class 1 and 2 land.

"The 2,000 to 3,000 acres of topsoil land with the microclimate that could produce major agriculture and horticulture, have been ignored if, indeed, Site C is allowed to proceed. If our class 1 and 2 soils are flooded, then we are left with the lower-value crop production. The ALC needs to be preserved in all areas of the province.

"According to the 2011 Census of Agriculture highlights for Peace River, census region 8 regional profile: 'Agriculture plays an important role in the region's economy. It is primarily a grain- and oilseed-growing area producing wheat, canola, barley and hay crops as well as cattle ranching.'

"The Peace Valley could provide this province with food security for generations to come by providing high-value crops that are grown in the Lower Mainland and the Okanagan. The Agricultural Land Commission provides a means of preserving our productive agricultural land for the future, and we do not want to lose that vision. It is not what we need today but what we will need for the future generations.

"The United Nations encourages the protection of valuable agricultural land. Why does our government want to destroy our valuable resource? Prime agricultural land is renewable if not destroyed, whereas the oil, gas and mining are non-renewable, thus provide short-term gain.

"We, the members of the Peace River district, urge the government to set Bill 24 aside and consult properly with stakeholders and the public on any changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

"I look forward to your comments.

"Sincerely, for home and country,

"Ruth Veiner, president"

Similarly, so many other letters have been sent to the government. I'm going to just quote some of the letters, not all of them.

Another letter came from the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association. I'll just read parts of it. It's dated May 7. It 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."

It further says: "It is difficult to see what the overall benefits to agriculture will be from Bill 24 and 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's very difficult for our directors to support the bill, even with your changes."

It also 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."

Then there's an article published in the Alaska Highway News. It's called: "Peace River Regional District Objects to Farmland Bill."

[1635]

It starts by saying: "The Peace River regional district…requesting that the provincial proposal to separate the agricultural land reserve into two significantly different zones be withdrawn from the Legislative Assembly." And it says: "There was also a feeling on the board that northern land was being taken for granted."

We do require some consultation. "I think if we are going to talk about the two-tiered system, we are talking about our northern regions as being treated as second-class citizens. I mean, you either have a single tier, or you don't have a tier."

It continues to read: "We believe there's no justification for creating two separate agricultural land reserve zones in the province and that, contrary to what has been reported in local media, our constituents have not been
[ Page 3888 ]
asking for this change."

"The media report referred to a letter that ran in the Vancouver Sun last week in which the Core Review Minister…was quoted as saying that the bill would be going through and that there was 'tremendous support' for the bill in the Peace region."

"'That is not quite true,' said Goodings" — the president — "in response to the minister's statement. 'I think it's inappropriate to slam the fist on the table and say, "This is the way it is," she said.' "Let's talk about that." Consultation is important, and "some open, public meetings might be the way to go."

There are so many others, other groups in the province who have also registered their opposition to this bill. Some of them I'm going to list. One is the district of Metchosin. It has passed a unanimous council decision in October 2013. They sent a letter to the Minister for Core Review asking for no mandate change or reduction for the ALC.

The city of Richmond, on October 7, 2013, passed a resolution that Core Review protect and enhance the ALR and ALC and enable consultation. On April 28, 2014, the city of Richmond passed a motion asking the province to consult with the public and local governments before Bill 24 becomes law.

The district of North Saanich, on October 8, 2013, sent a letter to the Minister for Core Review, seeking clarification on core review of the Agricultural Land Commission. Similarly, the Sunshine Coast regional district passed a resolution on October 10, 2013.

Peace River regional district sent a letter to the new Minister of Agriculture requesting that the provincial proposal to separate the agricultural land reserve into two significantly different zones be withdrawn from the Legislative Assembly.

The village of Nakusp, on November 25 of last year, passed a motion supporting the preservation of farmland and calling for a longer consultation period.

My own city, the city of Burnaby, on April 14 this year, passed a resolution in opposition to the proposed alteration to the agricultural land reserve. Islands Trust on December 20 wrote a letter to the previous Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Core Review supporting the preservation of the ALR and demanding consultation.

The Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities, on April 11 this year, passed a resolution at their annual convention requesting that the provincial government respect the integrity of the provincewide agricultural land reserve and support its management by an independent and adequately funded Agricultural Land Commission.

The Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments on April 9 also passed a resolution at the annual convention 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.

[1640]

The Southern Interior Local Government Association also passed a resolution at their May 2014 annual convention. Number 1: increase resources to the Agricultural Land Commission in accordance with the recommendations. Number 2 says that the provincial government maintain the Agricultural Land Commission as an independent administrative tribunal.

The B.C. Agriculture Council also says…. Initially, it gave support to the bill. Later, upon reviewing the act, the BCAC withdrew its support and now wants the government to delay and change the legislation.

The B.C. Food Systems Network completed a full analysis of Bill 24 and sent it to all MLAs. They have sent out several news releases in opposition to Bill 24 and also have expressed their strong opposition to Bill 24.

Similarly, 35 organic associations of B.C. feel there was not adequate consultation and do not support the two-zone proposal. B.C. Fruit Growers Association initially supported the bill but recently withdrew its support, along with the BCAC. The National Farmers Union. They have sent a six-page letter to the Premier detailing concerns regarding Bill 24.

So, Mr. Speaker, you can see there's a long list of people who oppose Bill 24 for very valid reasons. We must not simply disregard those opinions out in the public. British Columbians deserve to be consulted, because this bill will impact their future and their children's and grandchildren's.

There are more people here on earth, and in British Columbia, now than there were 40 years ago — hence, an increased consumption of food. Contrary to the B.C. Liberal government, governments in other jurisdictions are aware of that, and they are moving in that direction to make sure that we protect the farmland more than ever before.

Yesterday the Times Colonist, in its editorial, took the same position. It said: "While the UN Food and Agriculture Organization is urgently encouraging countries throughout the world to protect their agricultural lands, the B.C. Liberal government's Bill 24 would reduce ours."

Dr. Lenore Newman, who is the Canada Research Chair in Food Security and the Environment, and a professor at the University of the Fraser Valley, has also very strongly urged the government not to proceed with this bill.

Many of my constituents have asked me to tell the government to stop this bill. Even though they do not live on a farm, they do know the importance of the ALR. The government should listen to British Columbians, the experts and the world leaders. I urge this government to withdraw this bill or at least wait till the fall session and
[ Page 3889 ]
conduct real consultation.

When we're talking about opposition to this bill, one of the organizations from Burnaby, from my constituency, has also written. I'll read:

"While Burnaby currently has 43 farms within its boundaries, we recognize that the food security for our residents is dependent on the preservation of farmland and encouragement of farming throughout the province.

[1645]

"Accordingly, we at the Burnaby Food First urge that Bill 24 be withdrawn, that the Agricultural Land Commission continue as a provincewide independent quasi-judicial body and that the agricultural land reserve be maintained as one zone for the entire province."

In closing, I would say that the policy to create the ALR and the ALC introduced in 1973 by the NDP government was for a real reason. It protected our farmland, and that policy was defended by all kinds of governments for the last 41 years. Again, I urge the government to please listen to the constituents, British Columbians, experts and world leaders, and withdraw Bill 24.

H. Bains: It is a pleasure to stand up and speak on, I think, one of the most important pieces of legislation we are debating. Right at the outset, going through the bill notes and reading the bill, I must say that I will be speaking in opposition to Bill 24. I think it's the most fundamental change in policy that we are looking at over the last few years.

The ALR act was enacted in 1973. It survived many different governments. Why? Because it was a good piece of legislation — legislation with foresight, legislation that actually was ahead of its time, legislation also looking at the basic needs of British Columbians going forward.

What we are doing here today, now with this bill, is changing most of those basic fundamentals behind ALR. When you look at all those different stakeholders — B.C. Agriculture Council, B.C. Cattlemen's Association, B.C. Food Systems Network, the chair of the ALC, academics and most British Columbians — opposed to this bill, then why is this government adamant in moving forward? That is a very, very basic question that comes to my mind.

Without any good reason they're moving ahead, they're pushing it, and the only word that comes to my mind is "cronyism." Members here before us used that word — cronyism. If it's not that, then what is behind this bill? It does not help the agriculture industry. It does not help our municipalities. It does not help our communities. It's not good for our food industry. Then what is it good for?

I think the only conclusion you can come to, looking at the history and track record of this government — and I've been watching since 2001…. The only conclusion you can come to with all of that — everyone, all of the stakeholders, most of the public opposing this bill — is…. Why are they pushing ahead? It probably will help just a few friends of this government. Just keep them in mind. That seems to be the only thing behind the intent of this bill.

Otherwise, you would think that those people involved in the food industry, in the agricultural industry…. You would think somebody would stand up and say that this government is doing a good job with this bill. You really have to look for support for this bill. There isn't much.

[1650]

I'm just lost, looking for some reasons. I agree that most members that come to this House come here to do a good job on behalf of their constituents, on behalf of the province, and to make a better province than what we inherited from our parents. I think most of us come here with that one fundamental urge in our minds. If that is the driving force behind why we are here, then what's behind this bill? You try to look for some reasons to give them the benefit of the doubt. I can't find anything in this bill in particular.

Since 1973 the NDP government and then the Social Credit government and then the NDP government and this government came into power — many ministers. No one, really, fundamentally tinkered with the ALR. Why? Because this is some of the reason….

Somebody summed it up very, very well. It was put together by a study that was done in 2005 by what we call the ALR protection and enhancement committee. They looked at a number of different areas and the challenges faced by our agricultural land reserve. This is what they had to say about why it is so important to protect and preserve and enhance our agricultural land reserve. I'll just read from their paper. It says:

"Agriculture is a critical industry. It contributes greatly to our economy, generating over $2.2 billion per year in farm-gate receipts." That's 2005 dollars. "As well, due to the economic multiplier effect, agriculture provides over 280,000 jobs in our food and agricultural industry in British Columbia."

It went on to say:

"It contributes not only to our economy, employment and food security but as well to the health of British Columbians. The agriculture industry's success and contributions to the province, however, are underpinned by our farmland being protected by the agricultural land reserve, which is now under threat due to recent large block exclusion applications of prime farmland."

This is 2005. People were concerned in 2005 not to delete or dilute or water down the restrictions to take agriculture land out of the ALR. They were worried that they may not be strong enough and that we need to make them even stronger.

This is what they went on to say.

"The ALR legislation was enacted to establish a land base for farming and to protect it from urban development. Prior to the ALR the province was losing 6,000 hectares of prime farmland yearly. However, at present our farmlands are under one of the biggest threats since the establishment of the agricultural land reserve in 1973. Today in the Fraser Valley alone, for example, there are proposals for almost 2,000 hectares of prime farmland from the ALR."

I mean, here people are concerned all along to make it better to keep our farmland in the ALR.

"ALR-PEC" — that's what this committee is — "appreciates that the geographic nature of B.C. creates a unique land use planning challenge relative to most other areas in Canada. Agriculture has
[ Page 3890 ]
traditionally competed for the limited habitable land base due to the majority of the B.C. agriculture and urban area being in the same elongated mountain valleys.

"The Fraser Valley is a good example," they went on to say, to explain the importance here. "It is home to the majority of B.C. residents but contains some of the best agricultural land and production levels in North America and the world. This agricultural phenomenon in the Fraser Valley produces over 50 percent of the farm-gate receipts of the province.

"Abbotsford farms alone produce $425 million per year at the farm gate and create an enormous economic stimulus for the economy. Yet the city of Abbotsford is currently applying to exclude over 300 hectares of prime farmland from the ALR, a significant portion being class 1 agriculture."

[1655]

That's what the concerns were all along ever since the ALR was put together. Everyone — study after study, the experts, the individuals, the farmers — wants us to make it better and make it stronger — stronger protection for ALR. Why? Because only 5 percent of B.C.'s land base is suitable for agriculture — only 5 percent.

Since 1973 that farmland hasn't grown, give or take a few acres either way. It remains 5 percent. The very needs why it was created in 1973 — for our food security, for our health, for our economy — those very same reasons exist today. I would say they're even more important today than they were in 1973, by looking at what goes on around us.

In California right now, where we get a lot of our food — 74 percent of California is under drought right now. You look around the world. The farmland is under huge threat to development to make a quick buck. The developers come in, and they want to make a buck. They take the farmland out, and the governments who are friendly to them let them do that. Inch by inch, acre by acre, we are losing farmland.

What are we going to tell our children, their children and their children? That when those legislators who sat here in this House in 2014 when this bill was debated…. What were they thinking when they allowed this bill to pass? You will not be able to look in their eyes, if you tried to, that you are doing something right for them. The farmland will continue to be 5 percent in B.C. It will not grow.

Out of that, only 1 percent is prime farmland of the 5 percent. When you look at such a scarcity of farmland for us, then to have this bill before us just boggles everyone's mind. What is this government trying to do?

When you look at food security, when you look at health…. I'll quote to you something else on why it is important to defeat this Bill 24.

Here's a quote from Making the Connection: Food Security and Public Health. This is what they had to say.

"Food security is a prerequisite for healthy eating and fundamental to human and environmental health. It is a basis for the prevention of chronic disease and the promotion of healthy growth and development. It is integral to healthy living and environmental health protection. If people do not have access to a sustainable supply of appropriate food, their health will be compromised, regardless of available health care."

I mean, how clear can one be? And I have just quoted an ALR-PEC report on how important food security and our agriculture are to our health.

Here's another backup. They said on understanding food security:

"If British Columbians are to be food secure, they must have control over food decisions. Strengthening community action — collectively engaging members of the community to be active participants in shaping their food system — is a critically important aspect of increasing control. Food access is inextricably linked to food supply. Food security is understood to be dependent upon a healthy, sustainable food system.

"A food system includes linkages between different sectors and different aspects of life with respect to the production, processing, distribution, marketing, acquisition and consumption of food. A sustainable food system occurs when these activities do not compromise the land, air or water now or for future generations. A healthy food system occurs when these activities are oriented towards the health of the population."

There is study after study, and there is paper after paper. They are actually urging us, the lawmakers, to move in a different direction than what this government is telling us to do with Bill 24. They want us to make the ALR stronger, the provisions of the ALR stronger, so that our agricultural land is protected, preserved and enhanced, our farmers can survive, our food supply is secure.

[1700]

Here is another reason why Bill 24 goes backward, actually takes us back five or six decades in time. This was actually in 2001, and people were worried. "Food is travelling longer distances from the field to the plate. Research conducted by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture…." It's 2001 that I'm talking about. This is 2014. We should be far ahead of the times of 2001. Well, we're going backward. In 2001 they found "produce arriving by truck travelled an average distance of 1,518 miles to reach Chicago in 1998, a 22 percent increase over 1,245 miles travelled in 1981." That's 1981 to 1998. It travelled farther and farther.

You just heard from my colleague from Skeena that the food is in trucks for two days before it gets to them. Two days. Making it easier to take our land out of the agricultural land reserve, as this bill proposes, is the direction we are going.

They went on to say: "The dependency on transport for food is contributing to rapid depletion of non-renewable energy resources, significant dioxide emissions and global warming. An important nutritional issue is the loss of nutrients in food because of early harvest and transport of food. Communities are dependent upon the import of food."

I just don't understand. I'm trying to understand. What are some of the reasons behind, when they were thinking it through, bringing in this bill? Other than coming to a conclusion, after trying to give them the benefit of the doubt from every different angle I tried…. Other than cronyism, there's nothing. There's no other reason to have this bill before us.
[ Page 3891 ]

Deputy Speaker: I've allowed the member to use that word a few times. I don't believe it's parliamentary, so I caution the member not to use it again.

H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, can you repeat that?

Deputy Speaker: I don't believe the word that the member just used is parliamentary. I let him use it twice now, and I think that he should refrain from using it.

H. Bains: I take your advice, and I will be careful, but I am led to believe that that word is appropriate for use. But I will not argue with you, Mr. Speaker. I will not challenge you. I will use a different….

What is the reason behind Bill 24? Who is going to benefit from this? Who is going to benefit from it? Not the agriculture industry. Not the communities. They're against it. Our food supply is not going to be helped by this. The general population isn't in favour of this. So who is it to benefit?

An Hon. Member: Farmers.

H. Bains: Farmers aren't going to be benefiting from it. They're against it. The member said farmers, but we have their opposition to this as well. Their association was here last night. They're not supporting this. They're seriously, seriously questioning the government's intention behind this.

Member, I'm looking at who is going to benefit from this, other than a few friends of this government. If you look at their track record, that seems to be the only thing that drives their agenda — to help their friends. Just their friends. You can put whatever words come to describe that situation. It's up to them. I just don't understand the intent behind this and why we are doing this.

[1705]

Let's take a look. What is in the bill itself? Before I do that, I will also go back to the ALR protection and enhancement committee. This is what their conclusion was. They said:

"In closing, people want to be proud of the actions of their governments."

They will not be proud of the actions of this government if this bill is passed.

"The provincial farmland preservation program is something all British Columbians can be proud of, providing it is administered to meet the objectives of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, to preserve the province's valuable farmland.

"Government has the ability to lead the program in directions that British Columbians can point to with pride — a program that can give distinction to the province to be a leader in North America and possibly the world when it comes to the preservation of agricultural land.

"Ensuring the agricultural land reserve plays a central role in British Columbia's economic vitality, health, food security and environmental sustainability will assure a lasting legacy for future generations.

"We all need a land use ethic that respects the ALR as a treasured part of our communities. Surely protecting foodland is a basic underpinning of a sustainable future for all of us."

No one can be any clearer than that statement. Why then are we pushing to have this bill, which would actually erode the protection of the ALR ?

Those who are listening are wondering what they are trying to do. Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014, will split the agricultural land reserve up into two zones with two different sets of guiding principles. The decisions on land in zone 1 — Vancouver Island, south coast and Okanagan — will continue to be based on the principles of preserving agricultural land, encouraging farming and enabling local government to accommodate farming in their plans, bylaws and policies.

For decisions on land in zone 2, this is a big problem. Zone 2 contains the remainder — 90 percent of the provincial ALR lands. We have 5 percent to begin with of our land base. Of that, 90 percent is now placed in zone 2. How will that be affected by this change? Preserving agricultural land and farming will only be one of a series of factors commission members must consider. Other considerations include economic, cultural and social values, regional and community planning objectives and other prescribed considerations.

If this is how vastly changed our policy is going to be, why was this not discussed before the last election? Why did they not ask for a mandate on that from the electorate? Again, it's a track record of this government to say one thing before the election and do quite the opposite after the election. We all remember what happened during HST, don't we? Before the election they said: "We will not bring HST." After the election they brought HST.

In this case they stayed quiet. They didn't even feel a need to talk about the ALR before the election, giving the electorate a very clear message that they're not talking about making any major changes to it. Then after the election that's one of the first things they tried to do. It was first through a leaked memo that we found out that they were moving in this direction. They tried to deny but to no avail.

The second thing that they are going to do here, aside from dividing our farmland in two different zones, is compromise the independence of the ALC. This is how they will do it. They tried to do that in 2002, but the wisdom of some of the ALC members, especially the chair, brought it back under centralized decision-making. But they tried in 2002.

[1710]

They attempted to decentralize the ALC by creating six regional panels consisting of three commissioners each. The panels, however, were discretionary, and in recent years ALC chair Richard Bullock has run the commission largely as a centralized provincial body.

Bill 24 will make the six regional panels mandatory and ensure that the key ALR decisions, such as applications for exclusions or submissions for subdivisions of
[ Page 3892 ]
land in the reserve…. It says they must be decided by them. This would subject the ALC to the pressure of local land use. Clearly, it waters down the powers of the ALC.

Bill 24 also gives cabinet more power to handpick members of the ALC. This is how it's different. Currently the cabinet appoints the chair of the ALC and one or more vice-chairs. Other members are appointed by the minister, in consultation with the chair. Under Bill 24, cabinet will now be able to appoint the chair of the ALC as well as the six vice-chairs of the regional panels. Other members of the commission will continue to be appointed by the minister; however, the chair no longer needs to be consulted.

How blatant can you be? They're basically saying: "We will tell you. We will appoint people, handpick people onto those panels." So who is going to benefit from this? Who was asking for this change? Not the farmers. Not the public. Not the communities. So who? There must be someone out there that this government has in mind. Who are they trying to please and help?

That's not how you run governments. The legacy that this government is leaving behind…. People will be looking back and saying…. Each one of those members here — they will be questioned. Your children, their children and their children will say: "My great-grandpa was there. What was he thinking when he allowed this bill to pass? Now our food comes by ship and by airplane because we allowed our agricultural land to be developed."

They will be questioning: what was the purpose of you being here? Keeping that in mind, I cannot stand here and say there's anything good in Bill 24. Therefore, I must oppose this. We must defeat this for the good of not only our current situation but for our children, their children and their children.

Because 50 years down the road…. Take a look. Many decisions were made here in this House 50 or 100 years ago, and you know what? Current governments, in many of those cases, have to apologize for the actions of that government, for the actions of those members who sat in these chairs. Legislators and the parliament had to go back and apologize. What were they thinking? So we apologize for their actions.

That's why it's so important, when you are voting on this bill, that you keep in mind if 50 or 100 years down the road this will pass the test of time. I can tell you, standing here today, this will not pass the test of time. That's why I will be opposing it.

To continue on, the member from Abbotsford said that farmers support this. Well, let's take a look.

The B.C. Agriculture Council. They are the umbrella farm organization. They are a council of commodity groups and represent approximately 14,000 of the 20,000 B.C. farm families that generate 96 percent of the farm-gate receipts. The first year, it supported the bill. That chair was replaced. The new chair, Stan Vander Waal, withdrew the support.

[1715]

For the benefit of the members who were saying the farmers support this, this is what he had to say: "I think we're genuinely afraid that changes will trump the well-being of agriculture and agricultural land." This is what the new chair of the BCAC said. There we go.

Then we have B.C. Cattlemen's Association. They oppose this. B.C. Food Systems Network — they oppose this. Richard Bullock, the chair of the ALC, said: "I'm not sure if any of our people should be treated differently in one part of the province than they are in another. I thought equal treatment is how we operate as a society, but we will see."

Soil scientists. There is a letter from over 100 scientists. They are really concerned. This is what they said. "With Bill 24 we will not only lose ground in the literal sense but also in the public policy sense," said Dr. Art Bomke.

Mr. Speaker, my time ran out very quickly. There's so much to say, and I would urge all of the members here to oppose Bill 24. It's bad for you, bad for British Columbia and bad for our children and their children.

J. Rice: I've enjoyed listening to the debate and dialogue on the proposed changes to the ALR and to the ALC, Bill 24. I live in a fishing community, but I grew up in Ontario in a family that always had what is termed a hobby farm, even though it was more than a hobby farm to my family. I appreciate the stories that I heard from my colleague from Kootenay West about hands and cow anatomy. I, too, have similar stories of watching the first birth of a cow in my lifetime, which was…. Well, it's a memory that sort of sits with me to this day even though I witnessed it as a child.

I rise today to also voice my objection to the proposed changes to Bill 24. My objections are threefold. I completely oppose the changes to the ALR, being divvied up into two zones, and the dismantling of how the ALC will operate under a new regional-based commission or commissions. I also just object to the lack of proper consultation and the confusion all around how the consultation process is or is not unfolding.

Our ALR is considered one of B.C.'s biggest successes in land-use planning, and it is admired around the globe. The purpose of the ALR is to protect agricultural lands from other forms of development and encourage farming and to work with other governments to fulfil these objectives.

I feel that the proposed changes we're debating right now are putting all these objectives and goals at risk, particularly in the day and age of global climate change. I'm on the backside of 40, and I have quite a contingent of young followers in my community who talk quite frequently about climate change and food security. I think it's an issue that is uppermost on many British Columbians' minds regardless of what part of the province or the country they live in.
[ Page 3893 ]

I think Bill 24 is disregarding this huge global concern of global climate change. I think protecting agricultural lands in this day and age of global climate change is more important than ever. We should be taking steps forward in protecting our food security, not backwards, putting it at further risk in this day and age.

I wasn't yet born when the ALR and the ALC became legislation. Nonetheless, I am grateful for the people who were looking out for me and my future in 1973. It is this type of forward thinking that we need more of, not less of. It's our duty as legislators to be thinking ahead and passing laws that consider the health and well-being of future generations.

[1720]

Food security is a huge concern we should be taking seriously. Eroding the legislation that provides protection of our ability to be self-sustaining is a step backwards and a complete disregard for future generations.

Regardless of whether you support this legislation or not, this is a significant piece of legislation that deserves full consideration. It impacts our province and our future so significantly, it is not something we would want to get wrong. It deserves a fulsome debate and discussion with all British Columbians, not those that have sent the newly appointed Minister of Agriculture an e-mail.

Just yesterday I received an e-mail from someone in Prince Rupert — where I think the ALR is not necessarily uppermost on a local Rupertite's mind. We're just getting into the fishing season.

"Hello, Miss Rice:

"I am writing because I understand that there is a bill currently being debated to take apart our laws that protect agriculture land. I do not want to see this law passed before the citizens of this province have had a chance to speak to this change in the current regulations.

"Please ensure that the government provides a means" — in brackets, "well advertised" — "to inform the public of Bill 24 and how it will affect them. Then they need to give the public an avenue, again well advertised, by which we can give our input into this process. With the new systems available in this electronic age, that should not be a hardship for the government to provide to the people that vote them into power.

"Thank you,

"Susan Bellefontaine from Prince Rupert, British Columbia"

I am astounded that a change in legislation of this magnitude is not open to greater public debate and discussion and proper community consultation. It's completely undemocratic.

