Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 48.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 48 — TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER
PROTECTION ACT

Bill 48, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act. In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 49, the Professional Governance Act.

[1:35 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ACT

(continued)

R. Coleman: As I start my conversation with regard to the Environmental Assessment Act this afternoon, there are a couple of things I want to touch on. The act itself spends a lot of time on First Nations, and I want to reference some comments that the member for Skeena asked me to refer to as we were going through this discussion, simply because the First Nations side is really near and dear to my heart.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

As we went through the negotiations for the Trans Mountain Pipeline and also for the liquefied natural gas plants, both in Kitimat and Prince Rupert and in other areas of the province of British Columbia, the thing I got to learn, as I was given the job of the government-to-government negotiations for benefits with First Nations, was how important economic development was in the north — the northeast, the north central part of our province and in the northwest.

I sat across the table from people from communities and went into their communities where the suicide rates, the unemployment and the economic prospects were dire. They really thought this might be an opportunity to get training for their young people, to change that cycle of poverty and change it to a better opportunity for their communities. They sat down and negotiated and worked with me, whether it was the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, who I negotiated a benefits agreement with — that’s seven First Nations in British Columbia — or whether it was the Metlakatla, the Lax Kw’alaams, the Wet’suwet’en and other First Nations.

My colleague from Skeena actually has been at the forefront of this with his community in the fact that he recognized a long time ago that being beholden to the Indian Act and the money that was being sent to his community was not accomplishing what they needed to accomplish in the Haisla First Nation. What they wanted to accomplish was lifting people out of poverty with the ability to get trades and jobs. The transformation has been dramatic in that particular community because of his leadership.

He has some comments in and around this that, I think, we should all reflect on as we deal with this particular piece of legislation. He says that consent provision is not consent. Case law is explicit in saying that there is no veto consent, but it is recommended that all parties reach an agreement. That’s what we do now. We actually work to reach agreement. It’s a permissive clause, meaning that consent is allowed if the government agrees to allow the First Nation to have the power of consent.

First Nations already have the Indian Act, telling them what they can and cannot do. His comments to me are that they don’t need the B.C. government to duplicate Indian Affairs. What First Nations need is support in their pursuit to get rid of poverty through their desire for economic development. The biggest complaint about the Indian Act is that the Indian Act treats First Nations like children — thus, the paternalistic comments. First Nations don’t want — and, quite frankly, don’t need — more paternalism coming from any government, let alone the B.C. government.

It’s unfair to raise UNDRIP expectations of First Nations when this current government is using case law in the courts for argument, as we speak. The reality is that a number of projects have gone ahead, including Site C. There were First Nations that didn’t approve of it, and this government went ahead. So consultation will not always lead to accommodation, and accommodation may or may not result in agreement.

“In the absence of agreement, Indigenous groups do not have a veto over the government’s proposed course of ac­tion,” the province argued, as per the Business in Vancouver newspaper report recently. The member for Skeena did let me know that he wasn’t either glad or disappointed in that ruling. He was just pointing out that government did what governments have been doing. Case law evolves, and as case law has evolved, it becomes guiding principles as to how you will go about doing the business of having projects approved.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now, I can tell you this, having been in small villages up and down the coast and in communities that are not on the coast but in the interior of B.C. The first thing someone who comes from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia or even somebody that comes from the Okanagan or someone who’s coming from Vancouver Island should understand is that there’s a whole different dynamic for our First Nations communities in the rest of the province.

The first dynamic is this. We have a very successful development in growth and thousands of homes being built on the Tsawwassen First Nation after they got treaty.

[The bells were rung.]

Ah, the four bells. Just so people understand, that’s actually the little House. A bunch of people are scrambling down the hall to fill their chairs for a vote in the little House, which doesn’t affect the ongoing procedures in here.

As I was saying, the Tsawwassen First Nations have a treaty. In that treaty, they got a number of pieces of property that they could do economic development with. They happen to be beside the multi-million-person environment of the Lower Mainland, where they could have that economic development — either through housing, through commercial development or even through the big mall that’s built there — and gain the benefits from that for their community and the jobs. But if you’re on a gravel road 60 kilometres out of Fort St. James, in a little tiny community, and there is no economic development….

There’s nothing to do economic development with, and someone comes and says to you: “We’re thinking of doing a project for liquefied natural gas, which would require a pipeline to come through your territory. We would like to sit down with you and work out what the benefit agreement would be, long term, for the life of that project — how much money we could actually put into your community as a benefit, as an accommodation. We’d reach an agreement on the training of your young people so they can have jobs that would come from this. At the same time, how about you become the company or the organization that does the environmental monitoring for the project?”

All of a sudden, you have a partnership with the First Nations on the environmental relationship on the land and the resource development. That’s what happened up there. That’s why the Coastal GasLink, or the pipeline that can go into Kitimat, has First Nations agreement across it, in order to get it built. That’s why the Haisla First Nation worked with LNG Canada, as did the Metlakatla and the Lax Kw’alaams, who were working with the project in Prince Rupert.

They see in their leadership the vision that the member for Skeena had a decade ago. That vision is: “This is our opportunity, because we don’t have the same opportunity of being in the Okanagan and maybe having wineries, tourism and what have you so that we can build economic development for our community, as you can in Osoyoos, or commercial opportunities, as they have in Westbank.”

It’s really, really important that people understand how important it is that this relationship with First Nations is such that it’s respectful, it works and it doesn’t need to be condescending. It’s a partnership between people who care about the same things we do: their children, their grandchildren, their community, their quality of life and something that they can build on to change their community for the future.

Now, the interesting thing about this act is this: this government has approved the Site C dam. They were certainly happy and smiling the day that LNG Canada was approved. They were there for the photo op and having the great, lovely time in Vancouver that they’d got this $40 billion project, the largest capital investment in Canadian history, that had arrived in British Columbia. The Site C dam and that project and the Trans Mountain pipeline thing have something that’s similar, in common: they were all approved by the same