I currently live in a fishing community, but I grew up in a family that hobby-farmed. That was part of my life until I actually left home. In fact, one of my first forays into employment was selling corn on the cob off the side of the highway in Ontario, where I grew up.

Like fishermen, my experience with farmers is that many value their independence, the freedom of what their lifestyle offers them, living and working outside of the urban environment. Like fishermen, many farmers work long days out in the elements and are not typing away at a computer where they can send the new Minister of Agriculture an e-mail on their thoughts on the proposed changes with Bill 24.

This bill needs time and proper consultation. It should not be rushed along in an attempt to pass such fundamentally dramatic changes to an important democratic institution. Where in the 2013 B.C. Liberal election campaign were these proposed changes made, and why? What is the problem that the B.C. Liberal government aims to solve with Bill 24? Why weren't we talking about this a year ago? It smells of the HST, hon. Speaker.

Dividing the ALR into two zones and six panels runs contrary to the chair of the ALC's own research and recommendations. It runs contrary to the Auditor General's findings. Why would this government proceed with establishing a fundamentally flawed system that evidence shows is inefficient, less transparent and costly? This, too, smells like sheep manure, just like the HST.

While in general I support the notion that local people should have a say in local decision-making, the pressures of local land development are too great when it comes to our food security and the ALR. This is why I urge the government to withdraw this bill until such time as a robust consultation process can be undertaken.

Today at lunch I attended a forum on the importance of science — well, science and technology and engineering and math and why this is important for the jobs of our future. I, too, actually thought I would grow up and be a scientist. Obviously, that never manifested. But I'm a huge proponent of science, and I think that science should play an important role in our decision-making as legislatures.

I'd like to share a letter that I think was very well written — it's so succinct — written from 100 academics:

[1725]

"Dear Premier Clark:

"The British Columbia government's recently proposed changes to the Agricultural Land Commission — the Commission — Act greatly concerns many scientists for three reasons.

"First, the revised changes to the governance and decision-making structure of the commission reduces the ability for science to inform land use decisions.

"Second, the shift to divide the decision-making process regarding land classification into southern and interior zones will increase pressure to remove land from the reserve at a cost to the general good.

"And finally, the rationale for the division of the province into two jurisdictions based simply on the value of the crops overlooks the importance of other values associated with agricultural lands, such as habitat for wildlife, endangered species and contributions to ecosystem services.

"Agricultural lands that occur in all regions of the province hold many values other than simply crop production. These areas contain wetlands, streams, ponds, riparian areas, woodlands, hedgerows and uncultivated grasslands that are either adjacent to or integral to farm operations. These areas are instrumental in protecting the functioning healthy ecosystems, and in many cases these diverse services help boost agricultural production.

"Many of these ecosystems encompassed by the agricultural land reserve are rare in British Columbia, and they provide habitat for
[ Page 3894 ]
a number of the province's most threatened or endangered species, such as the burrowing owl, American badger, yellow-breasted chat, sage thrasher, Nooksack dace and westslope cutthroat trout.

"Other more common species that occur on agricultural land reserve land are integral to agricultural production. These species range from soil microbes that sequester carbon below pasture lands to birds such as the western meadowlarks, swallows and common nighthawks, whose populations are already declining.

"Species prized for hunting, such as deer and elk, also use so-called marginal agricultural lands. These species decline when agricultural lands are removed from production, marginal lands are converted to more intensive uses, or non-agricultural developments are permitted on agricultural lands.

"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.

"Changing the current structure of the commission to one that does not incorporate scientifically derived information is deeply flawed. Additionally, making changes to such an important piece of provincial legislation without consultation with the public, the agricultural industry or scientists in general prevents relevant information and viewpoints to factor into informed decision-making.

"Allowing the agricultural industry to move forward with alternatives that incorporate science-based decision-making within the current legislative framework are valid alternatives to altering the current reserve framework. These and other options should be explored, because failing to incorporate alternate viewpoints and scientifically derived information into the commission's decision-making framework threatens the health of British Columbia's ecosystems and endangers its biodiversity.

"The lack of a process to access and incorporate science-based information into the proposed framework threatens the biodiversity of British Columbia's ecosystems and the sustainability and security of agricultural production in a changing climate.

"We call upon the government of British Columbia to include scientifically derived information in the evaluation of the impacts of changes to the agricultural land reserve that may impact the health of British Columbia's ecosystems and species at risk.

"Sincerely,

"The undersigned concerned scientists and naturalists."

That includes: William Harrower, RP Bio, PhD candidate at UBC; Judith Myers, professor emeritus at UBC; Sarah Otto, fellow, Royal Society of Canada, director of Biodiversity Research Centre, professor at UBC; Eric Taylor, director of Beaty Biodiversity Museum, professor, UBC; Elizabeth Kleynhans, PhD candidate, UBC.

[1730]

In summary, we could say that the government has received a letter with 100 signatures, mostly from academics, biologists and naturalists. It has been sent to the government, and it is critical of Bill 24. The letter contends that 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" and overlooks the importance of farmland "as habitat for wildlife, endangered species...."

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

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. These areas are instrumental in protecting functioning healthy ecosystems, and in many cases, these diverse services help boost agricultural production."

"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."

Despite having one of Canada's most robust agriculture sectors, the B.C. Liberal government provides the least amount of support for agriculture of any province in Canada. I think this is something that we really should be taking into consideration. The B.C. Liberals curtailed support for key agriculture sectors like the fruit growers and the organic growers and eliminated the buy-B.C. program, a hugely successful marketing initiative that was championed by farmers, grocery stores and consumers throughout B.C.

The B.C. Liberals did not mention the agricultural land reserve or the Agricultural Land Commission in the 2013 election platform, despite the devastating changes they are threatening to inflict on the commission with this bill.

The B.C. Liberal record on agriculture is one of chronic underfunding.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to share a letter that was actually sent to the new Agriculture Minister. It's from closer to my neck of the woods, in the northwest.

"Dear Mr. Letnick:

"I am resending this plea in response to a call to action from the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets and to urge you to stand your ground and follow through with the meaningful consultation on Bill 24 promised to the BCAC, despite statements to the contrary by Minister Bennett. You have 14,000 farmers behind you.

"On behalf of the Bulkley Valley Farmers Market Association and the Hazelton Farmers Market Society, we urge you to rethink Bill 24 and its erosion of the protection to agricultural lands in the Interior and the north."

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

J. Rice: Yes, I'm listening, yes.

Deputy Speaker: Please don't use the names.

J. Rice: Well, I'm quoting a letter….

Deputy Speaker: Still…. Thank you.

J. Rice: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"Especially here in the northwest, where good farmland is relatively sparse, we do not accept the assertion that our farmland is 'second class' or less valuable because, according to the minister, 'elevation, frost, long distances to market and poor soil limit what can be grown.' This reasoning only fits with large-scale, export-focused big-A agriculture and not smaller-scale, regionally focused agriculture that our farmers markets are an integral part of.

"We see the opposite, that good farmland becomes more valu-
[ Page 3895 ]
able in direct relation to the growing climate becoming more challenging, as we need more land and skilled farmers to continue to expand our regional food systems and grow our farmers markets. Opening up protected farmland to non-agriculture industrial activities will fragment, degrade and pollute the land left in production, will make farming even less of a viable option economically when other ventures on the land become much more lucrative and will make it more difficult for new farmers to start out by inevitably driving up land prices.

[1735]

"Please hear the concerns of 'zone 2 ALR' markets and include us in the consultation process.

"Respectfully,"
Jonathan Knight
Director, Bulkley Valley Farmers' Market Association in Smithers, and director, Hazelton Farmers' Market Society in Hazelton"

If I could add that in Prince Rupert, where I'm from, we don't have a farmers market, but we have an active group of citizens that are working very hard to create a farmers market. The rainy climate limits the amount of crops that can be grown outside without a greenhouse, but the citizens of Prince Rupert understand and realize that food security is a big concern.

It's interesting to note that food security has been an issue that has come through my office door increasingly because of the threat of oil tankers to the north coast. People are fearful of their ability to harvest their own food. People in my community are very much a subsistence community, whether you're First Nations or not. We have access to so much seafood, and in Haida Gwaii this is an issue that constituents raise with me frequently. They are fearful that the lack of ability to harvest healthy marine food further puts their lives at risk.

If a may add, in the grocery store in Haida Gwaii a bag of stay-fresh salad is $8. Ironically, it's called stay fresh, because by the time it gets to Haida Gwaii, it's usually not very fresh, and it's semi-wilted. And in my community, Prince Rupert, I can get two bags of that stay-fresh salad for the same amount — for $7.50 when it's on sale or $8 regularly. So again, food security is a big issue in the north, whether it's seafood or whether it's traditional farm foods.

Many people travel to Terrace, which is an hour and a half away from Prince Rupert, to attend the farmers market on Saturday. Many, as well, attend the farmers market in Smithers. It's a part of a large amount of people's lives in Prince Rupert. I get my eggs from Terrace, and I get my meat from Smithers.

If I may, I'll add a letter that is from the other end of the province. I read you a letter here from the northwest; I'd like to share a letter from the northeast. This is a letter from the Peace River North.

"Dear Premier, along with two other" — I'm not really sure how I read this into the record — "ministers and an opposition MLA:

"I am writing to you again to say that Bill 24 should not be passed. My husband and I have been farming in the North Peace for over 50 years. I'm writing to voice my opposition to Bill 24 and its proposed changes to the agricultural land reserve.

"Food production and the production of farmland is critical to the food security and future of British Columbia. Farmers across British Columbia are vocally opposed to these changes. British Columbians were not consulted on these changes. I am asking you to kill Bill 24 and engage in a real consultation with British Columbian farmers and those that eat.

"These changes will impact each and every one of us. Please protect our farmland, our farmers and the agricultural land reserve. Kill Bill 24.

"Sincerely,

"Ruth Ann Darnall, Fort St. John, B.C."

So you can see that whether it's from the northwest or from the northeast, people in this province of British Columbia are concerned about food security.

I think it's quite apparent what a lot of this bill is about, even though we're not having this dialogue or having this conversation, even though it didn't come about during the 2013 election. I think a lot of this is about opening up the northern part of the province, where I live, to make it extremely accessible and easy for industrial development, such as LNG, to occur.

[1740]

While we understand that the province is putting all of its financial eggs in the LNG basket, I think this is a detriment to the other sectors of our province, such as agriculture. I think it's a detriment to future generations. I think it's a detriment to our current farmers who are working very hard to make a living at farming.

If I may, I'll add another opinion from a concerned citizen from, it looks like, Surrey–White Rock. This was written:

"Hello, Mr. MLA:

"I'm a professional biologist in B.C. and a PhD candidate at UBC. Why I write is that I, along with a group of academics — we're putting together a letter to Premier Clark and we're hoping to simultaneously release this to the press."

Deputy Speaker: Member, again, be careful.

J. Rice: I apologize. I sincerely apologize.

"I'm not sure if you are interested but thought you might like to know in case you had any questions or if this issue coincides with some you are interested in.

"The release is about Bill 24 — the amendments to the provincial Agricultural Land Commission Act. We as a group of academics and scientists feel that changes to the act are misguided in that, one, they will have unintentional negative impacts to biodiversity, species at risk, ecosystems that supply services to humans and, ultimately, to agriculture output, and two, the changes were brought about and will reduce public and scientific input into what lands should be in the agricultural reserve and what practices are considered agricultural.

"If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. We are hoping to do the release this coming Wednesday.

"Sincerely,

"Bill Harrower, RPBio, PhD candidate

"Botany department and Biodiversity Research Centre

"University of British Columbia"

Sorry, that was from Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

From Surrey–White Rock:

"Dear Sirs:

"Our names are Dorothy Randall and Patricia Randall, and we
[ Page 3896 ]
are mother and daughter to each other. We are each shareholders in a cooperatively owned organic farm in the Fraser Valley. The farmers to whom we lease the farm grow a variety of vegetables and fruits which they sell at venues throughout the Lower Mainland.

"We are writing to you out of our concern about the state of agriculture in British Columbia, and more specifically, the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. One of the reasons we bought shares in a farm is to help protect this beautiful land for farmers, allowing them the opportunity to access high-quality land at an affordable price.

"We also want to preserve this land for future generations. We would like to see this vision held more broadly in our society, and your government could help. Only 5 percent of B.C.'s land base is arable, and this land base is under constant pressure. But we absolutely cannot forgo our food production security for the sake of residential and industrial development.

"Future generations of British Columbians rely on today's government to protect their interests and survival. If any change is to be made to the ALC or the ALR, it should be that the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve be enlarged and strengthened. No more land should be removed from the ALR.

"We have had 40 years to meddle with the boundaries. It is time to stop wasting money and energy with that approach and to now dictate our efforts to saving farmland and getting more land into production. This should be the focus of the Agricultural Land Commission, along with enforcement of the current legislation that protects farmland from soil dumping and contamination.

"Furthermore, legislation should prohibit extraction of oil, gas and minerals from ALR-designated lands as such activity would destroy its agricultural capacity and contaminate it, preventing its safe return to food production.

[1745]

"The increasing seriousness of drought and desertification in California, from where British Columbia imports significant amounts of our food, is a clarion call for action to ensure that our own food production capacity remains sustainable and uncompromised.

"There are some practical initiatives your government could take to improve the viability of the agriculture sector in B.C. We need to invest in agriculture innovation and provide support for our food growers. Extension agents and apprenticeship programs would be valuable measures. Currently B.C. has one of the lowest levels of government spending in the agriculture sector in Canada. British Columbia's farmers not only need better support in growing our food and preserving and improving our food security but deserve better support from their government.

"In 2006 the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture published B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance report, stating that in order to produce a healthy diet for British Columbians, we needed just over two million hectares of land in production, which would have to increase to 2.8 million by 2025. As of 2011, we are 200,000 acres short of this 2025 target.

"We request that you take strong, clear action to preserve and strengthen the agricultural land reserve and, in turn, the Agricultural Land Commission, to ensure agricultural lands are adequately protected for all future generations of British Columbians.

"Sincerely,

"Dorothy Randall and Patricia Randall"

R. Fleming: I rise this afternoon to speak against Bill 24, to make some of the arguments that I think have been well made in this debate but bear repeating.

We're at risk, at this stage of debate in second reading, as it comes to a close, of having a flawed piece of legislation passed and becoming law, and of making changes in British Columbia that will have geographic implications, that will change what the landscape looks like in our province — very sweeping changes, changes to good practice and governance that will allow politicization and intrusion of the independent land commission principles that we've enjoyed for 40 years. Potentially, one could be very, very hard pressed to think of a more shortsighted, poorly conceived decision. I think that's probably the point I'd like to make later on in this debate as well.

Everywhere in the world — from the highest governance organizations like the United Nations to legislatures like this in the United States, other parts of the industrialized world, in Europe and in the southern hemisphere — planners and legislators are looking at how food security policies are implemented. In some cases, countries that do not have the advantages that we have and certainly do not have the policy framework and land use decision-making bodies that we've enjoyed for four decades now…. They're trying to figure out how they put the genie back in the bottle where urbanization and overdevelopment have consumed farmland and where population pressures are significant.

Everybody is looking to the future. Many people, many jurisdictions, have come to British Columbia, in the past and in the present, to see how we have managed to ward off land developers and put the public interest and the food security interest of our population into place. It's an incredible story, and I think others have told it well here. Against all odds, we had a government, in 1973, that had the kind of political courage you rarely find anywhere in the world today to put in place visionary policies that have been validated year after year, decade after decade, as being the right decisions that were made.

Bill 24 begins to very significantly peel away at that legacy in British Columbia that has been a beacon and an inspiration to other jurisdictions who look to us around our food policy and our support for agriculture in our economy. That, I think, is the crux of the debate.

The important thing that I think is missing from this debate, too, is British Columbians have not had their say adequately.

[1750]

Yes, we've been debating this for hours in this chamber. But British Columbians — who pay taxes, who work on the land, who live in every different region of the province, who employ us, as the 85 legislators in this chamber…. Their views haven't counted, not nearly to the extent that they should, in this debate. They weren't asked beforehand, before this bill was tabled, what their thoughts were. They haven't been asked during this debate.

Yeah, they've written, in record numbers, letters to the Minister of Agriculture. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture has actually been in this chamber and described his consultation process as a reading exercise. Unbelievable. Not only do they fail at the front
[ Page 3897 ]
end to warn or tell anyone or seek the views of British Columbians about this legislation; the government actually describes, after legislation hits the floor of this chamber and is in mid-debate, reading letters as consultation. What a joke.

We shouldn't be here, where we are right now, on this piece of legislation. There are a number of people — and northern British Columbians primarily among them, foremost among them — who argue that it's just a bad idea to split British Columbia in two. It's a bad idea. It's one that's never been done before in the 40-year history of the ALC and the ALR in B.C., and it's one that will not serve the provincial interests well going forward.

The other section that I think is of most concern to British Columbians is the change to governance. This bill allows unprecedented cabinet and ministerial intrusion into the appointment process and the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission. It's politicization in an era that demands, rightly so, more transparency, not less, from decision-making bodies that govern them. We're going in the opposite direction with this bill.

It flies in the face of what stakeholder organizations have said. You've heard the odd Liberal get up in this debate and read a letter from somebody in their constituency. They've had to search far and wide to find letters in support of this bill, let me tell you. They have argued that there are some folks out there who want this to happen. It's been an absolutely inconsistent argument, and it's one that's not backed up in fact. It's also an argument that flies in the face of all the major producing organizations that have anything to do with agriculture in this province.

This bill is actually opposed to all of the policy advice this government has received in recent years from independent sources. It opposes the recommendations in the report of the Auditor General, which is just a couple of years old. I'll get into the details of that in a moment. It also opposes the report of the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission which was written only in 2010. That report was suppressed for a year by the government. When it came to light, all of the advice and all of the major recommendations given to government were utterly refuted and opposed by the B.C. Liberals' legislation that's before us.

I think British Columbians have a pretty simple answer when the question is given to them: who do you trust to look after farmland in British Columbia? Do you trust an appointee who looks into the issues, has a farming background and, to their credit, flexes their independence and throws off any political masters and makes some courageous recommendations — just a few years ago?

Do you trust that voice? Or do you trust this group in government who didn't say a word about sweeping changes to the Agricultural Land Commission and the ALR in the election. Do you trust them? They brought this thing, under the cover of darkness, with no consultation, into the legislative chamber, and are saying consultation is reading letters after they've already threatened to ram this bill through.

For British Columbians, the answer is pretty easy for them. They don't trust this government on agricultural matters. They've lost trust with this government on anything to do with looking forward and protecting farmland for future generations. That is a fact at this point in debate.

[1755]

If the government wants to attempt to recover any of its credibility, to speak for the sector and stop putting legislation in the noses of all the major producer organizations and people who farm in this province, they can do one thing at this point, because they've already offended so many. The only thing they can do to recover credibility at this point is to withdraw Bill 24.

Now, let me talk about one aspect of the governance changes that bothers me; and that is going back to 2002 when the B.C. Liberals attempted to decentralize the Agricultural Land Commission by creating six regional panels and having microcommissions, if you will, that would be subject to local pressure and move away from the centralized provincial commission model — which had balance and regional representation as a requirement, it must be said.

In moving to this microregional, subject-to-local-political-pressure model, I remember what we got out of that here on the south Island, where I represent constituents. We got a little development called Sunriver.

Remember that one? It was investigated by the RCMP. It was investigated by the Auditor General. It involved a couple of Liberal aides, Dave Basi and Bobby Virk. They were the ones who chose this new structure as a way to maximize their political pressure, and they received payment for it. Yeah, it was corruption. It was investigated. It was disgraceful.

It's no wonder that the Agricultural Land Commission's chair, after that disgraceful incident, turned their back on the direction the Liberals wanted them to take the ALC. They refused to do it. They went with what was within their prerogative legislatively in terms of how the commission would be balanced, and they did not devolve power any further to those micro-commissions. It was just too open to political abuse. It was way too open. That's where the Liberals want to journey now again. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, in terms of some of the problems with zone 2, which is 90 percent of the ALR now — if this bill should pass, heaven forbid — the test for removing land from the agricultural reserve becomes incredibly easy. That's the problem with this bill.

You no longer have to adhere to the spirit of the legislation, which is to protect farming and the use of land and the soil conditions and having a science-based approach to making decisions. That will remain in zone 1, and I've heard lots of government members point to that to try
[ Page 3898 ]
and get people to stop looking at zone 2.

In the 90 percent of the new regime, the second-class part of British Columbia, you will have the bar lowered so much that it's hard for me to imagine how anybody doesn't get farmland out of the reserve boundaries if they so wish. I mean, look at what the new test will be. Members now will have to consider…. Instead of farming being the primary overriding factor, other considerations will now include: "(b) economic, cultural and social values; (c) regional and community planning objectives; (d) other prescribed considerations." In other words, anything at any time going forward is what will have to be considered in zone 2.

Now, the government makes this argument that there's a lot of uneconomic land to farm out there and that right now there's a lot of people who have ALR land that they own who need to get it out and do something different with it. That's not a new argument. That's the argument we've heard over and over again, in different guises and at different times but for years and years.

[1800]

You know, we heard it…. Actually, we didn't hear it. We exposed it when there was a rodeo exemption. Remember, just a couple of months ago? Well, think about that on steroids, in terms of the amount of applications that the ALC is going to have to deal with, the volume of them, under every guise, because the door is wide open now. For any reason, you can apply and expect — under this legislation, which is so broad you can drive a truck through it — to get your land out.

You know what happens? It's human nature. The dynamic goes like this. We'll have a decentralized regional structure where you can maximize political pressure, and mayors and everybody else can get involved. We will have applications that now go to this regional thing, where you know your neighbour and you lean on them and all that stuff, and you've got legislation that makes it so easy to get it through, things are going to get through. Land is going to be taken out of the ALR, for whatever reason — X, Y and Z.

That has a contagion effect. Then your neighbour goes: "Hey, look what he did. Look what she did, down the road. They've got cabins on their land now." They've got different uses: a strip mall, minigolf — who knows? — recreation areas that formerly were farmland.

It goes on and on, and it will be a snowball that gathers momentum. It will. And it will be unfair when the person who's tenth in line says: "What about the other nine who got it?" Well, fair point, but that's the legislation we're going to live under, if Bill 24 passes.

There will be an unprecedented wave of people looking to explore their options. They may not even want to do something on that land, but they'd like to have more flexibility on it. Who wouldn't, especially when the other guy gets it? That's what's going to happen. That's what B.C.'s world-leading, North American continent–leading land policy that we've had for 40 years is going to become.

It's so shortsighted. Members on the opposite side should know that in many of the areas and the regions they're talking about in zone 2, there are thousands and thousands of hectares that were uneconomic just a couple of decades ago that are now very profitable to farm.

Modern agriculture has shown a tendency, over time, to expand the area of arable land — not less. Marginal cropland has become more productive and more economical to farm. The farming industry has made incredible strides, often with public R-and-D — research-and-development — dollars to support that. We've got variable environmental conditions in B.C. We know that. There are different innovations that work for different regions of the province.

There's a great example that a couple of soil scientists who have worked in agriculture all their lives, as civil servants and otherwise, submitted to the Times Colonist today. The example they use, in terms of making uneconomic lands productive, is around haylage, which, of course, is like hay but has a much higher moisture content.

It's reduced, significantly, the risk of waste and the dependence on ideal weather circumstances at all times in the production of food for livestock. It has made people on Vancouver Island here, in my area, farmers up and down the Island — and in the Peace River, looking at their climate up there…. It's made them money. It's given them an additional crop and a commodity to grow and to sell.

Now, there have been all kinds of other modifications and breakthroughs and innovations around seed technology that have also created agricultural production and potential that were never possible before. We see this in British Columbia. You know, grapes, canola and field pea production 30 years ago were impossible in certain parts of the province, and they're now major parts of our agricultural receipts in B.C.

Look, a lot of members have made the point about this legislation completely failing to comprehend and, in fact, reducing our options in the era of climate change, where adaptation is a reality. That's an excellent point.

[1805]

I'll maybe get into that a little bit later, as part of the point that I think science-based policy is what we need to adhere to going forward. But it's also about how farming techniques themselves changed, how crop technologies have changed considerably in B.C. The only constant, the only thing you can count on, is that things will be different.

The only other thing that you can count on is that British Columbia has had, in its past, farming as a staple for employment and income in this province, and farming, in its present, has a renewed interest in many different regions of the province.

We're seeing an increase in sales and employment,
[ Page 3899 ]
and farming, absolutely — knowing all of the tendencies that are going on with population and with climate and with technology — has an even better future ahead of it. But it's one that is absolutely jeopardized by Bill 24 and without any proper rationale for splitting the province into two zones.

I've talked about the lack of consultation a little bit. British Columbians have been abused in this entire legislative process. Their views haven't counted. They weren't asked, and they're certainly not being asked now, on the eve of the next stage of debate clearing and this coming closer to law. It's absolutely the cart before the horse. There's no mandate for it. There's no interest in it.

People might snicker about the polling industry, but I can tell you one poll that would be very, very reliable. It's one that we've seen for the last 25 years: support for the ALR and preservation for agricultural land from the encroachments of urbanization. It is one poll that unites everybody in a supposedly divided province like ours: 80 or 90 percent of British Columbians think that is a bad idea.

This legislation absolutely ignores that uniting opinion that all of our constituents share in every part of this province. That's the very essence of bad legislation. It's a poke in the eye to the public. It's wrong, and this government seems intent on moving forward. They don't care what people say.

We are getting a reaction now. You know? News flash: people don't watch this chamber maybe as closely as we would like them to. But they're starting to understand what this government has in mind, what its agenda is for agriculture, and it's one that offends their senses. It offends them, and government is intent on ignoring them and rolling ahead, despite it.

Actually, we don't really know who speaks for the government. This is the other thing that's interesting. We have the Minister of Agriculture, who, admittedly, was installed very recently under the circumstances that we understand here, and he was handed this stinking heap called Bill 24 — to be fair, just given to him.

He was well aware of its controversy. When he was asked, "Does this represent what you believe? Are these your priorities as the Minister of Agriculture? Are you determined to push the bill through?" — the bill pre-existed his appointment as the minister — 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." Okay. That's an interesting signal for the Minister of Agriculture, as the bill's sponsor, to send out.

Then the Minister for Core Review said something quite different. He said: "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." Wow.

The Minister of Agriculture presented it as an open-minded process. He's open to three outcomes, possibly, depending on the consultation. He was trying to suggest that the consultation matters. And then we have — I don't know if he's the senior minister to the Minister of Agriculture — the Minister for Core Review saying that there's no such thing. There's only one option: the bill will pass.

Not only do we have unwanted legislation, we have legislation, apparently, that they're unwilling to even change. Reasoned debate doesn't even matter, let alone having a clear rationale and a mandate for doing it in the first place.

[1810]

Now, there's something that I hope — and I think British Columbians hope — could happen here. The government could actually be defeated on this bill if it insists on recklessly pushing ahead where it has no business doing so. I don't want to pick on any one government MLA in particular, but a lot of weight does fall on their shoulders to try and help preserve the principle of open debate and a democratic outcome in this situation — to vote with their conscience and to vote, most importantly, with what they said to voters they would do just a year ago.

It's a letter in the Chilliwack Times, where a constituent is appealing to her MLA, the member for Chilliwack, to vote against the government that he is with. She says:

"Dear Editor:

"I am horrified at the latest legislative pillaging to be conducted by the governing B.C. Liberals: that of the agricultural land reserve.

"During the 2012 by-election, as a candidate for the B.C. Conservative Party, the member for Chilliwack made no secret of his admiration for the ALR, saying: 'I'm worried that under the Liberals, the ALR has become a plaything for developers and well-connected special interests.'"

Well, that Conservative candidate is now the Liberal MLA for Chilliwack. This constituent appeals, in the closing sentence, to her MLA, the member for Chilliwack, and says: "I am asking you to stand up for the future of this province and its food security and break ranks with the caucus, your caucus, on this destructive legislation."

Hear, hear. If more MLAs would do that on the government back bench — and I can't think of a better bill to push back on — we could have this legislation tabled out of here. We could have a real consultation, we could defeat Bill 24 in its current incarnation, and we could go out and actually listen to British Columbians. We could listen to farmers about what they want, where they see the future going in B.C.

For a government that claims to be in tune with business and industry, isn't it shocking that the B.C. Agriculture Council opposes this bill? That's kind of an important stakeholder, Mr. Speaker, don't you think? The B.C. Agriculture Council is against this legislation — and the tens of thousands of members that they speak for. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association is against the legis-
[ Page 3900 ]
lation. The Food Systems Network of British Columbia is against this legislation.

Richard Bullock, the chair of the ALC — I have to give him credit for being somebody who's courageous and capable of changing his views. The former chair of the ALC…. He went out and talked to British Columbians as soon as he was appointed in 2010, and he came to this view. I'll quote it. He says: "Farmers have accepted that the ALR is here to stay." He did this tour of the province, and he said he was astounded to find everywhere in British Columbia that pro-ALR sentiment was "almost universal. People want us to do the right thing."

That's the feedback that the Agricultural Land Commission got from British Columbians. People wanted them to do the right thing, and they were in charge. Now they're being sidelined by Bill 24. They were the delegated authority to talk to British Columbians about farming and agriculture, and they told them in almost a universal voice that they wanted the ALR to be protected. They're against Bill 24. I mean, it's hard to find anybody for it.

Then we go on to the scientific community. Academics and soil scientists have all written to this government and said that they are absolutely headed in the wrong direction, one that flies in the face of science. You know, sometimes I hear this government talking about science-based policy and science-based decision-making. Where is that in Bill 24? We've got soil scientists writing to the government, saying, "The reduced role of science as the basis for protecting farmlands within the ALR is deeply troubling to me" — soil scientist from UBC.

We don't have evidence-based policy-making and decision-making anymore in British Columbia with Bill 24. This completely puts that to rest. We had a letter from 100 academics to the Premier, which reminded her and her government that "agricultural lands that occur in all regions of the province hold many values other than simply crop production." Talking about the ecosystem value of the ALR.

[1815]

"These areas contain wetlands, streams, ponds, riparian areas, woodlands, hedgerows and uncultivated grasslands that are either adjacent to or integral to farm operations. These areas are instrumental in protecting functioning healthy ecosystems, and in many cases, these diverse services help boost agriculture production."

So don't put a cabin on a piece of land that can't be farmed that's in the ALR. You're destroying the ecosystem that supports greater productivity of the land itself.

I think these academics make some good points. Another one they make in this letter is: "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."

Well, that's important too. We're the only one of ten provinces that does not have a provincial species-at-risk act. We don't have legislation on that. Even Alberta does, and we don't have it. But we have had the Agricultural Land Commission and the ALR legislation acting as at least some kind of buffer that has helped defend policies and land uses that support species at risk and ecosystems in B.C. We're going to lose that. We're going to lose it.

We're going to have an overly large commission that is all handpicked and appointed by the government. It's going to be politicized, and we're going to have the province split in two.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Fleming: And for all of those reasons… There is no election mandate. There's been no consultation. We are moving forward with Bill 24 to the worst practices possible in the world on agriculture, when they used to come to B.C. to see the best practices.

It's flawed legislation, and it should be defeated.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 24, the agricultural land legislation which this government has tabled in this chamber. I will be speaking against this particular piece of legislation.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I already hear the groans of disappointment from my colleagues across the way. I will have to disappoint them more by saying that I note the time on the clock means that I will not be able to take my full half-hour in this debate at this particular point in time. But rest assured, hon. Members, and rest assured, hon. Chair. I will be reserving my place so that I can continue my remarks when we come back tomorrow.

In the meantime, I'd like to talk about this particular piece of legislation, because it strikes at something that is particularly unique in this province. British Columbia is a vast province of unimaginable topography, diverse topography that is unique in this entire country. One of the things that the unique topography of this province has given us is a dramatic range of soils and microclimates creating some of the most important farmlands in North America, the most important soils in North America and some of the most diverse microclimates.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Now, some of the members are wondering: what do I mean by that? Well, we can grow the widest range of crops of any province in the country. We can grow crops here that can be grown nowhere else in the four million square miles that make up our nation of Canada.
[ Page 3901 ]
We have the longest growing season in many parts of British Columbia of any province in the country. That's a remarkable advantage. It's the B.C. advantage when it comes to agriculture.

We are positioned close to some of the most important markets on the continent. We have seen, over the last 40 years, a growth in the diversity of crops grown in this province. Part of that is because of what took place some 40 years ago in 1973 — the creation of the agricultural land reserve.

[1820]

At a time when we were becoming increasingly aware of the importance of the environment and the damage that was being done collectively to the land base, to the airsheds, to the watersheds, to our rivers and streams, the rise of environmental collective consciousness was starting to take place. A key part of that was recognizing that we were seeing incredible growth in this province, especially in the Lower Mainland and especially in the Okanagan.

People were concerned at that time about the loss of farmland, highly productive farmland that was able to feed the people of this province and provide a strong, vibrant agricultural industry that could feed not just this province but help feed Canada and export food crops to the world.

In fact, a key part of that was how this province was settled. The Okanagan — the story of the settlement of the Okanagan, the development of the Okanagan — is wrapped up very much with the tree fruit industry. The fruit-packing industry that emerged in Kelowna and Peachland supplied fruit crops to what at that time was known as the British Empire — apples to the U.K., peaches to the U.K., foodstuffs to Australia, to New Zealand. That helped build this province.

The agricultural land reserve that was created in 1973 was done with the intention that we would continue to be able to grow the food that we need, contribute to the food security of this province for generations to come and ensure that we are protecting the best land available in the province.

That piece of legislation has stood the test of time. It has stood the test of change of governments from 1975 to the present day. It didn't matter whether it was New Democrat or Social Credit or for the first ten years under the Gordon Campbell B.C. Liberals. The agricultural land reserve was viewed as an integral part of what it meant to protect the land and food security in the province of British Columbia.

British Columbians grew up in this province understanding what that meant and the importance of it. Yes, from time to time there's been grumbling about it, but the reality is that it stood the test of time because it works, and it was good public policy. Local governments which at first, in some cases, did not like the fact that it limited their ability to develop as they saw fit or, in many cases, as crony friends thought communities should develop.

I am not talking about anybody in this chamber, hon. Speaker. I saw your eyes go up. I'm talking about a mentality that was there in the '70s around the idea of protecting farmland, which was — hang on — progress is growth; progress is sprawl. We've realized that's not the case. Progress is smart growth. Progress is complete communities. Progress is transit systems. Progress is a clean environment.

Progress is food sustainability and a strong agricultural sector. Progress is community and regional plans that take into account the importance of agriculture, and progress is whole communities that grow because we protect agricultural land. Most communities today subscribe to that.

One only has to look at some of the communities in the Lower Mainland that used to be under significant pressure. Surrey is a classic example — how their community plans have developed over the last 20 years, where they have protected farmland. It has been a key priority of how their community will grow, what lands are available for development and what lands are there for agriculture. That is crucial.

When you start to tinker with that, when you start to mess with that or you start to butcher, as this particular piece of legislation does, that can have and will have significant impacts. One would have thought that a government that was concerned about protecting agricultural land, promoting a strong and vibrant agricultural industry would have gone out and done a lot of consultation. Unfortunately, this government has not done that.

[1825]

I note the hour, and I note that it will soon be time for me to adjourn the debate. But I will finish this particular portion of my remarks by mentioning the phrase that the minister himself mentioned when asked about the lack of consultation that was clearly out there. He said: "Mea culpa." That means: "I'm guilty." He offered no apology. He just said, "I'm guilty," and it really meant, the way it was delivered: "I don't care. I really don't give a damn." That's what that meant.

Noting the hour, I will continue my remarks tomorrow, where I will examine the contradictions between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Core Review.

So I will reserve my place, and I will move adjournment of the debate.

M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.
[ Page 3902 ]

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $19,107,000 (continued).

K. Conroy: I know that there is a lot of information out. I just want to clarify some issues around the Columbia River treaty, some questions. I just wanted to know: what was the plan for the community and First Nations to involve both the local government groups and the First Nations groups as part of the treaty negotiations? How are people from the basin going to be involved in those discussions?

Hon. B. Bennett: I am advised that we are on the threshold of forming an advisory group from the Columbia Basin consisting of residents, representatives from local government and First Nations. This has already been apparently communicated to local governments and First Nations. This would be, I think it's important to say, in addition to the constitutionally supported engagement that government does with First Nations. This would be on top of that, essentially.

This advisory group would advise B.C. Hydro and government on where they would like to see treaty negotiations go, what sorts of improvements they would like to see. I should say the advisory group follows a very significant period of engagement with Columbia Basin people that I'm sure the member is aware of. One organized by Columbia Basin Trust went to most Columbia Basin communities, and also one was organized by our treaty team through the ministry.

Following that considerable, I think, discussion, consultation, listening, we will now move into a regional advisory group that will continue to advise government and Hydro as we go forward.

K. Conroy: Which First Nations groups are going to be involved in the discussions?

[1340]

Hon. B. Bennett: The Ktunaxa, the Shuswap band and the Okanagan First Nation.

K. Conroy: In the last round of estimates, the minister said that he was unsure of who would be taking the lead in the negotiations and said it would be six to eight months before he would know that. I'm just wondering if you know now who will be taking the lead.

Hon. B. Bennett: I can probably put a little bit of flesh on those bones. I don't know that I'll be able to provide the kind of clarity that the member is looking for. Canada does have the constitutional jurisdiction to deal with cross-border treaties — international treaties. They have the authority to deal with the U.S. on this treaty.

However, given the unique circumstances of the Columbia River treaty, the province has to be consulted by the federal government. In fact, the federal government can't agree to anything that the province doesn't agree to. Given that unique circumstance, it's our belief — and we have had a number of discussions with the federal government at the staff level — that we will, at the very least, be right there beside the federal government as they are discussing the treaty with their federal counterparts.

They will be involved in some way, because they have the ultimate jurisdiction, but we will also be there, whether we're actually taking the lead in the day-to-day negotiations or not. We will be right there heavily involved in it, because the federal government on the Canadian side can't really do anything that we don't like.

K. Conroy: So have actual negotiations begun with the U.S. entity?

Hon. B. Bennett: The U.S. State Department currently is mulling over what the U.S. position will be. I know the member is aware that on the U.S. side, they are probably a whole lot less coordinated than we are on the Canadian side. We've worked with all of the local communities, the First Nations. It's been a bipartisan effort on our part. On the other side of the border, it really comes down to the Bonneville Power corporation, the Army Corps of Engineers, as being the formal representatives of the federal government there. The state representatives clearly have a great interest in the treaty, but they really don't have any formal control over the situation.

Right now it's with the U.S. State Department. The U.S. State Department will determine what the U.S. position is going to be, and the U.S. government will determine who gets to discuss with Canada what's going to happen.

K. Conroy: There has been considerable musing by
[ Page 3903 ]
state politicians on what the treaty should look like, and there has been considerable discussion from that side of the border. I know they have a lot more issues to deal with. I think there are 15 tribes they're dealing with and then all the different states, and we just have the one province.

They've discussed the fact that they feel the downstream benefits are far too rich, from their perspective as state politicians. I'm wondering how our entity is going to deal with that, what our negotiations were, where we're going to go with that. Obviously, from our perspective, that's just not true. When we think of how the states have benefited by the downstream benefits as far as many different things, not just flood control and power…. If that is part of the negotiations — I'm sure it is — I'm just wondering how the minister is feeling about some of those discussions.

Hon. B. Bennett: What government has done is published our position on the Columbia River treaty. I'm sure the member has seen this document. It's called Columbia River Treaty Review: B.C. Decision. In that document it lists a number of different principles that will support our discussions with the U.S. when the U.S. is ready to have those discussions.

[1345]

There are a couple of different references in those principles that show our complete agreement with what the member just discussed as her perspective on this and the concerns of the basin. We agree. There are benefits on the U.S. side that are currently not accounted for, and we would like that discussion to be an important part of the discussion as we go forward in trying to improve the treaty.

We also are aware that state legislators and others have indicated that they think B.C. receives more from downstream benefits than we should. They have used expressions like "The mortgage is paid off," and all that sort of thing.

We are not persuaded by that and agree with the member that we'll be discussing with our U.S. friends, when they're ready to sit down, an accounting, really, of all the benefits on the U.S. side from this treaty.

K. Conroy: I want to put one of those issues on the record. It's obviously around the agricultural and irrigation benefits that Washington State, primarily, has received from the treaty, and the fact that…. When you look at the statistics, in 1964 in Washington State there were 141,000 acres of tree fruit production, and by 2007 there were over 299,000 acres of fruit production.

In contrast, in our tree fruit industry here in B.C., in '61 there were 37,000 acres. By 2006 there were only 18,000, just over 18,000 acres. I think it definitely shows the benefit that the irrigation from the Columbia River treaty…. This was never part of the original discussion in the '60s of how we were compensated for that.

We, obviously, weren't compensated for it. It wasn't part of the downstream benefits, and I think our tree fruit industry has suffered by it — areas like the Okanagan, definitely, but also in the Creston area. Creston used to have significant growth — a potato industry and even onions — and they don't anymore. I really think that there has to be some recognition for that in the discussions. I'm wondering if that will be part of the discussion with the Americans.

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the most fruitful response from me would be to read the third principle.

K. Conroy: No pun intended.

Hon. B. Bennett: It was accidental. I'd like to take credit for the pun, but I can't.

The third principle in the document I referred to in my last answer is quoted as follows: "All downstream U.S. benefits, such as flood risk management, hydro power, ecosystems, water supply — including municipal, industrial and agricultural uses — recreation, navigation and any other relevant benefits, including associated risk reduction arising from coordinated operations compared to alternatives available to each country should be accounted for, and such value created should be shared equitably between the two countries."

It's not an exclusive list. There may be other things that come up in the discussions. Currently, in this document, we make reference to the benefits that the U.S. receives from flood control, flood risk management, hydro power, ecosystem benefits on their endangered fish species — we do flushes at the dams to help them with that — water supply for municipal, industrial and agricultural, recreation, navigation. And we've got a catch-all at the end of that principle: any other relevant benefits.

I think we've got it covered, in terms of setting a stage. We want the U.S. They've been good partners on this treaty for 50 years. We want them to understand what our position is. When they're ready to tell us their position, then we can actually sit down and start to talk about it.

K. Conroy: I understand the B.C. fruit growers have actually approached the ministry. So they've had the discussion with the ministry about this.

I'm getting a yes nod that this has, in fact, happened. Yes?

Hon. B. Bennett: Not only the fruit growers but the vegetable growers, as well, have merged to work with the province and the Columbia Basin representatives to establish a good, credible, rigorous position on water use for agriculture. We will be, I think, ready for that discussion.

[1350]

K. Conroy: I wonder if there's been consideration — we hear about climate change and especially what's happening in California with drought — and if we've thought through, in the negotiations, if the Columbia River water is diverted to California, the benefit to the state of California, as well as the entire country, if California gets the water they need. I'm wondering if that has been taken into consideration.

It would deplete, quite substantially, the water, but it could also be an incredible boon to the Americans, and it hasn't been part of a discussion of a treaty. I'm combining questions here for ease of time.

The other issue. Years ago there was discussion around diverting the Columbia River over to the Okanagan to benefit the Okanagan farmers, to make sure there's irrigation over there. I'm wondering if there's any thought anywhere, prior to the state of California being irrigated, that we should be looking at the benefits to irrigate our own province.

Hon. B. Bennett: I think it's good to probably start right at the 49th parallel. When the water flows into the U.S., it becomes their water, and they will decide how they're going to use it. If they make a decision to divert their water to California or somewhere else, that's up to them. But what happens in Canada is subject to what has already been agreed to under the terms of the treaty.

We have something called assured flood control. It's a management operations model for our Canadian dams that Canada and the U.S. have agreed to. It determines how water is released, when it is released, for what purposes it is released. That's been in place for a long time.

Unless we agree differently between now and 2024, in 2024 the flood control or flood management regime will change to something called a called-upon flood control model. We'll go from assured flood control to called-upon flood control in 2024, unless the two countries agree differently.

The called-upon flood control is, without putting too fine a point on it, advantageous for Canada and B.C. in terms of the management of the Canadian dams and when we release water and for what purposes. It would certainly put more onus on the U.S. to utilize the water in their reservoirs before calling upon us to use the water in our reservoirs.

There is, I think, a give-and-take legal agreement between the countries — it's part of the Columbia River treaty — that helps the two countries determine when water is released and how much and for what reasons. That's going to remain — either the assured flood control or the called-upon flood control. Even if nothing happens with the treaty, that still remains after 2024. Again, going back to the essence of your question, what they do with their water on the U.S. side is really up to them.

K. Conroy: It's my understanding that the called-upon water is extra, that it's not actually part of the treaty water. It's water that's stored over and above what the treaty water is all about. That's my understanding with that.

[1355]

Do we not have the ability to do something with that water that's over and above what would be done with the treaty, even if it's the called-upon water?

Hon. B. Bennett: We think what the member is referring to is the non-treaty storage agreement between B.C. Hydro and the utilities on the U.S. side. It manages that water that the member refers to as being surplus to the flood control provisions of the treaty, and there is more water there than what needs to be managed for flood control.

The way I understand it works is that the water is there for Canada, for B.C. to utilize, but it's also there for the U.S. to utilize as long as they're prepared to pay for the extra releases that they get. They do avail themselves, apparently, of the non-treaty storage water from time to time.

I'm happy to follow through with more information if the member would like some.

K. Conroy: That clarified it. Thank you, yeah. Then, again, there is that additional water that we can utilize to do what we want with, and we do not have to enter into negotiations with the Americans to do something with that water.

Hon. B. Bennett: There is an amount of water that is held back by the Canadian dams, by B.C. Hydro that is part of the non-treaty storage agreement, and that water is available to the U.S. if they need it and they're prepared to abide by the terms of the agreement with B.C. Hydro. There is no influence on the amount of water that is available from the non-treaty storage water for use in agriculture, in industrial, in local government municipalities' drinking water and that sort of thing.

The water is there for B.C. to use. Both sides of the border, under the terms of the treaty, have the right to use water as per normal use for those purposes I mentioned — agriculture, municipalities, etc. I hope that's as clear as the water in the Columbia River.

K. Conroy: At this time of year it's not that clear, but it's clearer than a lot of other rivers I've seen. It's clear over our way, actually. It's clear our way.

One of the big issues that keeps coming up is the whole issue around fish. Even though we know that the fish stopped coming up the Columbia River because of the Grand Coulee Dam, which was not part of the treaty in the '60s, there still seems to be a great deal of discussion and want in the region to bring salmon back to the Columbia River.

I understand the minister was quoted as saying that he doesn't feel this is a part of the treaty and that each entity
[ Page 3905 ]
has to deal with fish themselves.

[1400]

I'm wondering what the reaction is when the majority of people that are canvassed on this issue in the basin feel quite strongly that this should be part of the treaty, that we should try to bring back fish into the Columbia Basin.

Hon. B. Bennett: What I have said a couple of times publicly is that salmon migration into the Columbia River in Canada was eliminated by the Grand Coulee dam in 1938. That's 26 years prior to treaty ratification. B.C. does not believe that it is a…. Well, it isn't a treaty issue. It's not covered by the Columbia River treaty.

It is obviously an issue for a lot of people, and I would never undermine the importance of the issue for those people or for myself personally. As somebody from the Kootenays, I'd love to see salmon swimming upstream in the Columbia and the Kootenay.

But it is an issue that is going to have to be resolved by the two federal governments. It is the government of Canada's responsibility and their jurisdiction. It is not our jurisdiction or our responsibility, and I think we will have plenty to do with the U.S. on trying to improve the Columbia River treaty without bringing a huge issue into the treaty discussions.

K. Conroy: Climate change wasn't an issue in the '60s but is very much an issue now. So if we use the same rationale…. I'm hoping that climate change is part of the discussions, because it'll change how things are going to evolve in our basin. The water levels — I think they will become lower, in fact. There'll be issues with that.

I'm just wondering…. I'm hoping that climate change is part of it, because if you use the same analogy…. If we're not going to discuss fish because it wasn't an issue in the '60s, then where does climate change fit in?

Hon. B. Bennett: The only thing I would correct the member on is that she's used the word "fish" a couple of times, and we're talking about salmon, I think. You're talking about the restoration of salmon. Just to be clear, it's salmon.

In terms of climate change, I'm sure the member has this document. Principle 12: "Adaptation to climate change should be incorporated in treaty planning and implementation." So it's there.

K. Conroy: Yeah, I meant salmon, and last time I checked, salmon were fish. It's definitely an issue for people that want the salmon back.

The U.S. entity is calling for negotiations to be completed by mid-2015. I hadn't heard an end date from our side. I was just curious. If they're not successful in getting an agreement on key aspects of the U.S. position, what rationale or what plan does the committee have to deal with that?

Hon. B. Bennett: If we refer back to my comments earlier about the difference between the coordination that we have on our side of the border and just the multitudinous number of diverse interests that they have on the U.S. side, what's going on here is that people who have no authority to negotiate with Canada are making comments about various things. For example, "We should pay you less money," or another example would be: "We should have these discussions, negotiations finished by sometime in 2015."

The important point is that they are not interests who actually speak for the U.S. government. We can't even consider when we would like to have an end date for discussions with the U.S. until the U.S. tells us what their position is, and the U.S. State Department hasn't done that yet.

K. Conroy: One of the other issues that was discussed is the fact that the U.S. entities have direct input into how our dams are controlled but there's no opportunity for Canadian input into how the Libby dam is controlled. We're wondering if there's going to be any discussion on that.

[1405]

Hon. B. Bennett: I thank the member for the question. It's very relevant to where I come from. I've read through all of the summaries of the public consultation to just see what the trends were. In addition to the interest that there is in restoring salmon migration, this was a particular interest. You'd think it would have been primarily in the East Kootenay, but actually it was of interest to people all over the basin that we have this one U.S. dam in Libby, Montana, that's not in Canada, so we can't fully control its operations.

We do, however, have the Libby coordination agreement, and it was renewed for another two years to give the two countries an opportunity through these discussions that are about to happen, hopefully, to actually build something into the treaty. This would be one of the improvements to the treaty that we're looking for.

If you look at principle 10, it says: "The province will seek improved coordination on Libby dam and Koocanusa reservoir operations." We are hoping that with the two-year extension or renewal of the Libby coordination agreement, it will give us enough time to work with our friends in the U.S. and develop a different kind of business relationship with them on the operation of the Libby dam to bring some confidence and comfort to the people on our side of the border.

K. Conroy: When it comes to the technical aspects of the negotiations, I'm wondering: are there going to be outside sources — technical experts in the fields of power, water management, fish issues, the environment — that are going to be brought in to help the team, or is it all go-
[ Page 3906 ]
ing to be done in-house?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yes.

K. Conroy: That was a good one. That was succinct.

I'm just wondering. You talked about consulting with the region. We had talked in the past about trying to consult with all the MLAs in the region. It hasn't been carried through with. We haven't managed to work that one out. I'm wondering if there's potential for working with all MLAs in the region to ensure that there's communication on where the treaty is going and what's happening with negotiations.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm certainly open to enhanced discussions, opportunities for discussions, with my colleagues from the rest of the Kootenay region. I understand there's been some interaction between the member and the leader of our treaty review team. Informal, but sometimes that's the best way to get information.

Certainly, we published this document after all of the public consultation that took place. If we haven't lived up to the expectations around discussion between MLAs, I think we have met very high standards in terms of interacting with and listening to the constituents of all of the four MLAs.

It's been a rigorous, very fulsome consultation process. I would offer to the member that if there is another briefing at this point in time that MLAs require, I'd be more than happy to provide it.

K. Conroy: I'm thinking more down the road as negotiations progress, just to hear what the progress is. I do want to thank the staff and Kathy and Les for the amount of work that they have done in the region. It's been incredible. When you go out and talk to people, they mention it. They talk about the good work that's been done. The feedback has been excellent. People do really feel that their issues have been heard.

[1410]

I mean, there will always be people that would like a little more, but that's the way it is. But people do really feel that they've been heard, and they've read their concerns in the document. As well, the local government has felt their issues. I'm sure they'll be very happy — or they are very happy — to know that they're going to be part of a consultation group as the negotiations carry forward.

I want to thank the minister and the staff for that, because it is really important to the region. There wasn't that consultation in the '60s, and it took a number of years to get that treaty signed. Over all those years there was minimal, if none…. There wasn't any consultation. I think that it's been done a lot better this time, and the people of the region and the basin will benefit by that.

I want to thank the minister for his commitment, and I will make sure my colleagues know that. We look forward to further discussion as the treaty unfolds.

Now, because we've whipped through so fast, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague and leave it at that.

Hon. B. Bennett: I just want to introduce the woman behind me who has provided most of my answers, Kathy Eichenberger, executive director of the Columbia River treaty team. The member opposite just referred to Kathy. This division in the ministry is very small, but it is very talented and very committed, and they spend a lot of time in the region.

I would like to join with the member and thank Kathy and her team and also thank Les MacLaren, the assistant deputy minister, for all of his work on this. It's one of the reasons I think we're in a strong position on the Columbia River treaty — the experience and understanding that resides in the ministry.

K. Conroy: Just one more question, sorry. It's probably a yes or no, I hope. Is this team going to be part of the core review?

Hon. B. Bennett: No.

Could I get a 3½ minute recess?

The Chair: We will call for a 3½ minute recess, yes.

The committee recessed from 2:12 p.m. to 2:14 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: I just want to introduce my staff. Dave Nikolejsin, the deputy minister for the ministry, is to my right. David Morel, the assistant deputy minister responsible for the mines and mineral division, is on my left. May Mah-Paulson is behind me — the chief gold commissioner. Beside her is Ranbir Parmar, who is the chief financial officer for MEM.

[1415]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and his staff for making yourselves available. I'm going to try to be as quick as possible. I believe I've got to try to do all of this in two hours, because I'm going to cede half of the time left to core review, so my colleague will be coming in.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll do short answers as much as I can.

S. Fraser: That's good.

What I've done is, recognizing the time constraints, I have put together some broad overview questions about the ministry as relating to mining, contractual obligations, core review implications — things like that that I think might take up a lot of time. If I could forward you these, which I will do — I'll just set them aside here — I will provide them for you.
[ Page 3907 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: I will commit to reviewing that list of questions and to providing responses in a timely way to the member.

S. Fraser: I guess I'll start. I'll just begin these estimates by asking a few questions about the Mineral Tenure Act. I believe I started this…. In the last estimates I asked some questions about this too, but there have been a number of events that have come up of late.

As minister knows, it was 1859, I believe, that essentially this act has been in place, largely unchanged. I'm asking these questions with concern for conflict or preventing conflict, mitigating conflict that might happen on the ground where mining endeavours or exploration might impact local communities or First Nations.

I know the minister knows there has been discussion at the Union of B.C. Municipalities meetings. There have been resolutions that have come forward which were passed at this last conference and previously, also.

Can the minister just let us know where we're at in tenure reform? Are there active discussions? Is there a timeline or a plan for looking at any type of tenure reform?

Hon. B. Bennett: There isn't any formal process happening today with the ministry or between the ministry and the mining industry and/or UBCM. We're certainly aware of the resolution passed by UBCM. We're aware that local government sometimes feels threatened by what's possible under the Mineral Tenure Act.

I think when we did this last — it was probably about a year ago, I guess — I talked about the need for more education in terms of how the mining process actually works. I think many people think that when you register a claim on line that somehow or other you immediately obtain legal rights to go on the land and do various things.

That is actually true in some jurisdictions. It's not true here. In order for you to really disturb the ground, even with a registered claim under your belt, you have to go apply for an additional permit. You have to apply for a notice of work. That is when consultation with property owners, local government and First Nations and so forth kicks in.

I think there's a genuine issue about a lack of understanding about how the mining process, if you will, evolves from the point that you register a claim to the point where you are actually wanting to build a mine on the property. It is usually a ten-, 20-, 30-, 40-, 50-year period of time.

[1420]

Having said all of that, there are still concerns about the way the Mineral Tenure Act works in this country. I've said to my friends at UBCM that we're open — and I think the two mining associations are open — to having a discussion about any good ideas that are out there to improve it.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the answer from the minister.

I guess, as the minister knows, there's been quite a bit of controversy around the Ajax mine and its proximity to — well, within the city limits of Kamloops. We've seen, certainly, some incidents a few years ago now, but it caught the press on South Pender Island: individual property owners waking up to find people in the yard.

Certainly, with First Nations…. The minister knows of — and we have discussed this before — the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation on the west coast of Vancouver Island and their move towards a tribal park designation that could, arguably, be a conflict with the Fandora mine proposal from Imperial Metals. Will the minister or the ministry be contemplating discussions with the parties?

I would suggest local government, UBCM, would probably be the place, since that's where resolutions have come forward from — and First Nations, either at that table or at another table, to try to see if there is a way to prevent conflict before it happens. Of course, the mining sector itself has their own needs. Balancing the needs, I guess, is what we're trying to find.

I think that's the nature of the resolutions that we're seeing coming forward — balancing the values of local property owners and local government in growth planning, community planning and that kind of strategy, and then, of course, First Nations and their significant cultural, spiritual and physical needs on the land.

If there's no process in place now, is there anything contemplated to try to address a pretty old act that certainly has served us well but may not have contemplated some of the realities of the present day?

Hon. B. Bennett: As I've said a minute ago, there is no formal process in place for that kind of interaction. We have not had a request — that I'm aware of, anyways — from the UBCM to sit down and discuss this. If we do get a request from UBCM to discuss this, we absolutely will.

I would be grateful if the member opposite — obviously, we don't have time for it here today — would perhaps provide me with a list of changes to the Mineral Tenure Act that he thinks would be important. That would be useful to the ministry, and I look forward to receiving that. Again, we're open. We just have not been specifically requested to sit down with anyone yet.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

I suspect that without a formal request from the UBCM…. I think that request has been made in the form of a resolution to government. Essentially, the resolution as passed by the UBCM endorses tenure reform. That would be, I think, a request to have that happen. Since that process hasn't begun yet…. They have submitted that resolution, which in its own form would be a request to address the issue.

There've been a number of documents — NGO documents and such that have come forward — which were
[ Page 3908 ]
also cited by members at the UBCM. I know of one: Modernizing B.C.'s Free Entry Mining Laws. It was a publication by West Coast Environmental Law last year. They did have suggestions. I won't rate them on merit, but the minister asked for suggestions.

I'm certainly not an expert, but several suggestions they have are to "establish commonsense restrictions on where mineral claims and mining leases are allowed…." I guess that would be taking into account the other values of the land that may be there. The second one that struck me was to "ensure that the provincial and First Nations governments, private land owners and the public have a meaningful role in decisions about mineral tenure."

[1425]

That may or may not be feasible, but it's a suggestion that is addressing, I think, the balancing act that would have to occur if such reforms were being contemplated.

I'll leave it at that. I know the minister has access to some of these documents. I know the Columbia Institute put something out on mining, on the challenge for B.C. local governments. They cite some of the problems that they've seen, and I've mentioned them — some of the instances where it's been perceived that the current act does not adequately protect, shall we say, private property owners.

Then, of course, the issues, the conflicts we're seeing around the Ajax mine in proximity to urban centres may not have been contemplated. When we go back to 1859, those types of potential conflicts just may not have been contemplated at all when the act was made.

I'll just wait for a comment back, if the minister has anything to say.

Hon. B. Bennett: I don't want to use up a bunch of the member's time. What I'll say in response is that the ideas that the member just mentioned are all, I think, ideas that are worth consideration. Again, I'd be happy to sit down with the member and talk about a process, perhaps right here in the Legislature, where we could look at potentially improving the statute. I would never suggest that it's perfect and that it can't be improved.

I appreciate the member raising the topic. I'm certainly willing to work with the member going forward.

S. Fraser: I'll move on from there, although it's a related issue. I'll touch on it, since I've already mentioned the proposed Ajax mine. I know the minister will have received many of the letters that I did as critic, because I was usually cc'd on the letters that went to the minister.

The biggest concern that I saw around people from Kamloops regarding the Ajax proposal is that it was not undergoing the highest level of environmental assessment review. Rather, it's undergoing a "transitional comprehensive study." I think that's the term. That's how it was laid out to me. There was a want for the higher level of assessment, given the scope and proximity and level of controversy, which I think are the criteria for that higher level.

I realize that the environmental assessment process is not within the minister's purview. But again, we have a fairly old act that didn't contemplate, maybe, the conflict that is being created with the Ajax proposal. And then we're having a lower level of environmental assessment, when the higher level of environmental assessment could have been brought to bear, which might have addressed some of the concerns of the public. So if the minister has any comments on that….

[1430]

Hon. B. Bennett: Apparently, the decisions around this project in terms of the environmental assessment as it relates to Canada and B.C. were made prior to the federal legislation being changed in 2012.

What we have in play right now is kind of, if you will, the old process where you've got a Canadian assessment and a separate B.C. assessment, which, frankly, we've been trying to move away from in this province for a number of years. The changes to the Canadian legislation in 2012 have really helped us do that. We have a number of newer projects that haven't been around as long as this one, where the process…. It's not any stronger. It's not any better. You don't get a better result or anything, but you get through it faster. It's certainly a more streamlined approach.

My comments relate to the process and the time it takes and the fact that it's not completely…. The two jurisdictions are not working together on a joint process the way they can under the new legislation.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

I think it's a mistake for anybody to assume that because there is a process being led by B.C. and a process that is led by Canada, somehow or other you end up with an inferior result. You'll end up with the same result. It will take longer to get there because there are two separate jurisdictions involved in it, but you're going to end up with, I think, the right decision that's based on identifying all the environmental risk and having the proponent offer how they would mitigate that environmental risk.

It would include all of the consultations with local government, with neighbours and, of course, the engagement with First Nations. Ultimately, you end up with a strong result, but the process itself definitely is a process that we don't like to see anymore.

The Chair: Member for Alberni–Pacific Rim.

S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to this discussion in estimates.

Just on that, though, as the minister knows, Ajax
[ Page 3909 ]
Mining has staked out 58 mineral claims in Kamloops for the proposed gold and copper mine, half of which would be located within six kilometres of several schools and seniors residences and hospitals and the university and hundreds of homes too.

It's somewhat unique. Certainly, in my role as critic, this is…. This will be an urban mine. Again, I don't want to dwell on this because the environmental assessment process is not directly the purview of the minister.

There's a ladder that you can climb as far as the strenuousness of the environmental assessment. I know the highest level kicks in things like formal public hearings and, I think, some independent studies done, independent of the companies. It does give it, at least from a public perspective, a higher level of certainty that all the values and the objectivity of the studies are stronger.

Just to finish this off on the Ajax project, because we don't have much time: does the minister have…? There is a higher level of environmental assessment, so surely that would have been one that it would have been wise to use in a case of essentially an urban mining project.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I mean, a great opportunity for me to correct the member. And it's not just the member; it's the mayor of Kamloops and many others who seem to believe there is some superior level of environmental assessment that is just out of their grasp.

There is no higher level of environmental assessment than the one that's taking place with Ajax and all of the other projects that are being assessed in the province today. There is no other higher level of assessment.

You can do the process in different ways. Under the new federal legislation, you can do what's known as substitution. You can have the provincial government do the assessment; both ministers, federal and provincial, make a decision on it.

[1435]

You can do a joint panel, which has been done in the past. I think some people assume that a joint panel is somehow or other a superior environmental assessment. Exactly the same rules apply — the same standards for the proponent. You have public meetings. The public has an opportunity to be involved. Whether it's a joint panel or a separate analysis by the province and the federal government, the standards are the same. There is no superior process in terms of the environmental assessment itself. What's different or what the options entail is more about how the assessment is done — the process.

S. Fraser: I may have learned something. It's not just the mayor of Kamloops, but certainly the mayors of Cumberland and Courtenay, the Comox regional district, the Islands Trust all have the same…. Their reading of the situation is they all believe there is a higher level. I mean, a public meeting is one thing — but often sponsored by the company.

Independent public hearings, those sorts of things…. There is an assumption that there is a higher level of environmental assessment process that will allow for those sorts of things and an independence in the study of some of the potential effects on the community.

This will be interesting. It will be, obviously, educational not just for me to know that there isn't such a process but for all of those mayors and local governments. It might be another reason to have a sit-down with members of the UBCM to explain the reality of the situation.

I'll leave it there. If the minister wants to comment….

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I think the member raises an important issue that's probably more about communications than substance. There has been, over the past couple of years, this impression develop in the public mind because of comments by, particularly, local government leaders. They are somehow of the impression that: "Oh, if you can only get a joint panel, then the standards for the environmental assessment are going to be that much higher." That's just simply not true.

The legislation, both federally and provincially, the regulations, the standards — it's all the same, no matter what process you choose to take. There is no higher, better process. I appreciate the member raising that.

S. Fraser: I'll move on to the Yukon Court of Appeal decision. I touched on this in the last estimates. That's the Ross River Dena Council v. Government of Yukon.

At the time, they held that the government of the Yukon must consult before opening up for staking and acquisition of mineral title areas covered by aboriginal title claims of the Ross River — in this case, the Ross River Dena Council. It's a non-treaty Yukon First Nation.

Additionally, the court held that an opportunity to consult with the nation must be inserted into the mineral title regime before certain activities could take place.

I won't go on. My question regarding that case…. It came up numerous times at the mining exploration roundup that I know the minister had attended and spoke at last year. It was still of great concern to many in the exploration sector, and I've certainly heard from First Nations. They certainly have a take on this court decision too.

Has anything fallen out of that decision directly related to British Columbia? I just would note that I learned something on this. That appeal court in the Yukon — all of the judges are from British Columbia.

If this were a challenge on the system, whether it's free entry or on-line claiming or whatever…. If there was a challenge in that regard, there are many that believe it would be successful, that B.C. would then be in the same situation as the Yukon government.

Has there been any follow-through on that by the ministry? Is he aware of any — I'm not, but maybe the minister is aware — challenges in British Columbia? Have
[ Page 3910 ]
there been any challenges citing that case?

[1440]

Hon. B. Bennett: It's the advice of the government's lawyers that the case from the Yukon is not binding in British Columbia. The reason that the government's lawyers are of that view is that when you register a claim in the Yukon, you receive rights to do work on that land that you do not receive in British Columbia. In fact, many of the exploration activities that are automatically authorized in the Yukon when you stake a claim, so to speak, in B.C. wouldn't be automatic. You would have to apply for a permit, and you would have to do your First Nations engagement and the other things you need for that permit.

On the basis of the difference between what bundle of rights you get in the Yukon with a claim versus a much narrower, smaller bundle of rights you get in B.C., the lawyers tell us the decision is actually not binding on British Columbia. Whether it will be challenged at some point in the future to test the advice of our lawyers remains to be seen.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. His last comment is actually where I was going. I guess the Yukon Appeal Court decision might be used as a precedent. Certainly, in British Columbia…. I would suggest that the free-entry system does not recognize First Nations rights when you look at the need to consult within the territories. You know, there is a parallel with that. I'm referring to the free-entry system.

I understand the merits of the free-entry system for the industry, but I also understand the First Nations' perspective on that in many cases — not all. But does the minister not see the potential for this to be…? Maybe we can get ahead this of one before it becomes a litigation issue. That's the nature of my question — with that in mind.

Hon. B. Bennett: Currently the ministry and government intend to rely on the legal advice given to us by the government lawyers.

As a general comment, it is extremely difficult and extremely expensive to build a mine — first of all, to find a deposit that is mineable in the right place, with the right kind of mineral or coal resource, with the right kind of grade, without the issues that would prevent the ultimate construction of the mine. It takes, usually, decades — not years but decades — to get to the stage after discovering something that might be of value in the ground to the point where you actually are applying to build a mine.

As a general statement, I would say to the member that we're trying to make it easier to build mines in British Columbia as opposed to making it harder.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that from the minister. Are there no discussions in the ministry about looking at the free-entry system and how it could be modified, maybe to make it better for exploration but also to take into consideration other values, maybe from the perspective of First Nations or local government? Or is that not on the table right now? The free-entry system — is that status quo? Is that just accepted now?

Hon. B. Bennett: To be clear, we've already had a discussion about the Mineral Tenure Act, and I've already expressed my openness to work with the member or UBCM or whoever has concerns about the act. So that piece, I think, we've addressed.

With specific reference to the impact of the Yukon decision, we intend to rely on the advice that we've been given by our lawyers that the case does not apply here in British Columbia, and we're going to carry on trying to have mines built in the province and deposits discovered on the basis of the advice we have today. If that changes in the future, we'll have to adapt to that.

[1445]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that answer. The minister referred to the lengthy chain of events that have to occur, not just in the province of British Columbia but many jurisdictions, to actually go from the exploration stage, the initial stages of prospecting, onwards to the opening of a mine and all the challenges that go through all the levels of companies and individuals involved. I appreciate that. I have learned a lot about that too.

Some of these issues came up in the discussion of Bill 17, I think it was, and in that case, I know that allowed for the permit fees to be included for the notice-of-work permits. The minister rightly pointed out the challenges of those on the ground that are actually trying to find the minerals.

I know the minister knows prospectors. They're grass-roots people. They are the base of the industry. Since we passed Bill 17 in the House, it now opens the door for the initiation of those fees. I would note that in the discussion paper from February on the Mines Act permit fees, those smaller-scale placer and mineral coal explorations…. It could throw $2,000, $4,000 or $6,000 on the front end of the exploration sector. Those amounts of money in some cases are the entire budget for the small prospector, the placer miner.

Where are we at in the discussions with those most affected? Is there a process afoot that will start moving towards implementing those fees? I don't need to tell the minister again that it's quite controversial. Those within the sector of exploration have written to the minister, and cc'd me also, quite graphic letters about concerns about what this will do, that it will put people out of business. How are those discussions going?

Hon. B. Bennett: As the member knows, I'm a strong believer in the power of good consultation. I'm pleased to report that we have finished our first phase of consul-
[ Page 3911 ]
tation with the industry. We put a discussion paper out, we posted it, and we gave copies to the two provincial mining associations, who gave copies, I believe, to all of the regional organizations.

That caused a lot of discussion, as the member has noted, so now we are beginning the second phase of that consultation. We recently — in fact, I think today — posted another document, a discussion paper, on the ministry website and provided that to the two mining associations and are making it very clear to the mining industry that we will not be charging fees under the Mines Act to everyone involved in the industry, particularly down at what you'd call the grass-roots exploration side of the industry.

The most junior, most grass-roots, is the best way, I think, because they're usually individuals or very, very small companies. Those folks will not be charged fees, but we will have to draw a line somewhere on this continuum that goes from those grass-roots explorationists all the way up to these large operating mines who want big expansions that require enormous resources from various ministries in government.

Also, large new mine applications or applications under the Mines Act to build a new mine require huge amounts of resources from various ministries in government. You've got that spectrum, that continuum. We're going to have to draw a line somewhere on that continuum.

What we've done is we've gone back out to the industry now and said: "We're going to draw the line somewhere." The grass-roots folks are not going to be charged fees. At the other end of the spectrum there is, I think, very good justification to levy fees on operating mines that want large expansions and on the applications for new mines. But in between those two ends of the spectrum, where do you draw the line? That's going to be a question that the industry will help us answer over the next month or two.

[1450]

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. As the minister knows, I've raised this a number of times in the House, in question period and at other times. Has there been a response yet? Are we seeing a chamber of mines…?

I know that they've posted a letter — and other groups that represent the smaller, grassroots players, if you will. I like that term also. I'm assuming they've reacted positively to the news that those fees on the grassroots prospectors, placer miners, will not be forthcoming. Has there been a reaction so far?

Hon. B. Bennett: We just posted the document today — I think this afternoon. Certainly, we discussed this with the representatives of the whole mining industry, the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. and the Mining Association of British Columbia, as to what their thoughts were on finding that place on this continuum.

They agree that we need to be particularly careful at the grassroots end of things, where there aren't a lot of resources, and we don't want to do anything to discourage discoveries and the initial development of those discoveries.

I think we've got the two associations pleased with the approach that we're taking. Word will spread out, I'm sure, over the next week or two. I would expect anyone who doesn't have to pay fees and thought they were going to have to pay fees to be pleased.

S. Fraser: I agree. I think it's good news. I appreciate that the larger players in this industry certainly do recognize, as the minister has voiced also, the importance of that grassroots sector and that they need to be supported for future mines to come about.

The posting that came out today that would have said that — is that available? Is that something that I could find on line?

Hon. B. Bennett: My staff just reminded me that when I talk about provincial mining associations, I should include, in addition to the two I mentioned, the B.C. placer association and the aggregate association. And yes, the document is available on the ministry website.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. This is good news.

The aggregate sector — I'm not trying to pin the minister down on where the line is drawn on where fees would be. But certainly, in their discussion paper released in February there's a section on sand and gravel, that class. There was a potential proposed fee in the discussion paper of $4,000.

Is that the aggregate sector that may be now exempt from…? Is it that level of the aggregate sector that might be exempt? I heard from the placer miners but not directly from anyone in the aggregate sector.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I appreciate the member trying to get some more detail on this. But we haven't concluded — we're just barely getting started — our second round of discussions with the industry. The member is right kind of in the middle of that continuum. We're not sure where that line will go.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that. I wasn't trying to push the minister on it. I respect that.

I'm somewhat remiss here. The minister was good enough and gracious enough to introduce his staff. I just wanted to thank Lindsay and Elyse for helping me on this file. They worked hard. Lindsay always works hard. The new member of our team temporarily, Elyse, is an intern. She's been great to work with also. I want to thank them formally for the work they've done to help prepare me for this day.
[ Page 3912 ]

When the fee schedule is figured out…. I know that the fees have been contemplated to try to address and keep at bay a backlog in permitting, a waiting time on permitting. I don't want to get into it. The minister and I have sparred a bit on this issue.

[1455]

The criteria for fees that will be levied — is that the solution to keeping that permitting backlog at bay? I know the minister recognizes that when permitting times go over 100 days, it certainly has an impact on the industry. I know, from the last conversation we had, it's back down to 55 days. In my understanding, that's sort of the 2007 level. That seems to be an acceptable length of time. It takes time to address permitting. I understand that.

Will this fee schedule, as it's being developed…? Is that the means to permanently deal with and address the issues of permitting?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, before I answer the fundamental part of the member's question, let me just say that I think it's risky to compare the amount of time that it takes for the ministry or for government — because there are multiple ministries involved — to issue a notice of work.

In 2007 we had nowhere near the number of requests that we have had in the last few years. When I first was made the Mines Minister in 2005, I think we had one mining project in the environmental assessment, and now we have 30. There is much, much more demand on the ministry today than there was. Even in that context, the fact that staff have been able to get the turnaround time for notices of work down to 55 or 60 days is actually remarkable, and they deserve all the credit for that.

In terms of why we are charging fees, where the money from the collection of fees would go and if that will enable us to stay on top of the number of requests we get for notices of work and other permits, the answer is a little bit complicated. But I think the member wants to have the answer, so the answer goes like this.

The ministry, when I took it over in June, was receiving contingency dollars, I'm going to say, in the range of $5 million a year. That money was being used for permitting, generally — not completely, but generally — in the ministry.

I was asked to try to raise fees up to that approximate level of dollars. That way, the amount could be added to the budget as a line item. If we are able to raise that much money through the collection of fees, that will keep us in the position we are in today. In other words, we'll be able to maintain the service levels that we provide to the industry today. It will not enable us to improve service, but it would enable us to maintain the current levels of service.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

The contingency fees…. Just excuse me for probing this further, because we have little time, I know. The contingency funding that came in to address the backlog a year ago was, according to the minister's statements, a success. We've seen the numbers drop. Will the fee schedule, as it's contemplated to be put in place, remove the need for that contingency funding?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's probably not possible to provide an answer that is a guarantee of what will happen in the future, because heaven knows when the minister might decide to go to Treasury Board and ask for more money for this or that. But I think I can answer the gist of the member's question.

If we are able to raise the same amount of money from the collection of fees that we get through contingencies, I believe it is the plan of Treasury Board that we would no longer receive those contingency fees and that we would have that amount added to our budget.

However, just to be clear, that's dependent on the ministry being able to raise that amount through fees. And again, just to be clear, if we raise that amount that we get in contingencies through fees, we are able to provide the same very good level of service but not to do any more or any better.

[1500]

S. Fraser: I get that.

I guess just following up on that…. The flow of money, whether it's from fees or contingency to maintain the status quo…. I understand the status quo is only the status quo if there aren't more applications coming in. I get that. Is that reflecting a certain number of full-time equivalents within the ministry to address the permits?

Hon. B. Bennett: I am advised that about 75 percent of the contingency funds that the ministry receives go to people, to staff. As the member, I'm sure, can appreciate, those staff, I'm sure, don't feel as secure as they would if those dollars were already on the ministry budget as a line item.

S. Fraser: Presumably — let's be hypothetical here — if we were going to have…. Say mineral prices start rising. Relatively speaking, they're high, if you compare them to, say, the 90's. Certainly copper, silver, gold — they're three, four or five times the value now on the international markets. If they were to continue to rise, it would be expected, I would assume, that if you follow the curve, there will be more applications. There will be more notice-of-work permits being applied for.

Just finishing off the conversation on fees, with this new fee schedule, presumably it would rise with that level of interest and application. Would that meet a potential future increased demand on the ministry, if the minister gets that? Hopefully I explained that correctly.
[ Page 3913 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: I think it's fair for the member to look at this situation like this. We are able to provide a good level of service with the funds that we receive today through contingency and through our line item budget. If we get busier, and we certainly hope that we do get busier as commodity prices come back up, that means that we would have, potentially, the opportunity to collect more fees, although that consultation is not done yet, so again, we don't know where that line is going to be drawn.

Would we collect more fees? At the grass-roots end, no, because we're not going to charge fees at that end. It depends a lot on what happens in the industry's decisions to build mines, decisions to expand mines. Potentially, there would be more revenue coming in from the fees, but you wouldn't want to lose track of the reality that if you're collecting more in fees, it means that you're doing more work, and you're going to require more people.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I think I've asked my questions on the fee schedule. Again, I'm pleased that that posting came out today. I thank you for that news, too. That's good news for those prospectors out there, claims holders. I know it's good news for the whole industry.

[1505]

Everyone, whether you're the big players on the block or not, recognizes the importance of those ma-and-pa operations on the ground. My grandpa was a prospector. I spent my earlier days as a child in northern Ontario kicking around rocks with him. That's how I know the difference between hematite and granite. He never did get anything, but he always was hoping that he was going to find the big claim. I think he enjoyed the lifestyle too, so that was a good thing.

There's been disturbing news within the industry of late — again, relating, maybe not in total but certainly in part, to commodity prices. In April we saw that Walter Energy laid off 415 coal miners — that's from the Wolverine mine in Tumbler Ridge — and then announced, again, that 280 more would be laid off in July when it idles its Brule mine in Chetwynd. A third operation, Willow Creek mine, was curtailed last year.

A week later Teck Resources announced it was delaying a planned restart of another mine, which had been, I think, idled since 2000, 2001. It was reducing its workforce by 5 percent, with most of the jobs cut to come from the coal side of the company's business.

I know that the minister is concerned about this too — a significant job loss here. Has the minister contemplated or worked with industry in any way to try to assist? Is there a role for the government, as the minister sees it, to try to assist in this situation where we're seeing job loss?

Hon. B. Bennett: I always think there's a role for government in a situation where you've got job loss like we just witnessed in Tumbler Ridge. We had a meeting with the mayor of Tumbler Ridge and some of his councillors and staff just yesterday or the day before.

My colleagues in the Ministry of Community…. My colleague the Minister of Jobs, Tourism — she's been involved in this. Advanced Education has been involved with the local college. Government, probably of any political stripe, wants to do everything you can do when you have a sudden decision by a company to lay that many people off.

The cause of the layoff is, essentially, low coal prices, and we can't impact that piece. What we can do, in addition to the kinds of community support programs and mechanisms that other ministries have, is ensure that when these companies are operating, they get their permits as quickly as possible so that they can continue to expand their operations — or move a pit or whatever it is they're applying to do. That's one thing government can do.

I get personally involved sometimes if there's a local government that wants to find a way to tax a mine. It's very tempting, I know, in various parts of the province. We have to be mindful of the total costs that are imposed on a mining operation, just like any business. You get to a certain point when the commodity prices are low in the mining business where if your costs are too high, they close the doors. That's what happened with Walter Energy.

This is a longer answer than my other answers, but I do think that with respect to the northeast coal industry, all of us — government and anyone interested in the mining industry — need to recognize that it's still an emerging sector in our economy, as it relates to mining.

[1510]

That northeast coal sector tried to get going, as it were, in the 1990s. People knew the coal was there. They thought there was pretty good quality metallurgical coal there in addition to some lesser qualities of coal. There were issues around transportation out to the port in Prince Rupert. Those transportation issues have been largely managed.

There are several smaller companies in the northeast that are trying to build coal mines. The contrast, of course, and I think we can learn from the contrast, is the southeast, where I happen to live. We have got five large operating coal mines that have been operating for many, many years, decades, and a large mature company that's well capitalized and with some cash reserves that enable it to get through some of the more difficult times — probably less debt.

The point I'm making is that with the northeast coal sector, we are going to have to expect that until the industry really gets firmly rooted, firmly established…. And we believe that's going to happen. We think that when the price of coal comes up, it will finally get established the way it needs to get established so that it can carry on through some of these lower coal price cycles
[ Page 3914 ]
that the industry goes through. That's the history of that northeast coal.

We were almost there, I think, in the late 1990s, early 2000s before coal prices fell. Then we were almost there recently until 2008-09. I think we will get there. There are a number of companies, including one or two big ones, who were interested in developing. But until we get to that point, you're going to have less certainty and reliability around those coal-mining jobs than you have other places, like the southeast.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. That vicious cycle of commodity prices — it's a difficult…. I don't know how mining operations, mines can run, with the investment they have to put into opening a mine, through all the years or decades that takes. The whims of the international market certainly wreak havoc with workers. I wish there was some magic bullet for providing some sort of stability for the workers there.

I would note, ask the minister, on Vancouver Island here, just north of my constituency, Quinsam mine…. It's one of the only underground coal mines in the province, I believe — certainly on the Island. It recently laid off another 25 workers. I believe that was on top of the 36 that was announced not too long ago. It's not, certainly, the numbers occurring in the northeast, but even here on Vancouver Island we're seeing that effect with the workforce. In total we've got 61 workers laid off this year.

Is the ministry working with Quinsam and the workers there to try to find a way to help? I know the minister answered the question regarding the northeast, but we didn't touch on the Island here, so if the minister could respond.

Hon. B. Bennett: Quinsam is an interesting case because it has two distinguishing features. One is that it's an underground coal mine, and there are only two of those left in Canada, one in B.C. and one in Alberta. The second thing that distinguishes Quinsam from the other coal mines in B.C. is that it mines, I think exclusively, thermal coal, as opposed to metallurgical coal used to make steel.

In answer to the member's question — are we working with Quinsam? — we are, in fact, working with Quinsam. I had a meeting with the CEO of the company last week, and we have had various meetings and initiatives within government to try to figure out whether there is anything we can do from a policy perspective to help that company so that they don't have to lay off any more people and, in fact, so that they could hire back the people that have been laid off. We don't have the magic bullet yet, but we're not going to give up on that.

[1515]

S. Fraser: As the minister knows, there's the application to move a substantial amount of thermal coal by rail through the Lower Mainland and then through the Strait of Georgia to Texada Island. That is not without controversy also, as the minister well knows. This is not British Columbia coal. My understanding is that it's all from Middle America.

What's the status of that application?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a good opportunity for me to clarify what the role of this ministry is in this particular situation. There is an existing notice of work that was issued many, many years ago to that quarry on Texada Island. They have the rights to store coal on their quarry site, which is then transported to the port. The port, as I understand it, is under federal jurisdiction. What we're responsible for is the actual mine site. And it may not be a notice of work; it may be a different kind of permit. But in any case, it's under the Mines Act.

They approached government for an amendment to their permit, asking that they be allowed to use more space at the mine site, the quarry site, so that they could store additional coal. The ministry did all of the work that was necessary to determine whether that was appropriate. It turned out that it was appropriate to give them an amended permit to store more coal there. That is the extent of the ministry's involvement on Texada Island.

S. Fraser: Was that done through an order-in-council, an expansion?

Hon. B. Bennett: In answer to the member's question about whether the amendment of the permit that I referred to was an order-in-council, no — no involvement with cabinet, with the Lieutenant-Governor on this. This was a standard amendment of a permit that had been issued, as I say, several years ago under the Mines Act, a pretty straightforward permit amendment.

S. Fraser: The proposal to move…. I know that Port Metro is working on this application, so I understand the federal authority there. But the proposal to move a substantial amount of thermal coal by rail from the United States up through the Lower Mainland and then transferring it by barge through to Texada — it's a different role for Texada than what we're talking about just now.

There'll be a substantial increase in traffic in the Strait of Georgia — as well, of course, as the rail traffic for coal too. And again, I'm not talking about B.C. coal here. B.C. would essentially be the transfer point to export American coal.

Besides the fact that that's a federal port issue, what's the role of the ministry in this regard?

[1520]

Hon. B. Bennett: The Ministry of Energy and Mines has responsibility for anything that happens pursuant to the Mines Act. Our involvement in the issue that the
[ Page 3915 ]
member describes….The import of U.S. coal transportation across B.C. land out to a port — Fraser Surrey Docks, I think — and coal put on barges, coal taken on barges out to Texada Island — we have no responsibilities or control over that part of the process.

The only thing this ministry does is respond to an application to amend an existing permit to store coal on that mine site. They had a permit to store coal. They've been storing coal there for many, many years. They applied to store more coal there, so the ministry granted them that amendment after the due diligence that is necessary.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for the answer. The minister, I'm assuming, has heard that there have been some concerns about that potential increase in coal traffic in the Strait of Georgia and what it might mean for the Sunshine Coast and residents of Texada and that in the area on the mainland side. As well, there have certainly been concerns raised by residents and local governments in the Lower Mainland about that coal traffic beginning in there, through to a dock proposal.

Has the minister had any role in responding to some of the concerns around health risks, environmental risks? Is there any role for the minister or the ministry to play?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think I'm required to repeat my answers that I've given on this already. The extent of our involvement, this ministry's involvement, with the import of U.S. coal and the transportation of that coal out to Texada Island and the subsequent transportation off Texada Island….

The only piece of that that my ministry is involved with is the Mines Act permit that allows the mine to exist, the quarry to exist, and allows coal to be stored on the mine site and, as a result of the permit amendment that was granted, additional coal to be permitted on the site.

We are responsible for health and safety on the mine site. The federal government is responsible for the Fraser Surrey Docks and Port Metro Vancouver. Apparently, Fraser Surrey Docks is a tenant of Port Metro. That's the legal relationship they have there.

The federal government is responsible for railways, so they would also have some stake in matters such as alleged coal dust and things like that. I shouldn't speculate, but I suspect that the Ministry of Health or health authorities have some jurisdiction mixed in there somewhere in terms of coal dust and that sort of thing. But I think it is mostly federal jurisdiction.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

Excuse my ignorance on this, but we're seeing a lot of layoffs in British Columbia with metallurgic and thermal coal in operations in British Columbia, with our resource. Is there a problem? Does the minister perceive a problem?

I guess I'm referring to a competition here. If Port Metro, say, makes the call to rebuild the Fraser Surrey facility to accommodate moving a fairly large amount of thermal coal from the United States, will that increase the pressure on job losses in British Columbia?

[1525]

Is there a competition there? Are we facilitating competition? Again, I may be way off base here, but it's just a thought. It came to mind a little while ago. I wonder if that's helping our industry or if it may be hindering our industry, especially when it's going through the downturn with the commodity prices and we're seeing the loss of so many hundreds of jobs in British Columbia.

Hon. B. Bennett: I've asked for advice on this question because I wanted to be on solid ground. I think I'm on solid ground by saying to the member that there doesn't appear to be any downside in terms of jobs available to British Columbians from the export of U.S. thermal coal from B.C. ports. I would think that, in fact, there are B.C. jobs that are created, certainly on the railways and at the port facilities, from the fact that there's more product being shipped overseas out of B.C. ports. So I think there is a positive impact on jobs.

This doesn't go to any of the other issues that are around this issue, like environmental issues — you know, the dust and noise and climate change and all of the other issues that I know are associated with this file. But the member asked me about jobs, and so it would appear that this is probably a good thing for B.C. in terms of jobs.

S. Fraser: The minister may be right. I guess the angle I was exploring is that if Fraser Surrey goes ahead and we're to facilitate the moving of relatively cheap coal from the United States through…. Will that put more pressure on…? Will that take away some of the market for British Columbia coal? I'm thinking…. Especially out in Quinsam we've got thermal coal, and presumably they're exporting that. Are we facilitating competition that we may not be able to compete with here?

I'm talking about mining jobs. Is there any pressure on our mining jobs?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, in fact, Quinsam is the only mine in B.C. that produces, primarily, thermal coal. I'm not sure if they produce any metallurgical coal. Actually, I think I would bet that they don't. I think it's all thermal coal, and very little, if any, is exported.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

What happens to that thermal coal from Vancouver Island is that it gets barged over to Texada Island, actually, to this quarry site that we've discussed here. It is stored there and then shipped from Texada Island to the mainland in British Columbia, where it is sold to cement
[ Page 3916 ]
manufacturers and some other greenhouse operators. I think there may even be a few smaller customers that Quinsam has that they sell to.

[1530]

The bottom line: there is no competition from U.S. thermal coal to B.C. because we only have one mine that produces it in any quantity, and they don't sell their coal anywhere except inside British Columbia.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that from the minister.

I guess there's one other scenario which, again, may be just out there — the commonality on the transportation route between the American coal that would, presumably, be coming through Fraser Surrey and transferred to the site on Texada. It's the same site, I presume, that Quinsam uses, maybe in a different direction.

Will there be any problem for Quinsam? Will it cause them more challenges, capacity-wise, for dealing with this on Texada?

Hon. B. Bennett: The arrangement between Quinsam and Lafarge out on Texada is a business arrangement. I can only assume that Quinsam is protected with its legal agreements. They will have the space they need to store their coal. They're a longtime customer there on Texada Island. When I met with the CEO of Quinsam last week, he certainly didn't mention that as being a concern.

I would just add, for the member's benefit, that we've been advised by the operator at Texada that there will be probably about 20 new jobs coming on Texada Island as a result of the coal flowing to there from the U.S.

S. Fraser: As we've been discussing, there have been hundreds of coal miners laid off. HD Mining International has recently brought in even more temporary foreign workers to complete the bulk sample at its underground coal mine, geographically pretty much right next door to where we've seen some pretty major job loss. Moreover, the downturn and closures will ultimately impact B.C.'s coal terminals, while Prince Rupert's Ridley Terminals is already seeing an impact from the downturn.

There are uncertainties around the planned expansion, as I've talked about on Fraser Surrey. I think we've covered that pretty well.

Dealing with the temporary foreign workers issue as it relates to mining…. HD Mining, in particular, is certainly one we're aware of, and I know it's something that the government has supported. In light of the hundreds of British Columbia jobs lost in the same sector almost right next door, does the minister have any thoughts on how this benefits British Columbia, the British Columbian industry or British Columbia workers?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the member and I would be, I think, in agreement that if we could take the workers that have been laid off by Walter Energy and immediately transfer them over to the HD Mining project to take an underground bulk sample of coal there, we would definitely like to see that happen. We would want that to happen. Our government would be very supportive of that.

Unfortunately, the reason that the federal government has allowed these temporary foreign workers to come in from China to work on that project is because, as I said earlier, we have one underground coal mine in the province. There's one other one, a small one, in Alberta. They don't use the same technique that is being used to take the bulk sample in the northeast.

The technology, the equipment — everything is new and different in terms of the workforce that works at these two little mines. I am advised that the federal government was satisfied that in fact there weren't enough — or perhaps even any — underground coal miners that know the longwall technique and that could take this bulk sample.

[1535]

That's why, I'm advised, the federal government authorized these temporary foreign workers to come in to do that work. It's really important, I think, for the public to be aware that these temporary foreign workers are here to take an underground bulk sample.

This company won't know for at least a year and a half, if not two years, whether they have something that warrants the kind of investment it would take to build an underground coal mine. They need to take this bulk sample first.

I would suggest to the member that it doesn't make any sense to run out and train a couple of hundred people to do underground coal mining with the longwall technique to take a bulk sample and then wait two years and find out whether there is a business case to build a mine. When it does make sense to train people for that type of work, because we don't have any other underground coal mines in the province other than on Vancouver Island, would be when we have a better idea as to whether or not we're actually going to end up with a mine there.

If it looks like we're going to end up with a mine, with a company that's prepared to invest the money and build the underground coal mine, then by all means, I think Canada, and British Columbia, is obligated to train up as many, first of all, British Columbians and, secondly, Canadians to take those jobs, as many people as want to do that kind of work. That's always been the plan, right from the beginning.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

We've got 60 Quinsam mine workers laid off, and they're underground mine workers. Do they not have the capability of potentially taking some or all of those jobs? I know it's a bit of a move geographically, but has that been contemplated?
[ Page 3917 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: Two responses to the member's question. First of all, the decision by the federal government to allow the temporary foreign workers to come in to take the bulk sample was made prior to the layoffs at Quinsam. At least, that's my advice. I'm certainly under that impression. If I'm wrong, I'll correct that statement, but I think the temporary foreign worker decision was made before the layoffs.

Far more importantly than that, the former mine manager at Quinsam actually manages the mining project for HD Mining. He is intimately familiar with operations at Quinsam because he managed the mine for many years. He has informed us that the skill set required to take this bulk sample for HD Mining is not the skill set that the workers at Quinsam have. I think that, obviously, is relevant to the member's question.

S. Fraser: However, the skill set of the new manager who came from Quinsam for HD…. He has the skill sets to manage this project, yet the workers of the previous mine, the Quinsam mine, are not capable of doing this job? It seems to me that there's a bit of a paradox there.

Does the minister want to comment?

Hon. B. Bennett: The mine manager in question apparently is not underground, supervising the actual workings. There is equipment that is being used that the mine manager is not involved with, except from a very high level.

[1540]

He manages the mine — the mine site, the production, ensures that everything is done safely — but does not operate the equipment himself, nor does he actually directly supervise those who operate the equipment. There are other people in between him and the actual operations.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the answer. Why aren't companies being encouraged to use British Columbia workers, to train British Columbia workers? They're coming in for a project using British Columbian resources. They're involving our coal, our resource. Wouldn't it be wise to make it a stipulation that the techniques involved, if they're not the ones being used here — that British Columbians would get first chance to be trained for that? Is that being contemplated by the minister or the ministry? If not, why not?

Hon. B. Bennett: To the extent possible, this company and all companies hire Canadian workers to do the work that they're trained to do. I would remind the member that we're not talking about a mine; we're talking about an exploration project. It's a bulk sample. It's an exploration project.

It's not a mine. They haven't even applied to build a mine. What they've applied to do is take an underground sample — very unusual for British Columbia. No one has applied to take a bulk underground sample of coal in this province for I don't know how many years, but probably a long time. We just don't have a lot of underground coal mining happening.

There is a chance that we could have a lot of underground coal mining happening in this province. It has been, over the past 50 years, surface mining, other than Quinsam, but there are huge, huge quantities of high-quality metallurgical coal underground in this province, both in the southeast and in the northeast, and perhaps in other places in the province as well.

The operators of this mine, the company HD, wanted to take a bulk sample to make a determination as to whether they should pull the trigger on a very large investment and apply to the province to build a mine. As I said a minute ago, it would not make sense to put people through the training that would be necessary for them to utilize this new, innovative equipment that's being used for however many months that it takes to do the bulk sample, only to find out after waiting for two years after that, or a minimum of a year and a half, that the quality of the coal was not good enough to make the decision to build a mine.

It's very straightforward, actually. It's only not straightforward if you are looking for a boogeyman. Let me say — not specifically to the member — out loud to the public: the provincial government of British Columbia wants British Columbians to get the jobs. We will make sure that British Columbians get the jobs, and after them, the Canadians. Other Canadian workers will get the jobs. Only after a very rigorous process of making sure that people are trained up to get the jobs would the federal government or the provincial government even consider temporary foreign workers.

This is a unique situation where no one else in Canada can operate this equipment. We will not know whether we have an opportunity to create hundreds and hundreds of jobs in the underground coal-mining business in this province unless this company is allowed to take its bulk sample and we determine that there's a business case there.

If we said no, if Canada said no — "No way, don't bring those temporary foreign workers in to do that work, to take that bulk sample for HD Mining" — we would never know whether we have this opportunity to develop a huge underground coal-mining industry in this province, one that could supply literally thousands and thousands of jobs to British Columbians. We made the right decision.

[1545]

S. Fraser: Well, that's what we are trying to determine, I suppose.

HD has recently brought in more temporary foreign workers. What do we have in total working on that pro-
[ Page 3918 ]
ject? Maybe it's related all to longwall mining or maybe techniques, or maybe it's related to something else. How many workers are now working on that bulk sampling?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised there are 90 temporary foreign workers at that site today.

S. Fraser: The company signed an MOU with Northern Lights College to develop a longwall training program for Canadian workers, for British Columbia workers. Again, that seems like a good thing to me. Why did that not happen as a prerequisite to…?

I understand there's exploration happening here. There's sampling happening here, and there's a technique that a company from outside is bringing in. Therefore, that's the rationale for having their own workers. But that could be done any…. If you expand that, companies could come in with their own techniques and say: "Well, you don't have anybody to do the work."

Why are they not being required to train the workers for this, especially when we have workers that are laid off in British Columbia that already have underground experience? Even if they don't have the exact specific skill set, why is the company not required to utilize British Columbia workers first for that? That would involve training them. Why would that not be a reasonable prerequisite?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the federal government could have said, in this case, no to this company. "You will not be allowed to bring in temporary foreign workers to take the bulk sample in this exploration project." I'm quite certain that the company would have said: "Thank you very much. See you later." They would have disappeared.

We never would have heard from them again. We never would have known whether we've got a mine there or not. We never would have known whether, in fact, we've got this new industry — this underground coal industry, metallurgical coal industry — that has the potential of being developed in British Columbia.

The reason that the federal government, I think, made the decision to say yes was that it's an exploration project. There is no justification for training people for something that doesn't exist. There is no mine. There's no application for a mine. There's an exploration project.

No one in Canada could do the work, according to what the federal government decided in any case, so they said: "Bring these folks in from China. They can operate this equipment safely. Do the bulk sample." If you apply to build a mine and you go to build a mine, then immediately, I think, both the provincial government and the federal government would be saying to a company like this: "Thou shalt train the Canadian workers to do the work." Of course, it would be up to governments to do that as well.

S. Fraser: Well, can the minister then update us on the progress of training Canadian, British Columbia, workers on the longwall training program, according to the MOU that was signed with Northern Lights College? How many British Columbia students do we have now learning that technique?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, that's a question for the Ministry of Advanced Education. I don't know the answer to how many people may or may not be being trained to do this kind of work. It would surprise me if anybody is being trained to do this kind of work, given that it's an exploration project. It's not a mine.

We don't know whether there's ever going to be another day's work after this bulk sample is taken. We have no idea if this company will say: "It isn't good enough. Underground mines are very expensive to build and operate. We're out of here." You're never going to need an underground coal miner with longwall experience ever again in British Columbia. So what do we do with the students that we decided we were going to train just in case? It doesn't make sense, hon. Member.

S. Fraser: If it doesn't make sense, why did the company sign an MOU with Northern Lights College? What's the status of that program? There's a signed MOU. There's an agreement to train British Columbians on this technique.

[1550]

There is an agreement. There's an agreement in place. So how can the minister say that that's untenable? There's an MOU signed. I'm looking to find out what the timeline is for the training, based on the memorandum of understanding. Since the program hasn't been implemented, I guess, there's very little information about it.

The minister must know more than I do about what the plan is for the memorandum of understanding to train British Columbia workers at Northern Lights College — to develop a longwall training program for British Columbia workers. It was signed earlier this year. I think it was January 2014. So where is that? Where are we at with that?

Hon. B. Bennett: I actually don't know the status of the memorandum of understanding or the status of whether or not students have entered the local college to train for this kind of work. I do know that if this company finds the kind of value in the bulk sample that they're currently taking — and will continue to take for, I think, probably at least the next year — if they say yes and we're going to build a mine, there will be a need to train people. Until we know there's going to be a mine, a place for these people who are trained to actually work, then I don't know why anybody would be trained.

What the member is suggesting is that we go ahead and that we recruit people to come and take this training
[ Page 3919 ]
without knowing that there is actually a place for them to go to work by the time they finish the training. We think that would be irresponsible and, certainly, grossly unfair to those people who were recruited into that kind of a program.

We have no underground coal mines right now, today, for those people to go to work at. We're trying to develop that industry, but this company has to be enabled to take their bulk sample so that they can make a decision about whether to proceed with the mine or not.

S. Fraser: Can the minister explain what the timeline is, then? What's the expectation for HD to complete their bulk sampling and determine whether or not they'll move forward with a mine?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised that this project, known as the Murray River project, is in the pre-application stage of the B.C. environmental assessment process. They got into the pre-application stage, I think, in late June of 2012.

I've met once with the proponent. I think staff, obviously, have had many, many meetings with the proponent. The Ministry of Environment has had many meetings with them. Their intention is that they would be in a position to perhaps apply for an environmental certificate this year. Maybe early this summer would be a best-case scenario, I think.

And for the member's benefit, it was interesting to meet with the principle from China, who is here in Canada leading this project. They've invested millions into the exploration of this project and some others, with the idea of developing the underground metallurgical coal industry here in British Columbia — something we don't have.

[1555]

They're actually very good at it in China. It's not uniform across the whole country. They've got issues with safety in parts of their industry. But I hope nobody on the other side would ever sneer at the Chinese and the way they do business because they're Chinese. I'm sure members wouldn't do that.

Actually, I've been to an underground coal mine in China, and their safety standards and operating standards are as high as anything I've ever seen in my life.

It would be, I think, a great thing for British Columbia to enable this particular company to be successful. Certainly not by sacrificing our safety standards or our environmental standards, and certainly not by giving them any sort of preferential treatment on who they use for labour.

But it is our job as government to facilitate this kind of an opportunity. We have recognized that obligation, and I think we're trying to meet it. In terms of timely permitting, the federal government has recognized the opportunity.

Both the federal government and the provincial government have invested enormous resources in going to Asia, particularly China, over the past ten years to develop business relations, to develop trade. That's all part and parcel of trying to get this new industry off the ground.

My hope is that sometime this summer, if not fall, this company will come forward and say, "We're ready to put in an application for an environmental assessment," and then we'll be one step further to actually having a mine developed.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the minister's statements, but the issue that I raise is it's been 19 months since HD has been using temporary foreign workers and said it would train Canadian workers for the job. There's been little or no progress on that. There has been 18 months of increasing employment for temporary foreign workers.

The question being, I suppose, is: does the minister not see, considering the timeline, the length of time involved with temporary foreign workers — that possibly it would have justified training British Columbians to do such work? Could this not happen again and again — providing employment not for British Columbians but for those outside of British Columbia? Is there anything in place to prevent that from happening? It's been a pattern of maybe undercutting British Columbia workers as opposed to training them, as was actually agreed to by HD Mining.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, here's what I hope happens. What I hope happens is that this company continues to show confidence in British Columbia, that they don't lose their confidence in us and their faith in the future. I hope that they will continue to take their bulk sample. I know they were delayed.

The member used, I think, 19 months. They haven't been doing much over the last year because of the court case that, first of all, delayed the entry of the workers and subsequent litigation that has delayed them. They are now started, in terms of taking the bulk sample.

I hope that they find the highest-quality metallurgical coal in the world in those bulk samples that they're going to take. I hope that they then decide that they're going to invest hundreds and hundreds of millions in British Columbia to develop that mine and other mines.

I hope that that causes us to have to twin the railway from the northeast over to Prince Rupert. I hope that that causes us to have to triple the size of the port in Prince Rupert. I hope that that causes us to see the creation of thousands of new jobs and millions of dollars of revenue for the provincial government and the federal government. That's what I hope happens from this, hon. Member.

S. Fraser: I'm tempted to bite, but I don't think I will,
[ Page 3920 ]
just because of the timing involved here. But I'd love to continue this discussion.

I hope that British Columbia workers that have lost their jobs in the mining industry recently also have confidence that they're going to be able to work again in this province and have confidence that the government of British Columbia will indeed stand up for them, saying that they should be working first, that requirements for doing business in this province would put British Columbia workers first — maybe not last; maybe first would be a good step.

[1600]

I'll move on. I'm wondering if the minister could update on the Taseko project, the New Prosperity mine. What's the status of that right now? I know that the new project, like the old project, failed the Canadian environmental assessment process. What's the status of that right now?

Hon. B. Bennett: The status. As near as I can recall, the federal ministry of environment said no to the project. That essentially killed the project, at least for now. I am mindful of the fact that the federal government said in their announcement around this that they hoped that the company would come back for another try at this. That's not me saying that. That's what the federal government said.

I don't know whether the company has plans to go back to the federal government and try again for a third time. I'm not aware, one way or the other, whether they do have those kinds of plans.

I think the member is probably aware…. He reads the newspapers, like I do. I'm sure he's aware that there is litigation underway between Taseko Mines and the federal government with respect to the panel process and also with respect to the decision of the panel. That will play out. Whether the company decides to do anything before that plays out, I really don't know. That's as much as I know of the status of that project.

S. Fraser: I know that the minister has been to Ottawa a number of times to try to push the issue — if that's the right term — before and after the failure of the federal environmental assessment process. I guess I've got a bit of a problem with that. I'm just curious as to how the minister can justify….

He spoke earlier about needing to streamline the environmental assessment process. We had, essentially, a federal process that turned down a project twice, and with some pretty scathing remarks. Yet the minister still supported it. I'm just wondering how the minister can reconcile that.

If the people of British Columbia are supposed to trust that an environmental assessment process is going to adequately protect the environment and find that balance between the industry and the environmental and First Nations values, how does the minister reconcile — when he didn't get the answer he wanted from the federal environmental assessment — trying to push the issue? How does the minister reconcile that?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, here's what happened. The provincial government granted an environmental certificate to Taseko Mines on their first application. The federal government said no. Taseko Mines went back to the drawing board and spent, I think, in the order of $300 million more to change the design of their project. They went back to the federal government, this time first, instead of the provincial government.

Bear in mind that the provincial certificate is still there. It's still sitting there. It's still legitimate. My role as Minister of Energy and Mines was complete. We were past any involvement by the Minister of Energy and Mines because the provincial certificate had already been granted.

What would have been needed, had the federal government said yes, would have been an amendment of the existing certificate, for which I would not be involved. I checked that out thoroughly and carefully before I ever uttered a word about being in support of the New Prosperity project. I was not a statutory decision-maker. If I had been…. In the ordinary course of environmental assessments, before you get the certificate, I am a statutory decision-maker and I would not be going to Ottawa and I would not be making the public statements that I made.

D. Donaldson: I'm going to ask a question of the minister that was referred to me by the…. During my budget estimates with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations he recommended that I take this question to the minister.

[1605]

The latest Fraser Institute report surveying mining companies and investment climate in 96 jurisdictions and places ranked B.C. 17th from the bottom when it comes to uncertainty regarding disputed land claims with First Nations. Mongolia, Chile and Peru are some of the 79 countries and other jurisdictions ahead of us.

The New Prosperity Taseko mine was twice turned down by the federal environmental review process, in part because of its impacts on Tsilhqot'in aboriginal rights. As we said, the government's Mines Minister went to Ottawa to try to convince the federal cabinet to overturn the decision at the direction of the Premier. He was on record as saying it was a number one priority to get the mine to go ahead.

It's no wonder that investor confidence is at an all-time low when you see that behaviour. Even Prime Minister Harper acknowledged the issue of aboriginal title after his cabinet endorsed the federal environmental review rejection. The Prime Minister said: "I'll be frank. It's also in an area of unresolved land claim issues with local ab-
[ Page 3921 ]
original groups. Considering all the environmental and legal advice the government received, we do not have the grounds to approve the project." That was the Prime Minister.

What I'd like to know…. I assume the minister cares about the mining investment climate. I think he does, and I hope he does, because many jobs in other parts of the province depend on it. I'm interested in knowing the nature of the briefing material he was supplied with by the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations before he went to Ottawa.

Did it outline the serious objections of the Tsilhqot'in people? Am I right to assume that? If that was the case, did he choose to ignore that material? And under this fiscal plan, does he intend to return to Ottawa and promote this project?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, all of us on this side of the House know where that particular member that just asked the question really is on mining. We've heard him speak in the House over the years. We've heard how unsupportive he is, actually, of the mining industry. We know where he stands on that. That's clear. Under their new leader, they're wanting the world to believe now that, suddenly, they support mining.

I was at a mining event last night. The member just suggested that some actions that I've taken or comments that I've made have undermined the confidence of the mining industry in British Columbia. It's interesting. I would suggest to the member that he should ask the mining community in B.C. whether that, in fact, is the case or, in fact, whether they have more confidence because I happen to be minister.

When the member's party was in government, they were second from the bottom in the Fraser Institute survey. The only jurisdiction that was lower than British Columbia when the NDP were in government was the state of Wisconsin. You know why they were lower? They were lower because in the state of Wisconsin they actually have legislation that prevents, prohibits, mining. Every other jurisdiction in the world covered in that Fraser Institute survey was higher than British Columbia.

We're not as high as we would like to be. We have issues in British Columbia that are complex. We don't have treaties, other than treaty 8 and the Vancouver Island, the Douglas treaties. We have a situation in British Columbia that is more challenging than in other provinces or territories where they do have treaties, and we acknowledge that.

In fact, one of the things over my time as an MLA that I'm proudest of is the fact that we have managed, sometimes under very difficult circumstances, to build a stronger relationship with First Nations. We have agreements with First Nations all over the province to share revenue. In my ministry we share mining revenue with First Nations everywhere there is a new mine. Everywhere there is a new expansion, we share revenue.

Did the NDP do that when they were in government? No, they didn't do anything of the kind. We have done that, and we're proud of the relationship that we're building.

[1610]

With particular respect to the project that the member is talking about, I actually called up Chief Joe Alphonse on the telephone one day — surprised the heck out of him — and had a conversation with him, just him and me on the telephone, about the New Prosperity project. We agreed to disagree on the current circumstances. He had some very, very valid concerns. Any time I ever talked about this project, any time I ever uttered a word publicly about the New Prosperity project, I definitely know that I was respectful of the First Nations involved there. I am still respectful of the First Nations' position, and for the opposition to suggest otherwise just shows how bloody desperate they are.

A. Weaver: I'm a little taken aback by the response there.

I was just hoping, hon. Chair, that I might provide some written questions, through you, to the minister that could be responded to at a later date. I recognize the brevity of this process and the fact that there is very little time to deal with them.

Hon. B. Bennett: I was kind of taken aback by the member's question, but I'd be happy to supply answers to anything he'd like to provide to us.

S. Fraser: Our time in this particular debate on mining has, unfortunately, come to an end. We need to move on to core review.

I will not rebut the minister, but I would congratulate him and his government. They have opened up four new mines, I think, in their time. That's very important for the province and for the economy and for workers, and I appreciate that. But I would also note that in the '90s that government, the NDP government of the day, opened up, I think, six or seven mines. That was the most adverse economic climate internationally that I think we've ever had as far as commodity pricing goes, and the minister, of course, knows that.

He also acknowledged earlier in this debate that he as government cannot control international commodity pricing, when we were discussing the significant loss of hundreds of jobs in the coal sector in British Columbia, recently announced. So we as government, whoever government is, has very little say over those things and very little control, and there's very little they can do about it.

With that in mind, I did mention at the beginning of this session that I would have some overarching questions that we would never have time to deal with today. I would like to pass those over to the minister, if I may,
[ Page 3922 ]
and his staff, and thank them all for being here today and allowing us to have this rather abbreviated but still very interesting debate.

I will cede my space to the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who will be questioning on the core review process.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'd like to thank my mining critic for the way that he did his estimates today. I appreciate the civility of his questions and the way we got through it until the very last question by someone who didn't care to be civil. I do appreciate the mining critic's questions.

I would just say to the mining critic that during the 1990s for every mine that opened, two closed. That's a statistic. Also, the rest of Canada actually was doing extremely well, for the most part, during the 1990s in mining. It was only British Columbia that did not do well.

[1615]

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to get an opportunity to ask a few questions. We've got a couple of hours to deal with core review matters. We will proceed and deal with some of the fundamental ones.

I guess where I'd like, to start, is maybe to ask the minister to give us a bit of an update. I'm going to go through…. We know the process was established essentially in what was four stages — the core review. There were early opportunities; then phase 1, the mandate review; phase 2, refinement; phase 3, implementation. We'll walk through those with a number of questions over the start here.

I guess my first question would be: could the minister, first of all, tell us: around early opportunities, what exactly was accomplished there? Where are we at? How has that unfolded?

Hon. B. Bennett: I should, first of all, before I get started, introduce the Deputy Minister Responsible for Core Review, Kim Henderson, to my right. It's just Kim and me today. I'm pretty sure we're going to be able to get through it.

I want to thank the member for acknowledging his understanding of the process. I appreciate that. We can go through it however the member wants to go through it, but that makes sense — to go through it in terms of the chronological stages.

The early stage of the process. The context for it is important. We were elected, of course, in May. We were appointed as ministers, given our mandate letters — our marching orders, if you will — in probably around mid-June. Of course, lots of new ministers, lots of new folks, everyone trying to get up to speed on their jobs.

It was up to me as the chair of the core review committee and my deputy to actually create the process. We did that by working with other ministers and other MLAs on the terms of reference. We decided how I would communicate with ministers, how my deputy would communicate with deputy ministers, how we would bring forward the information and, as I say, actually create the process for the core review.

That was a pretty big job and didn't happen overnight. We worked all summer on it and, of course, were able to send out our letters to ministers and deputies and create this process and this terms of reference, I think, sometime early in the fall. Obviously, we wanted to find any opportunities that presented themselves for improvement as is defined by the core review terms of reference.

We did put the word out to ministers that if you have something that you really are excited about working on, please bring your ideas to us. Three ministers did that. The minister of community services brought forward an idea about changing the way that the services that were formerly delivered by the Provincial Capital Commission would be delivered, the Minister of Environment brought forward some ideas on how we could do things differently as it relates to the Pacific Carbon Trust, and the Agriculture Minister brought forward some ideas on how we could make some improvements to the Agricultural Land Commission. Those were the three things that turned up over the course of, let's say, mid-June until September as early opportunities.

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister for that. Just maybe a quick follow-up on the status around the Provincial Capital Commission. I know it was to wrap the commission up and then devolve, I believe, some of the things they did into other ministries, maybe sell some assets and things. The Pacific Carbon Trust, I believe, was to wrap up.

We'll talk a little bit about the Agricultural Land Commission a little bit later. Could the minister tell us: is the Provincial Capital Commission wrapped? What is the status of that? Also, with the Pacific Carbon Trust — what's the status of the wrapping up of that? What does it mean in terms of disposal of assets or moving assets or responsibilities to other authorities?

[1620]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm going to do the Provincial Capital Commission update for the member first and then do the Pacific Carbon Trust next.

The Provincial Capital Commission has, in fact, been formally dissolved. There was, I think, legislation passed this session that enabled that. The programming that was done by the Provincial Capital Commission is currently being delivered by the ministry.

That includes the cultural programming. It includes a program called Capital for Kids. It's a youth travel subsidy program, and that's being looked after by the ministry.
[ Page 3923 ]
The B.C. Youth Parliament and funding for heritage fairs — those things that the commission was formerly involved in — are now being looked after by the ministry.

In terms of the land that the Provincial Capital Commission owned, Shared Services B.C. are now managing all of those properties with the exception of the Belleville wharves, which are being managed by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. I think the member is aware of that.

Importantly, buildings that fall into this classification will keep their official heritage status. Whether or not owners change, the heritage status will remain, and Shared Services B.C. will respect that heritage status.

Maybe I'll stop there. If the member needs any clarifications related to the Provincial Capital Commission, he can let me know, and I'll go again on that.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what savings have been realized by wrapping it up and whether there's a projection? I don't want to ask him to value property. But is the expectation that some of the properties that Shared Services took may be part of the properties that are going to be sold, and will that be seen as part of the asset base too? I'm getting all of this assuming we're looking to get to the $50 million target that is on the table.

Hon. B. Bennett: The savings are approximately $1.5 million annually. With reference to the land, if any of it is sold, the asset is already within the GRE. So although it would assist government in its overall fiscal plan, it would not count as part of the $50 million for core review.

S. Simpson: That's good. I'm not sure of — if I wasn't paying attention, I'm sure the minister will tell me — the Pacific Carbon Trust.

[1625]

Hon. B. Bennett: The Pacific Carbon Trust program is currently being wound down. I'm advised the Ministry of Environment and its programs will take over the functions of that organization.

I think that the member is probably interested in this. I would think he would be interested in this. The carbon-neutral capital program that government has for school districts is being expanded by the province to include health authorities and post-secondary institutions. There is $14.5 million in annual funding in the 2014 budget for that expanded program.

I hope that's not more information than the member wanted, but that's the status of Pacific Carbon Trust.

S. Simpson: I'll just combine two questions. First of all, could the minister tell us what's the expected savings financially from wrapping the Carbon Trust up?

Second, and maybe this is a question about both that and — I apologize for going back a step — the Capital Commission: were people just folded in who were doing jobs, folded into the government, or were FTEs lost in these two exercises?

Hon. B. Bennett: In the case of the Provincial Capital Commission, all staff other than the CEO were placed with the provincial government, so there was no job loss there. In the case of the Pacific Carbon Trust, I think the member asked about the savings. I can tell the member that the savings from what we're doing with Pacific Carbon Trust are $4.2 million in this fiscal year, 2014-15. They rise to $5.6 million in 2015-16.

There were, I think, five FTEs. There will be fewer people working in this area of the Ministry of Environment than before. What I can tell the member is that of the 18 who were there, the 18 FTEs originally, any person who was impacted would have an opportunity to join other parts of the provincial public service. I don't have an updated status report on those 18 people and where they ended up.

S. Simpson: That's fine. If they had the opportunity, that's fine. They would have exercised it if they chose to do that.

The projection was for the first year, the fiscal year we're in now. I believe a $50 million saving was kind of the baseline that the minister was dealing with for this year. Could the minister tell us how we're doing in saving $50 million?

Hon. B. Bennett: We've identified $24 million in savings in total so far towards the $50 million target. The core review has been involved in many other initiatives where the fiscal plan was certainly enhanced by recommendations that we made that were accepted by cabinet.

I talked today earlier in the estimates respecting the Columbia Power Corporation about a $280 million dividend that was paid to government from the Columbia Power Corporation, which core review essentially doesn't get any credit for in terms of meeting the $50 million target — a number of things like that.

[1630]

In terms of what we do get credit for, it's $24 million so far. You've got the dissolution of the Pacific Carbon Trust. I talked about that already. You've got the Provincial Capital Commission. I talked about that. You've got up to $6½ million in future savings from the closure of the office supply distribution centre in Victoria and, secondly, the dissolution of the Private Career Training Institutions Agency and two Advanced Education library initiatives.

A major piece that is included in this $24 million is the recommendations we've made to the cabinet that have been accepted around cash management. There will be a savings that will be achieved in the fiscal plan this year of $18 million. So we're getting there.

I made it very clear when we started this process. I made sure that the terms of reference reflect this. I made sure that our initial news release reflected this. Our process is not all about finding money. It's about finding ways for government to do things better and to provide better
[ Page 3924 ]
service to the public.

If we run across something that government does that they don't need to be doing, like the Provincial Capital Commission or the Pacific Carbon Trust, clearly — or PCTIA, for that matter — we're going to recommend to cabinet that we stop doing it. If there's money to be saved there, that's a real bonus, and we do have an obligation as a committee to achieve our $50 million target.

Again, the focus of the committee has been on doing things smart or doing things better for the public.

S. Simpson: The minister talked about a saving in cash management. Could he elaborate a little bit on what cash management means and, more specifically, what we're talking about and how that saving is realized?

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome. Thank you to the outgoing Chair.

The question is about cash management recommendations by the core review committee to cabinet that were accepted and have enabled to us get closer to our core review target of $50 million in savings. I go back to the Auditor General's comments and report about the importance of the central deposit program and the way that we can find an effective short-term initiative to deal with idle cash, essentially.

We have worked with various ministries — in particular, the Ministry of Finance but other ministries as well — to identify opportunities to put cash to work that's not being used and to release the cash, in some cases, to the SUCH sector when they need it — not to keep them waiting but when they need it.

The way this is set up, they actually benefit from the cash being in an interest-bearing position as well. So far, they seem to be happy with what we're doing.

We have actually been working on cash management practices since about 2010. I'll just mention, in terms of school districts, a good example of what we're talking about when we talk about cash management and improvements to cash management.

We are — I say, corporately, "we." The Ministry of Education, specifically, is adjusting the timing of grant payments to match the cash-spending patterns. You reduce the buildup of cash within the school year, you give the SUCH sector the money when they need it, you get the higher level of interest that the Crown can achieve in the meantime, and everyone benefits from that. That's where those savings come from.

S. Simpson: Let's use the schools as an example. If this isn't an appropriate example, I'm sure the minister will tell me. There has been the back-and-forth. I know the Minister of Education has now acknowledged this in some conversations with some districts.

[1635]

I attended the School Trustees Association meeting where the Minister of Education spoke. There were a number of questions that were related to cash management, largely about districts that are holding cash — what the minister at one point called surplus.

It's dedicated money that already has, essentially, been committed, but the money hasn't actually been paid yet. It's money committed to obligations that are already in place for the districts — significant amounts in the case of some ministries. We know, of course, that the districts hold that money. They generate interest on that money, and that interest offsets some of the cost pressures that they have.

Could the minister tell us: is that the kind of money that the minister might be talking about? A school district is sitting on money for three, four or six months because it knows it's got a bill to pay down the road, but it doesn't have to pay it today, and it's collecting some interest to offset other cost pressures. Would that be the money that the minister would be talking about under cash management? If so, would that interest then be recouped to the province, or would that interest be available to the district?

Hon. B. Bennett: The way this works is that the province actually acts as a banker for the SUCH sector. We offer the opportunity for participants in the SUCH sector to, essentially, deposit their cash with the province. They get the interest.

The province is not required to borrow that money at that particular time because they have the cash in the bank, so it saves the province interest money. Everyone's happy. It's a voluntary program. You don't have to participate if you don't want to. But those who have participated so far have been quite happy.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move now to the next piece of the four steps of the progress, which is phase 1, the mandate review. Could the minister tell us what the status of that is? Is that phase completed? Is it in progress? What is the status of that?

When I look at the wording, it says that the phase of core review is intended for ministers to give an overview on the performance in their ministry, key trends in policy and service delivery, leading approaches in other jurisdictions, the major themes heard from key stakeholders and program and service delivery efficiency and effectiveness. If the minister could talk a little bit about where that's all at in terms of getting that piece together.

Hon. B. Bennett: The mandate phase of our process is complete. It was an exhaustive and exhausting experience to hear from every single minister and their deputy, and
[ Page 3925 ]
often their ADMs, about what they do in their ministry. I highly recommend it. I wish there was a way — maybe there is a way — for all members to experience what the core review committee experienced in listening to the ministers and their staff talk about what the ministry is responsible for.

We are through that. We are now in the refinement stage. Not every file, not every ministry, is at the same stage in our process. They move at different paces. But generally speaking, we are beyond the mandate definition stage, and we're into the refinement stage today.

[1640]

S. Simpson: When I look at sort of the summary of what's to be dealt with here, is this information, these overviews and that…? Has the ministry looked at…? I see the connection here is to say that key stakeholders need to be consulted and spoken to about this. Has there been consultation? Was that part of the requirement of ministries — that they be talking to their stakeholders?

Or is this something that the executive team and the minister in a given ministry would decide — that they're going to do this, and they may decide to do this as an internal process, or they may decide to go outside? They would make their own choices presumably.

This suggests that stakeholders were a key piece of this. Can the minister tell us whether that was a requirement that that be a conversation around fulfilling the mandate review for ministers?

Hon. B. Bennett: I believe that the letters sent by me, as Chair of the committee, to my colleagues the ministers…. And there was a separate letter sent by Deputy Minister Henderson to her colleagues the deputies. In the letter sent by Deputy Minister Henderson to all of the ministry deputies, we said: "Ministries will be expected to undertake targeted consultations with stakeholders and their Crown agencies as part of the core review instructions."

This core review process, essentially, doesn't have a separate budget. I don't have separate money anywhere in my particular budget for this exercise, and we wanted to do this as leanly as we possibly could. So we embraced our colleagues in the various ministries and asked them to do whatever consultation was necessary to ensure that the advice or the requests, the ideas that they brought to core review were ideas that their stakeholders could embrace.

S. Simpson: I believe the suggestions of the working group on the core review say it "will direct which programs and services are recommended for further detailed analysis."

I presume that's in each ministry and that after the review, after you got the mandate review back, you looked at that — you, then, are the committee, the working group — and then went back to the ministers or to the deputies, depending on how that process worked, and said: "Okay, well, here are the two or three or four things in your ministry that we want more analysis of and we think that you need to take a harder look at." Would that be correct, and have you received that from all the ministries?

It also says "the mandate letters provided to you by the Premier provide you with the direction on your current priorities." I believe the letters came prior to the mandate review, though the minister can correct me on this. Or were the letters sort of to follow the mandate review with more specific direction after your working group was informed of what was going on in any given ministry?

Hon. B. Bennett: Just to be clear on the process, for the benefit of the member, the ministers were given their mandate letters following the appointment of cabinet. I would think probably in late June they would have received their mandate letters.

As I said earlier, we began immediately to work on creating the process for the core review, creating terms of reference and trying to figure out how we were going to approach this challenge. We did our letters — my letter to ministers and my deputy's letter to deputy ministers — in September. They went out. It was after those letters went out that ministries started to come in and talk about their mandates and some ideas that they had — each minister had — with respect to things a core review could look at.

Core review met with all of those ministers — in some cases, multiple times. We had to ask them to go back and refine some of their ideas. After each core review meeting….

[1645]

Because it's a cabinet working group, we are required to report out to cabinet, so we would minute our discussions and what we had resolved to recommend to cabinet through a minute. The cabinet would discuss the minute, decide whether our recommendations would be followed verbatim or whether they would be changed or whether they would be rejected. That's the way the process works.

S. Simpson: When I look at the letters — and I just have one of the more generic here — it says in relation to this: "Based on the direction from the working group in the mandate review phase, in the refinement phase it is expected that more comprehensive work will be done." And we'll talk about that a little bit in a second. "Following completion of this work, ministries will return to the working group for final recommendations. Those recommendations will be referred to cabinet for decisions."

Just so I'm clear as we get through this, as this mandate review piece goes, you now kind of know where you're going, or have some sense of that. We're going to talk a little bit about the refinement stage, and maybe we'll start
[ Page 3926 ]
to pass through to that stage.

What do we find out in the refinement stage that we didn't find out in the mandate review stage? Where does the refinement stage take us in the next step of this process, in terms of what actually happens on the ground in ministries?

Hon. B. Bennett: In the refinement stage it varies. There seems to be a different model for every single ministry and minister that comes in.

In a general way, what happens is: the minister shows up with senior staff and presents to core review on the mandate of the ministry or, in some cases, the mandate of a Crown agency. We asked ministers when they did that to also show up with, perhaps, some ideas. They might be rough ideas, without too much detail, about things they could maybe do better in their ministry.

Many of them did that. Those ideas usually would not be at a stage where core review could make a recommendation: "Yes, let's embrace that idea." In some cases there actually were ideas that obviously had been in the making for a long time, and core review gave the minister an opportunity to bring forward a more mature idea. But in most cases they were rougher ideas that came forward.

The core review committee would say to the minister: "Look. After a discussion…. You brought six ideas. Two of them, we think — you're not going to do those. Four of them we're kind of interested in. But have you talked to your stakeholders? Have you thought about this? Have you thought about that?"

I'm sorry that I have to use language like that, but we are in the midst of the refinement stage right now. I can't talk about specific ministries. We haven't made any final decisions. It's a cabinet process, so I'm trying to describe to the member how the process works without naming names, so to speak.

We would, as a committee, ask the minister to go away and do some additional work on the ideas, refine those ideas, answer questions that members of the committee had about the ideas, come back at a future time — which they have done in several different situations.

That can result in, for example, the committee saying: "Okay, you brought four of those six back, the four that we wanted you to look at. We're actually thinking that we're probably going to reject one of them. It's just that we don't like where this is leading. We don't think there's a benefit to the public. So you're left with three." The minister is left with three.

It might be at that point that we go to cabinet and we recommend to cabinet that government embrace these three ideas for change, or it might be that we go to cabinet with a minute that says we've asked this minister to go away a second or a third time and do some more work around these ideas. That's what's meant by "refinement."

S. Simpson: With the refinement stage, the minister maybe can tell us a little bit about when he anticipates that phase to complete.

[1650]

The question I have there is…. We're going to talk a little bit about consultation in a minute. There are references through the letters, both to the minister and the deputy, about targeted consultation and what that might look like. At the refinement stage, so that for the public and those people in the public who are interested in the core review, interested in what the implications of it might be…. It is complex. It does cover every ministry. It will deal with different aspects in every ministry. Is there any intention here at the completion of the refinement stage to provide some kind of reporting or update that would allow the public to get a sense of the direction before implementation really kicks in, in a significant way, as part of that consultation?

I raise that because we know that the minister — back at the time when the Finance Committee was travelling, I believe — the vice-chair of the working group, as the Chair of the Finance Committee, had suggested that the Finance Committee was an appropriate place for consultation.

As we know, unfortunately, that kind of came to light fairly late in the process of the tour of the Finance Committee. Also, it didn't seem to be something that the Chair of the committee, the vice-chair of the working group, was aware of initially. It kind of sorted itself out. The problem was that it was fairly late in the process. It wasn't something that really afforded a very good opportunity because of timing, among other things — apparently, some unawareness about this decision, or maybe a miscommunication.

There hasn't really been a consultation around that. I'm wondering whether there's any expectation at the completion of refinement, when the minister and the committee will have a much keener idea of where you're going…. The plan will, presumably, be there at refinement, and then it will be a question of implementation. Is there going to be some opportunity for a conversation with the public, with interested parties at that time before implementation kicks into full gear in ministries?

Hon. B. Bennett: First of all, as I've said, the ministries have accountability for consultation with their stakeholders. We made that very clear in the letters sent to ministers and deputy ministers.

By the time you get to a recommendation to cabinet that either you do this or you don't do this, it is beyond a reasonable expectation, it seems to me, that you would then go out and consult. The consultation has to take place earlier — and in some cases, years — before the matter ever comes to core review. That's the first part of it.

The member asks about consultation at the implementation stage. I want to remind the member…. I appreciate his question. It's a good, sound question that deserves the
[ Page 3927 ]
best answer I can provide.

[1655]

There is a sense, I think, in the media and perhaps in the public that this core review process…. It started last year. It ends December 2014. Sometime in December 2014 there's going to be this huge announcement about, you know: "Here's what core review is going to do."

I've tried to say as often as I can — and I'll say it here today: this is an incremental process. We look at things. We get through them as efficiently as we can. We've gotten through the Provincial Capital Commission and the Pacific Carbon Trust. We've gotten through the PCTIA issue. We've gotten through some other issues. As we get through them, we announce them with the ministers responsible, and then we move on to the next thing.

There's not going to be any sort of huge announcement of implementation of core review recommendations in December. What we'll be announcing at that point will be the issues that we have identified at that period of our process, and I would suggest that whatever consultation was necessary on each one of those files would've been the accountability of the minister involved with that file.

The member did mention the Finance Committee in that consultation. I would just remind the member that if he goes to the Budget 2014 consultation paper, he will notice very early on, on page 2, actually, where it states:

"Government will…need to make tough choices and control spending to keep the budget balanced. This means little new funding is available for new or expanded programs and services. Some programs and services may no longer serve their original purpose. Reducing or eliminating these costs may help make funding available for other, more important programs.

"What are priority programs and services that government should continue or develop?

"What could government do differently to help reduce costs to government and taxpayers?

"What programs or services should government reduce or eliminate to help save taxpayers money or free up funding for higher-priority programs and services?"

That language is not only consistent with the terms of reference that the core review abides by but in fact is word for word in many cases. It was the view of the committee that because of that wording in the consultation report, which was released in September of 2013, we could rely, probably to some extent anyways, on the Finance Committee to bring back comments about programs that the public didn't think government needed to do or ideas that the public had for doing things differently — very consistent with core review. As I understand it, there were many comments that the committee received across the province that actually fit the request here in terms of government doing things better, smarter, differently.

S. Simpson: I think just — maybe to deal with the last point first. I know a little bit about the Finance Committee's work. I have not sat on the Finance Committee, but I certainly have watched their work and read their reports and spoken to my colleagues who have been members of the committee. Of course, they're out there, and they're hearing a whole bunch of advice about places where additional resources should be put or where resources should be reassigned or things. They hear all of that.

The question here, though…. When the issue came up about the comments of the minister that that was an appropriate place for consultation, that committee — and there was a bit of confusion for a couple of days as it sorted itself out — I know I asked my colleagues who are members of the committee whether, in the preparation for the committee to go out and do its work, there had been any discussion that, in fact, the Finance Committee was a vehicle for consultation around the core review.

More specifically what we're talking about here…. If you're a vehicle for consultation, then you frame that in some way that allows information to flow back to the committee. It's my understanding that there never was that conversation that it was in fact a vehicle for that consultation.

That's part of the challenge there, that we didn't see that, and it reflected in what I think was, at times, people coming and saying "I want to talk about the core review" and being told that wasn't an appropriate place and then later on in the process, after the minister's comments, being told that it was an okay place to be. That's part of the challenge.

[1700]

Having said all of that…. And I just want to reference that. I think that there's a challenge there. Part of the concern…. The minister may know this, and it may be misinformation on people's part, or lack of information on the part of folks in the community, the broader community, who are concerned about or interested in the core review — not even concerned. I think lots of people think the principal behind it is a pretty good idea but just don't understand what it's doing. That's because there hasn't been a whole lot of opportunity to talk about it and understand it as it has gone forward.

The question I have is: is there an expectation that there's going to be a place for people to better understand this process and how it works, either from the minister, as the person leading the review, or with some specific direction for ministries to go out and say, in whatever process they have engaged…? They all have different processes. They're going out and saying: "As part of our core review obligations, we are here to talk to you about X, Y or Z."

Is any of that going to happen, or are we, essentially, going to continue with what has been pretty much under the radar for this process to date?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think it's important to state on the record, not just for the member's benefit but to have it on the record that although core review has access to every
[ Page 3928 ]
single ministry and Crown that it has time and resources to examine, certainly the core review committee and the chair of core review are not going to have the capacity to do stakeholder relations in every single ministry.

We have done what we could to make sure that the public had an opportunity to understand our process. The letters to ministers, the letters to deputy ministers, were posted on line so that the public could see what we were doing. The terms of reference are also…. We made them immediately available to the public — pretty straightforward.

In reference to the 2014 work that the Finance Committee did, if the member would review the wording that I read out from part 2 — paragraph 2 on page 2, I think — of the budget consultation report, he would see that there is no reference to core review there. It is language that was put in by the Ministry of Finance that is very similar, that gives people the opportunity, or encourages people to take the opportunity, to provide advice, opinions to the Finance Committee that would hopefully be useful, certainly, to our process, the core review process, but also to every single minister of government.

That's the purpose of the budget consultation. It is primarily for the Finance Minister — it' s true — to hear from the people of the province about what they want or don't want in the budget, but it has always been broader than that. It has always been an opportunity for a bipartisan committee to travel the province.

I chaired the committee one year, and it was one of the premiere experiences of my time as an MLA. I really enjoyed it and got a lot out of it. It's an opportunity for that committee to go around and listen to people. The things that you hear in that committee room are valuable not just to the Minister of Finance. They're valuable to every single minister in government, and some of those comments were valuable to us on the core review committee.

S. Simpson: I don't disagree with any of the minister's comments, and I don't disagree with the language in the report. I guess the point that I was making is that the minister pretty specifically said at the time that the vehicle for consultation was the Finance Committee on these matters.

[1705]

If I read under "Implementation," the public will have the "opportunity to provide input to core review as part of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services' 2014 budget consultation being undertaken in September and October of 2013." That's from the letter. That's the comment that was referenced. That wasn't necessarily what the committee thought, be that as it may.

Could the minister tell us: when does he anticipate the refinement process will be completed and we will move more formally to the implementation stage?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll refer the member to the letter that I mentioned earlier, from the deputy minister for core review to all of the deputy ministers of government, in which each deputy minister was instructed to do consultations with stakeholders in that ministry on behalf of that ministry.

Clearly, using the Finance Committee to gain some insight into what the public thinks, although an appropriate source of information for the core review committee, was by no stretch of the imagination the only way that the core review intended to have the public consulted. It's clearly there in black and white in the letter.

In terms of where we're at in process, again, this is an incremental process. It's not possible for me to say: "We're almost on the refinement phase. We'll be done next week." We're not only done the refinement stage on PCTIA and the Pacific Carbon Trust and Provincial Capital Commission; we're done the implementation phase. These are all done individually. We do them as efficiently, as effectively as we can. When the decision is made by cabinet to implement, we put them behind us. Our job is done. We move on to the other files that we have on our table.

In general, I think the refinement phase probably will come to an end in the early fall. Having said that, I'm betting that there are going to be…. Just as there were some early opportunities, I suspect there are going to be some late opportunities. We're never going to stop looking for ways to improve the way government operates. In the fall we might get some brand-new ideas, and we'll have to go through the whole refinement stage and implementation and go to cabinet two or three times with these ideas, and other committees. Generally speaking, because the member is asking a reasonable question, I think we'll be pretty much past refinement by early fall.

V. Huntington: Two of the studies from the core review were made public very early in the process — the Pacific Carbon Trust and the Provincial Capital Commission — but other studies are underway. One is for B.C. Timber Sales. I believe that the consultant is Mr. John Allan, who is the former head of the Council of Forest Industries.

Apparently Mr. Allan has tabled one of his reports and is either about to or has perhaps already tabled the second. I wonder if the minister can tell us why the B.C. Timber Sales review report has not yet been made public, for 20 percent of the public forest is felled within the BCTS. Can the minister perhaps tell us when Mr. Allan's report and recommendations will become public?

Hon. B. Bennett: The power of rumour. We've had nothing to do with this. Core review hasn't talked about it, hasn't dealt with it. We have nothing to do with it. I have no idea what the member is talking about.
[ Page 3929 ]

V. Huntington: That is indeed interesting. Could the minister, then, perhaps, tell me: who is it within the scheme of things that sets the priorities for the core review, targets which agencies or ministries are priority? Is it the cabinet committee? Is it the ministries themselves? Is it a public agency that comes forward? Are they told to engage in a core review?

[1710]

Is it some other body or the minister himself, perhaps, who, for instance, set the priority of the ALC for review?

Hon. B. Bennett: We started out developing a set of terms of reference. Of course, I was charged with taking on something called a core review process when I got my mandate letter in June. I wasn't sure what that was.

I was here in 2001-2002 when the previous core review exercise happened. That was a very rigorous process involving a lot of resources, a lot of staff, a lot of outside analysis by audit firms and so forth. I wasn't sure what the core review process this time around was going to look like. It was a great opportunity to try to find ways to improve how government functions.

We spent the summer, myself, the core review committee — those who turned up to meetings in the summer — and the deputy minister, and we developed a set of terms of reference over the course of the summer and developed these letters that I've referred to that went out to ministers from me and to deputy ministers from the Deputy Minister for Core Review.

We asked ministers and their deputies to come in to core review and tell the core review committee about the mandate of their ministries. What do you do in your ministry? What does your ministry do in terms of serving the interests of British Columbians?

When you bring the description of your mandate in to the core review committee, tell us also what your ideas are for improving your services. Are there some things that you could do better? Are there some things you don't need to be doing any longer? Are there some things that you could do and save some money? Bring your ideas in. They're not going to be fully fleshed out because it's the first go-round, if you will, with the core review committee.

That's called the mandate phase. We got through that mandate phase, and we're now in what's known as the refinement stage, which is the second stage. We are helping ministers and their staff refine ideas that they have brought to us.

Again, though, to repeat what I've said a couple of times, this is a very incremental process. We have gone through mandate review, refinement, announcement and implementation on some of these files, some of these ideas. With other ideas, they're taking a lot longer to develop, a lot longer to refine, so we're in the refinement stage with some of those ideas.

To the member's question — "Who defines what happens at core review?" — government does. It's all of the ministers, all of the deputy ministers, everyone involved with government, including MLAs.

For anybody who has an idea in the public, it's easy to get hold of us. We've had lots of people contact us. We'll gather our ideas not just through core review but through all of the ministries, through all of the MLAs, anybody who has a good idea. We don't care where it comes from. We want to know about it.

The minister responsible for that part of government will develop the idea that he or she wants to propose to core review for analysis. It is a very collective, collaborative effort on the part of government to determine what it is that ends up on the core review table.

I hope that answers the member's question.

V. Huntington: Well, to some extent it does. I join my colleagues in saying that I don't think there are any of us who would object to a core review process. As a matter of fact, I think it's essential.

It should be ongoing, perhaps every decade in government, to ensure that departments, ministries, agencies are as efficient as they can be — and whether they're actually working in the public interest anymore. Sometimes they end up having reasons to exist that no longer are viable in a modern world, but we carry on because it's there.

I have no objection to the core review and wish that it was far more public so that we could all sense the advance of the interests of the public in this process and have a better understanding of exactly what it is that is being accomplished as we go through it.

The Pacific Carbon Trust report came out very early, and there was a decision to dissolve it. The Provincial Capital Commission report came out very early with a major decision to dissolve it. The amendments to the ALC, I believe, are part of the core review process. That's been an early decision that has hit the public.

[1715]

What I'm asking and hoping I can get a bit of specificity about, as the hon. Mr. Clark might have once said, is what other reports we might anticipate seeing in the near future? Given that most of us are fairly sure…. A lot of the agencies have been under review. Surely some of these decisions are starting to percolate to the top. Can the minister be more specific about what we might expect in the near future?

Hon. B. Bennett: Thanks to the member. Before the member came into the room, we talked with the opposition critic about the various stages of the process. After we developed our terms of reference and sent letters to all the ministers and their deputies, the mandate phase was first. Then was this next process that we're talking about now.

Again, every single idea that comes to a core review is different. Some seem like no-brainers. Some the com-
[ Page 3930 ]
mittee agonizes over. Some ideas have been through the mill, so to speak. Some ideas that came from a minister have been through almost every single committee of government. I can think of one idea in particular that went through almost every single committee of government — there were a couple of cabinet committees that it wasn't relevant to take it there — multiple times, multiple times to cabinet and multiple times to planning and priorities, multiple times to core review, multiple times to the environment and land use committee.

It depends on the idea. It depends on how big it is, how bold it is, how much is at stake, how important it is, I guess, what difference it would make to the people of the province. Some of the ideas, like the Provincial Capital Commission…. Winding that up and moving the services formerly supplied by that agency into government, frankly, is an idea that's been around for a long time. I know I've been Minister of Community Services twice, and that idea was around in the ministry and in government both times when I was there.

The Pacific Carbon Trust. The decision to wind that up and use fewer staff on that particular side of the ministry and let the ministry take over the roles of the Pacific Carbon Trust is an idea that was around, really, long before the establishment of the core review.

In fact, many of the ideas that are coming forward — maybe even the majority of them, I guess — have been around government and around the province for a long time. MLAs who have been around for a few terms hear from people. They constantly talk to constituents. The members of the opposition and independent members do the same thing. So you have some sense of what people want and what they don't want.

Some of those ideas, a lot of those kinds of ideas that have been around for a while, ended up on the core review table, and they, frankly, get processed to death. There is a lot of analysis, a lot of "Minister, you have to go back, and you have to take a second look at this." And a third look in some cases. Ultimately, many times the core review committee would say: "No, we're not going to do that."

It's a cabinet process. It's not something that takes place out in the public, but again, the consultation is supposed to be taking place at the ministry level. That was made clear to ministers and their deputies when we started this process. It's in black and white. It's right there. And like all processes in government, it's probably imperfect.

The other thing I guess I would say, just by way of justifying the approach that's been taken with core review, is these decisions are very often quite difficult. There are vested interest within government and outside of government. They're difficult, and you can't make these kinds of decisions without somebody being upset about them. That's the nature of a core review process.

I think, in a lot of ways, you just have to show some leadership in some cases and process it through government, make sure you're making the right decision, and then make the final decision and go with it. That's what we've done.

[1720]

S. Simpson: Just going back, a question relating again a little bit to the consultation process. In a number of places throughout the letters and in comments that have been attributed to the minister in the media, the minister has often talked about targeted consultation and used the term "targeted consultation."

I'm wondering if the minister could tell us in broad terms…. I don't want to ask about specifics. We might get to specifics in a couple of areas. But for right now, how does the minister determine targeted consultation? This seems to be over and above….

As the minister has said, I expect each ministry will do whatever it does in its own jurisdiction to engage its stakeholders and do that. But the minister has talked about targeted consultation from the point of view of the core review. Could the minister tell us what that means, and who does he think those targeted stakeholders should be?

Hon. B. Bennett: Contrary to popular rumour, when I became chair of the core review committee, I did not become king or emperor. I leave it up to ministers to be accountable, frankly — to do what we ask them to do, which is to make sure that appropriate stakeholders have been consulted, particularly with certain kinds of files.

I can tell the member that when a minister is in front of the core review committee, it is a pretty regular occurrence where a committee member will say: "Who have you talked to about this idea? You want to wind up the Pacific Carbon Trust, or you want to wind up PCTIA. Have you talked to all the private post-secondary education facilities? You want to wind up the Provincial Capital Commission. Have you talked to the CEO of the Provincial Capital Commission about that? What do people think about this?"

It happens regularly. We're not making these decisions in isolation. I can assure the member of that. I don't know what else I can say about it.

S. Simpson: Maybe I'll deal with one issue, one specific. That would be around the ALC. I'm assuming, and the minister can correct me, that Bill 24 that we're debating now — and I don't want to talk about the content of the bill for the moment — essentially is the culmination of the work to this point.

The minister can tell me if there's more to come, but it's the culmination of the work around what the committee, core review, believes needs to be the restructuring of the land commission and the land reserve process, and that's now reflected in this bill. So Bill 24 is a bit of an off-
[ Page 3931 ]
shoot of the core review process. Would that be accurate?

Hon. B. Bennett: The ministers and ministries got their letters from myself and from the deputy at the same time. They were all sent out at the same time.

It was up to the ministries to decide how quickly they wanted to bring their mandate to the committee. Some were very eager. Some were not as eager. We couldn't look at them all at once, so that was fine. They came in as they had time to put together their presentations.

When they came, the vast majority…. In fact, I think every minister came to the core review committee with their mandate presentation with at least one idea that they would like the core review's blessing, if you will, to proceed with and evaluate and investigate.

[1725]

I don't know what else I can say other than perhaps to just give…. The member doesn't have the letter in front of him, I assume, from the deputy minister. There was an appendix attached to the letter just guiding the ministries on what it was that core review was actually looking for. There are some questions that might help the member understand the process.

Here are some of the questions. I won't read them all out.

"Are the ministry's mandate, programs and activities focused on the priorities of the mandate letter? Is the ministry structured for success on government's objectives? Are there areas of duplication and overlap between the ministry, other ministries or the broader public sector? Could the government program delivery be restructured to reduce costs and improve outcomes for the public? Are the governance models in place for the delivery of services structured for success?"

It goes on, and it tries to assist ministers and their staff in determining the kinds of ideas that core review was looking for.

So they got these letters, and they came, incrementally, before the core review committee. They brought there, usually, a PowerPoint presentation on their ministry: "What we do as a ministry."

Within that presentation, in every case, there was at least one idea that the minister brought forward. The committee either said: "Go away. We don't like the idea. Bring us another idea." Or "Yes, we like the idea. We're actually going to go and report out to cabinet and recommend that you be allowed to develop that idea." That's the way the process worked.

S. Simpson: Again, getting back to the question I'd asked in relation to Bill 24, and the minister's answer was very helpful, is the minister saying that the essence of Bill 24 — two zones and restructuring of the panels and the appointments and how that is — was essentially an idea of the Agriculture Minister that was brought before the core review working group and then adopted by the minister and the working group as the way to go?

Hon. B. Bennett: I've already quoted from the deputy minister's letter to deputies. In my letter to the ministers I was talking about the mandate review.

I said: "A key element of the mandate review is a review of the agencies, boards and commissions that are under your ministerial responsibility." That would include the ALC. "Consistent with your accountabilities in your mandate letter, it's expected that you will lead these presentations to core review and that you and your deputy minister will consult with the Crowns" — in this case it would be the ALC — "as necessary in the development of the submissions."

There are two things that cause me a little bit of angst. I'm going to provide the answer that the member is looking for, but there are two issues. One is that the bill is before the House, and I'm not going to discuss the legislation. Number two is that there are issues of cabinet confidentiality.

I'm going to try to be generous in terms of what I say because the member deserves an answer, and I'd like, actually, to give the answer. The answer is that, in fact, the Minister of Agriculture did bring those ideas to the core review committee. They were subsequently analyzed and kicked around and analyzed some more, developed and developed again and developed again by the minister and his staff before we ever settled on anything.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the bill is before the House. I don't want to talk about the substance of the bill itself. I'll stay away from that.

[1730]

But that's interesting. I'm pleased to get some clarity that the minister approached this. I'm sure we all have our best wishes for the past minister, who has got some health challenges that he's struggling with. We all wish him the very best, but clearly, the minister was dealing with his health issues. I know in the last few months that he was holding his office before the new minister was put in place.

Part of the challenge here is…. The minister spoke earlier about when these ideas came from this ministry or from anybody else who came forward that there needed to be…. The challenge would be: "Okay, have you gone out and talked to the people you need to talk to, to figure out how these ideas work, and what kind of response are we going to get?"

I'm sure part of the question and any kind of risk assessment is to say, "Okay, when we put this idea out, or if we choose to float this idea, or we tell you, Minister X, to let's go with that idea, we want to know that you have been out talking to people and have a pretty good sense of what the response is going to be" — or some sense of that.

What we know, if we know one thing about 24, that bill — without talking about the bill — is that part of the reaction we've heard from people who maybe either do or don't like the bill…. A lot of the reaction has been: "We
[ Page 3932 ]
haven't been talked to very much."

That's been from people like the cattlemen, the Agriculture Council, others who may or may not, at the end of the day, like certain aspects of the bill. Today they don't. That may change. But there didn't seem to be that level of consultation on what has arguably been the most substantive piece that has been driven by the core review process to date, something much more substantive in terms of long-term impact than the Capital Commission or the Carbon Trust, I would argue.

The question I have for the minister is: does he have a concern that it seems that the review process or the consultation process with legitimate stakeholders, that we would all agree are pretty legitimate…? The Agriculture Council, the Cattlemen's Association, the people they represent, seem to be frustrated that they didn't have the discussions they need to have.

My question is: why does the minister think that occurred, and does he have a concern about that? How do you deal with that going forward with other ministries, if that gap is there? Because it's a big gap in terms of getting buy-in for the process, as the minister is going to want to advance in the core review.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: I've said a few times, and I want to be consistent, that the obligation for stakeholder discussion consultation was with the minister suggesting the idea. It was in their letter of instruction. Clearly, it's there, and it was up to them to do the necessary consultation.

I am aware of extensive discussions that the former minister had with the ALC, meetings that lasted for hours, about potential changes. That, I know, happened. I am aware that the previous minister had discussions with some of the agricultural organizations in the province — I think at least half a dozen of them, maybe more. I do know that. He told me that, and I believe him.

I also know that this has been canvassed extensively in the estimates of the ministers responsible, and to repeat myself, the ministers responsible for the file had the obligation to ensure that whatever level of consultation they felt was necessary was discharged.

[1735]

I can't say everything that the minister did at the time, because I was fairly busy at the time with many things within the ministry, not just core review. It wasn't my personal responsibility to do that kind of consultation.

I am aware — in addition to the things that I have mentioned and that I know have been mentioned by at least two other ministers — that the consultation done by the chair of the commission, I think in 2011, resulted in apparently hundreds of pages of notes and that those notes were gone through with a fine-tooth comb. It was a pretty broad consultation that the chair did. There were a lot of notes that were taken and, of course, he completed his report. I do know that the former minister had his staff go through all of those notes and organized the comments relating to the ALC that were received there.

I don't know whether the other ministers have mentioned this or not, but I had a recollection over the last couple of weeks that the ranchers task force had actually received recommendations from the ranching industry in the province about improving the ALC. In fact, when I went and found a copy of the Ranching Task Force report, there is a recommendation in there. It talks about supporting efforts to "review the agricultural suitability of lands in the ALR in selected areas of the province, such as the East Kootenay area." I had not seen this until recently. That's what it says: "To ensure that that the ALR boundary accurately reflects lands with agricultural suitability."

I said this earlier. The core review process started for me in 2001 when I was first elected. That's when it should start for any MLA. It's when you start to learn, as an MLA, what's going on in the province, what people like and what they don't like. It starts for every MLA when they first get elected.

We've had so many different processes over the years where we went out across the province by committee and individually and listened to people. All of that goes into the point of view that the people on the core review committee have — the people who are ministers, the people who come forward with ideas.

I can't describe in great detail everything that the former minister did, but I know he did the things that I mentioned, and I know that government has heard a lot about improving the ALC for over a dozen years.

S. Simpson: Again, I don't want to make this a debate about the ALC. I would just note that Mr. Bullock's report, I think, was released in November 2010. That was the report he wrote. I've read the recommendations and some summary of the report. There is a whole range of recommendations, obviously, including talking about different ways to do things within the land commission and the land reserve and different places to apply resources or to promote agriculture and be more proactive.

It's a very interesting list of recommendations. Not many of them look like anything that's in Bill 24, but that's a separate matter.

The question I guess that I have…. I appreciate that the minister says that the previous minister consulted. I accept that. I believe that. What we know here…. I agree also and understand that the Minister for Core Review and the working group — it's not their job to go out and consult directly with people in specific ministries.

However, you did set the bar. You did provide the advice to ministers as they went out and did their work, so presumably the core review, the working group, had more of what I would call an oversight role — not a direct application role, but an oversight role. We clearly know — I'll use as an example Bill 24 — that there were flaws in
[ Page 3933 ]
the consultation related to that particular action because there's no shortage of comments from very clear stakeholders. Whether it's letters from the cattlemen saying: "Put this thing on hold until you consult, because you didn't talk to us in a way that we thought was meaningful, and we have a number of issues…." Other groups, the same thing.

The question I have — I just use that as an example — is: if the ministries haven't done what is their obligation…? I don't disagree with what the minister said: their obligation.

[1740]

What is the obligation of this minister and of the working group to come and say to those folks, "Well, before you go further, there are pieces here that you haven't got to yet. You've got to check these boxes off too, and you've got to do this work too" — before you come back and say: "Okay, we've got a fully rounded idea, and this is what we're doing, and this is what people are telling us who have important and vested interests in this, or community interests"?

That didn't happen, apparently. What is the concern the minister has about how we do that going forward, whether it's with agriculture or with anything else?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, it's certainly my view and, I believe, the view of all members of the committee that we did do our due diligence with all ministers and continue to do it. In terms of asking them who they've talked to, where their ideas come from, who likes them, who doesn't like them — we did do that.

There are ideas that we will support on this side of the House that the other side of the House won't support, and that's the nature of democracy. It just so happened that we're government, and they're not. There are going to be things we agree to disagree with, and that's certainly the case here.

What I'm looking at here is a summary of the consultations that I referred to a minute ago, a very extensive consultation that the chair and supporting staff did all over the province with all kinds of people. It's interesting for what it says. I'll give you an example.

The B.C. Ag Council said to the chair: "There is no point in the ALR if farming's not viable." They also said: "Non-farm use on agricultural land — increase the flexibility." The Delta Farmers Institute, in terms of non-farm use: "Increase the flexibility." That's what they told the chair.

The B.C. Food Processors — what did they say? They said: "You need to support farming as well as farmland." You've heard a lot of government members say that in their speeches. The B.C. Food Processors Association also said: "Recognize meat processing as farm use." Let the meat processing facility be put on a farm. Let other types of processing be put on farmland if the circumstances warrant that. UBCM said: "You need to support farming as well as farmland."

These are comments that were gathered by the chair of the commission. Even Metro Vancouver got into the act and supported the idea of supporting farmers. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said: "Need to support farming as well as farmland."

The former Minister of Agriculture had all of this. He had all of this before he ever brought his ideas into core review. Here's what the Nanaimo regional district said. They said: "Encourage value-added on the farm. That takes flexibility at the ALC level."

Oh, it's just fascinating to read this. The Comox Valley Farmers Institute said: "You have to support those regional panels that have been created in 2002." And the Comox Valley Farmers Institute also said: "Increase the flexibility, especially around agritourism and processing on ALR land."

I could go on, but I'm sure I've made my point. There has been a lot of consultation over the past 13 years about how the ALC works. We could have done with the agricultural land what the B.C. Ag Council asked us to do, which was to extend those decision-making factors across the whole province instead of what we call zone 2. We could have done that, but we didn't.

All I can say is that we will find out — over the next couple of years, in my view — that in fact this is going to help farmers and ranchers in zone 2. It's going to help them do the things that they talk about here, that they've been talking about doing for years and years. "Let us process our cherry juice on the farm instead of having to put it in a truck and take it into town to a piece of land that we had to buy to put our processing facility on because the ALC wouldn't let us process it on the farm."

I don't know, honestly, how anyone can think that it's a good decision to force that farmer to process his cherry juice in town when he could be quite properly doing it on the farm.

[1745]

S. Simpson: We're not going to talk about Bill 24 here, apparently, but I would say to the minister that I think all of those people do want to improve farming, and I think almost every one of them would tell you that Bill 24 is an unmitigated disaster and it will hurt farming.

The UBCM says one thing. They passed a motion saying Bill 24 is bad. There's group after group. They would say: "Let's talk about what Mr. Bullock talked about. Let's not talk about Bill 24." But apparently, that's not going to happen.

Getting back to the consultation issue, though, I believe the minister said…. I just want to confirm this. We know that much of the previous work was Mr. Bullock's work — in the report and all the work that he did leading up to his report. I believe the minister said there were thousands of pages of consultation that Mr. Bullock did, I guess, around the work.
[ Page 3934 ]

A Voice: Hundreds.

S. Simpson: Yeah, but lots and lots — hundreds, whatever. I'm not going to argue about them.

Did the core review group…? In your work, when you were assessing what the Minister of Agriculture…. When he brought his ideas forward to you and said, "Here are some ideas" — and those ideas might be what's reflected now in Bill 24 — you said…. I just want to clarify this, because I don't want to misrepresent this.

As part of that process, did your committee go through and take a look at Mr. Bullock's work and at the stuff that the…? Because, presumably, the Ag Minister said: "Here's a bunch of stuff that we think supports what we're doing. Take a look."

As you determine whether this is an idea that you want to do…. The minister said: "The ministers come to us. They bring ideas. We do an assessment and say, 'We don't like that idea' or 'That's a pretty good idea; let's move forward on that.'"

Obviously, this was a pretty good idea that you wanted to move forward on. Do you do assessment of all of that work, like Mr. Bullock's work and the land commission, and look at that to say: "Okay, well, we like this idea, and we're going to go ahead"?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think I've made it very clear. I've answered this question at least three times today. The minister responsible for bringing in the mandate and for bringing in the ideas for change is also responsible, based on their letter of instruction, to ensure that appropriate consultation was done. Core review is not going into a ministry and doing the job that the minister and all of the minister's staff, who are the experts in the field, would ordinarily do.

S. Simpson: I accept that. I don't even think this is a question of consultation so much. Presumably, the land commission, as an entity of government, isn't a group you're consulting with so much as an expert group in the area that you're taking information from, who are giving you information to make the most informed decisions that you can make as you — as core review, as the working group on core review and as the minister responsible — make your assessment about what we are going to advance and what we are going to say doesn't work for us.

You obviously assess a body of information, mostly provided by the minister and the deputy of whatever the appropriate ministry is. You do that. Somebody assesses. It may not be the minister directly. Maybe it's the deputy or whoever does that.

I'm just trying to determine here, when a minister comes in…. I'm using this one as an example, but it's not exclusive to this. The minister comes in. They've got this body of work. They've got all these documents, in this case from Mr. Bullock.

Do you look at that material when you say, "This is a good idea" — not to consult but to determine for yourself and to inform yourself in saying: "Yeah, we should go ahead with this. We like this idea"?

Hon. B. Bennett: I have already answered that question four times.

S. Simpson: Well, the minister hasn't answered it at all. But I'm pretty used to this minister not answering questions, so we're all good to go with that.

A question around exclusions. The minister has said on numerous occasions that particularly those programs for vulnerable citizens are not going to be touched. They won't be touched in any way that might be viewed as being negative. Has the committee, the working group, in fact established a list of what those programs might be that will be outside, that the core review has determined to set aside and say: "We're not going to touch them"?

[1750]

Hon. B. Bennett: As the member stated, core review committed right from the very beginning of the process that we were not going to review programs in ministries that serve the most vulnerable citizens in the province, so we didn't ask ministers to come in and tell us everything that they wanted to do differently.

We did say to ministers responsible for what's, I guess, known as the social ministries that they should try to improve their process and that if there are ways that they can provide better service, they should, but that if there are savings involved, we're not going to touch it in core review and they should redirect that money into better services for those people.

S. Simpson: Just to follow up. I think I get the gist of this. Let's just take a ministry — Social Development, just for the sake of picking a ministry here. Social Development — obviously, their mandate is mostly all about those issues of people who would fall under the category, I think, that the minister is talking about here.

I'm assuming that Social Development comes in, and the working group, the committee, says to Social Development: "Okay, have you determined places where maybe in your administrative practices or whatever you've got some efficiencies to look at? But we don't want to hear about specific programs."

Did you ask the ministries when they came in and that? They said: "Okay. Well, here's the list of the ten programs or 15 programs that we're not going to talk to you about because you told us not to. These are off. But we can talk to you about purchasing practices, about administration, about some of those things where we think we've got some room to go."

Did ministries come in and say: "Okay, here's the stuff, so you know" — because I'm sure the committee want-
[ Page 3935 ]
ed to be informed — "here's the stuff that's off the table based on your direction, and here's what we can talk about" in one of those social ministries?

Hon. B. Bennett: We did meet, obviously, with all of the ministers, including the ministers responsible for delivering services to the most vulnerable citizens. We did not ask them to list off things. We would ask them to explain their mandate, but we didn't ask them to list off things that they intended to change if it was a service that was being delivered. That would be up to them. There was no money to be saved, and we wanted to not put pressure on those ministers.

Those ministers did, however, in reference to the member's question, have some ideas around doing things more effectively, more efficiently. Typically, it was back-office stuff. Not always, but typically it was back-office stuff that they thought they could do, improve, that would perhaps free up some money that they could then use for these most vulnerable people.

We did work with the social ministries on those kinds of ideas, but they were ideas that would not have the potential to undermine the services to the people that we were concerned about.

S. Simpson: Pretty easy for me to say: "Okay, I understand Social Development would be one of those ministries; presumably Children and Families is one of those ministries." Could the minister tell us: is the same thing applied, or how does it apply, say, to Health or to Education, which arguably are helping ministries in a different way?

Was it applied there? Were they asked, for example, to not bring certain programs forward? Inner-city school programs, for example, in Education, just to pick one off the top of my head. Which ministries would have been identified? Maybe the easiest thing is: which ministries are kind of identified as the ones that are off the table here or have programs off the table?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think probably the easiest way to answer this question is to quote from the letter to the ministers from me, as chair of the committee. "We will not make recommendations on those services provided to the most vulnerable of citizens except to the extent that they are not achieving intended results."

[1755]

That was the principle that guided us and guided the social ministries.

S. Simpson: I think that's an important answer. The minister said there that you wouldn't be seeking any change to affect that, unless they weren't achieving desired results. Maybe the minister could elaborate a little.

I'm going to give him an example here. I know that he knows this one. For example, the Representative for Children and Youth has talked about shortfalls within that ministry in terms of achieving desired results. As an example, is that something that the minister would look at, in the context of that statement, and say: "Okay, Ministry, we may go to cabinet and recommend you've got to find a way to apply resources differently or more effectively to accomplish some of those results"? Would that be what you would do?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's interesting that the member would raise the representative. We actually had what I think was a very good meeting with the representative — myself and my deputy. The representative had some ideas for us.

We actually followed up on many of her ideas with the ministers responsible, and we are in the midst of that refinement stage with some of these ideas that she had and that the ministers had.

We've got nothing to announce at this stage, but certainly, we're open to ideas that will improve services to people. On this particular topic, we just aren't interested in trying to save money for the sake of saving money when it's a service that goes to the most vulnerable people in the province.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to hear about the meeting. I would expect…. I know the representative is pretty forthright and the minister is pretty forthright. I'm sure it was a good conversation.

Moving to talking a little bit about those agencies or organizations that are directly outside of the provincial government. School boards are one because they have their own elected leadership. Could the minister talk a little bit about how this process…?

Does this process differ in terms of the relationship with a school board that has an elected board of trustees to govern it, versus a direct government department? Is there a difference in the way the core review deals with them in terms of the ministry's or the working group's need, desire maybe, to not just talk to the Minister of Education but to talk to the school boards directly? Is there a difference in that process?

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: I thank the member for the question. It's an interesting question.

We struggled in the early days of creating our process, in our terms of reference, to decide: how best would we review agencies that are classified as Crown agencies but are not part of a ministry? Obviously, there are the big Crowns, but then there are the school boards and all the other related agencies that are within the GRE.

[1800]

We concluded — in large part because of the experience that government had in the first core review, when
[ Page 3936 ]
we were first elected in 2001 — that we would be probably better off to not have the CEOs or the presidents of Crown corporations, Crown agencies coming in to present to core review. In the first go-round, one of the learnings was that those folks tend to be, as you would expect, advocates for their agency and not necessarily looking for advice from a committee of elected officials, not necessarily looking to suggest how we could do with less money or even how we could do things better.

What we decided to do…. This is incorporated in our terms of reference and also in the letters out to the deputies and to the ministers. We would have ministers come and report to us not only on their ministries, but they would also come and report to us on the mandates of the Crown agencies that they were responsible for. That's how that worked. The ministers, in many cases, made suggestions about ideas for change in how these agencies do business, and then, of course, we got into the refinement stage. In most cases, we're still in that stage today.

S. Simpson: I get that in most cases. I just want to talk a little more about school boards because they are unique.

I understand that with the Crown, you've got a Crown, and you've got a CEO. They report to the board of the Crown. The board of the Crown reports to the minister, essentially, and is accountable to the minister. There's no reason why the minister can't speak for that Crown, at the end of the day.

School boards are a little different because they are elected. They, just like us, are elected. They have a different responsibility because of the fact that they are elected representatives. In the case of education and those things that affect districts or obligations requiring districts to do specific things, is there any discussion going on either with the districts or maybe in the case of…?

You might not want to talk to individual districts if you're looking at something that goes across the board with school boards or school districts across the province. Maybe you're talking to the B.C. School Trustees Association and their provincial body. I'm not sure.

They seem to be somewhat unique among all the groups because they are elected and they are politically accountable the same way that those of us here are. Are they dealt with in any different way, or is it still just the Minister of Education and their officials you talk to?

Hon. B. Bennett: It is, in fact, the minister who is the direct connection to the core review committee. Let's stick to the example that the member is using, the school boards. We haven't met with the representatives of the trustees association and certainly not with any individual school boards.

There may well be discussions between the Minister of Education and his staff and school boards or the trustees association. I'm frankly not aware of what they are. We certainly haven't, to my recollection, been involved with the Minister of Education in anything that would require him to have discussions, but I frankly don't know what sorts of discussions he might be having with boards.

S. Simpson: We've got just a few minutes left, another ten minutes or so before we're done with this conversation and this discussion. I want to talk a little bit about next steps and where things go from here.

It's interesting. Much of what has been done, it seems to me, has been decisions to wrap up particular agencies — the Capital Commission, the Carbon Trust — or changes in processes or procedures within ministries, presumably, and how they do their work.

[1805]

The one thing distinct from that probably would be around Bill 24. That's the one piece where clearly there is a piece of legislation that seems to be somewhat specific to an initiative that has been supported by the core review there.

The question I have is, as you move forward…. Obviously, I'm not looking for a lot of specifics, because it would be cabinet confidence, I'm sure. Is the expectation that most of what you get achieved will be through those processes that reflect the Capital Commission or the Carbon Trust or other regulatory changes? Or do you expect that much of what you're going to have to deal with is going to be legislative and require legislative changes?

Hon. B. Bennett: I mean this with respect to the member. You know, he is in the opposition, and I'm in the government. But it appears to me that he is trying to leave the impression that somehow or other the changes recommended to the core review committee by the Agriculture Minister of the day that resulted in legislation were an aberration of our regular process.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: Okay. The member is shaking his head. That's not what he's suggesting, so I appreciate that.

There are lots of examples already of changes that have come about in government because of core review recommendations that did require legislation. The Provincial Capital Commission required legislation. Obviously, the ALC changes required legislation. The changes to PCTIA also required legislation.

There are some of our recommendations to cabinet that were accepted that, when they get implemented, require a regulatory change. The Pacific Carbon Trust didn't require legislative change but required a change to regulations. There are some other examples that I could dig out, I think, for the member, where we required regulatory change.

Then there are files where we recommend change, it's accepted by cabinet and there's neither a legislation
[ Page 3937 ]
change nor a regulatory change required. It's just a policy change. That's the nature of government. It's the nature of our process. As I've said a few times here this afternoon, it is a very incremental approach where every single file we deal with has its own story and its own peculiarities. So I can't predict how much our next series of recommendations between now and December will involve legislation or will not. There's no way for me to predict that.

S. Simpson: I believe, when I look at the timeline…. I understand that there's an incremental nature to this and some things won't clearly hit the deadline, or there'll be things that will require additional time to finish off and that. But December 31 of 2014 is the deadline to complete the process.

That doesn't necessarily, I understand, mean every "i" will be dotted and "t" crossed, there and done. But would it be the expectation, then, of the minister that if there are other pieces…? Would this be the direction that has been given to ministries?

If there are other pieces that require legislative change, where…. Ministries have brought forward an idea, and the core review committee has said, "Hey, we think that's a great idea, and let's proceed with that," and the ministry has gone back and done its work to do whatever it has to do, and it requires legislative change. Is it a direction that the intention is — and I'm assuming here, because the Government House Leader has told us numerous times to expect a fall session — that that legislation would come in the fall to allow completion of that aspect of it before December 31?

[1810]

Hon. B. Bennett: Whatever recommendations the core review committee makes that are accepted by cabinet and that require legislative change, those recommendations will be implemented by legislation on, basically, the calendar of the Government House Leader. Available time in the Legislature is always a major issue for ministers and even the Premier's office to get legislation, first of all, drafted and to find a time for it on the floor. I don't know if the member is asking this exactly, but he might be, so I'll just add a piece.

As we go through the rest of our process, if there is legislation required to implement a recommendation that's been accepted by cabinet, it is potentially possible — I believe there is going to be a fall session, as the member suggested — that it could end up on the floor of the House in the fall. It's also just as possible that it might wait until the spring session.

S. Simpson: I get that, and I appreciate the answer.

In terms of the timeline that has been put out for the review that says the review is done by the end of December 2014…. Just so we're clear here, the work may be done of the core review, of the working group, kind of in terms of how everything is unfolded, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the work that the ministries need to do to complete their piece of this will be done. They may be needing to come into 2015 with legislative changes, other changes. Who knows? I mean, I understand the complexities of getting things onto the agenda and demand for time.

Is that fair? The committee's work is hoped to be completed, but it may be that the ministries will still have work to do, post that. If that's the case, I guess I'd just ask then: is it the expectation the committee might stay in place to provide some kind of oversight to complete and wrap that work up for the ministries that aren't done?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yes. The member has it bang on, in terms of the potential for, let's say, some recommendation that goes to cabinet in the fall, particularly the late fall, after the fall session. If there is legislative change required, the earliest it's going to get on the floor of the House is the spring.

However, our recommendation would already have been vetted by not only cabinet but by any other appropriate committee of government. The minister would have had to work through all of the refinement phases that he or she was required to work through. By the time the final recommendation gets to cabinet, the minister should be very clear on what changes he or she is required and authorized to make in legislation.

S. Simpson: I think I get this. My sense is what the minister is telling us is that the work of the committee will be pretty much done. The expectation of the minister is that recommendations will have been taken to cabinet before the end of the calendar year, and hopefully, cabinet will have had the opportunity to have their discussion or deliberation and then to have made a decision and provided direction to a minister.

That might take them some time, post the end of the year, to carry out the recommendation or the direction of cabinet. But the minister is hoping that his work and his committee's work will, essentially, on decision-making, be roughly wrapped up by the end of the calendar year, though implementation still may take some time after that to be completed. So if he could just confirm that.

Then I guess the last bit…. We're getting close. This may be the last question here. There may be a follow-up, but I'm hoping this might be the last question.

Could the minister just talk a little bit in broad terms about…. How do those next steps get us here from…? We're now going to be end of May pretty soon here. We've got six, seven, eight months till the end of the year. How does he see the pieces flowing out, in terms of that implementation? Are there any particular steps along the way that are going to be critical to that implementation happening that he can share with us, as we get to finalizing his work at the end of the year?
[ Page 3938 ]

[1815]

Hon. B. Bennett: The process that we've been involved in since last June…. I started off today by saying it's an exhaustive and an exhausting process for my one staff person and for committee members. We're going to keep our nose to the grindstone until we break for Christmas, I guess, sometime in late December.

I'm very hopeful. We're driving hard, in fact, to find additional good ideas out there and to get the ministers to develop those good ideas and refine them and get to the point where we can make recommendations to cabinet. We want to keep the process alive and, again, find good ideas that we can recommend to cabinet and have them implemented.

I think equally as important as maintaining the focus and the drive through our process till the end of the year is to leave government with a better understanding of how important it is for this kind of process to happen actually more than once every ten years or every 12 years. This kind of thinking, this approach to government, is essential, particularly when you have the same party that's been in power for four terms, I think. I don't know what they do in Alberta. They should have this kind of process there.

We have it going now. We've had it once before in government. My committee believes that we should make recommendations to government or at least have a discussion with our colleagues about how we can really keep this culture of incessant questioning.

Are we doing things the absolute best way? Are we getting the best value out of that tax dollar that somebody in downtown Vancouver or somebody in Cranbrook sends us? Are we respecting that tax dollar? Are our programs being delivered as efficiently and as effectively as they can be? Are there are ways to do things better? Are there some things that we're doing in government that actually we don't need to do anymore? Perhaps somebody else could deliver the service to the public more effectively than government does.

There is a series of questions that are implicit in that culture that needs to stay alive within government, regardless of who the political party is that's in government at the time. We're doing some thinking about that, and we are committed to come out of this exercise not in a way where it just ends and core review is over and we don't ask those questions anymore. We want those questions to be asked on an ongoing basis for as long as we're in government.

S. Simpson: I want to thank the minister and thank the deputy for their time. I do have one last question, and then I'll be done. This is just one so that people can understand how the process of core review has affected decision-making.

My question to the minister would be: should people be able to reasonably expect that when decisions are made and initiatives are taken within ministries…? And I know it's been the case with a number up to now.

Where initiatives are taken that are an offshoot of the core review process — i.e., the minister has come into the committee, had a conversation and there's been some agreement that this should be done under the auspices of core review in ministry X or Y…. When those decisions come out and become public because some action's been taken, something's been changed or something's been legislated, it will be identified that this is part of the core review process, that this decision or this action or this change or this sale is part of the core review process so people know how this process has actually affected decisions in operations of government?

[1820]

Hon. B. Bennett: Back to the member, I can tell the member — as chair of the committee and on behalf of the members that sit on the committee that attend these very long, exhausting meetings — that when we make a recommendation that's accepted by cabinet, we want to make sure the world knows that it was our recommendation.

I can't think of anything the government has announced or implemented that we had a hand in at core review where we didn't come out publicly and say: this was a core review idea. I have read in the media and I've seen people speculate about core review, because I guess it's kind of an easy target.

We're very forthright about what we're doing. Once we've decided to do something, we announce it: it's related to core review. If it's not related to core review, then the minister just goes and does his or her business. They announce it, they implement it, and that's their business.

With that, I would move that the committee rise, report progress 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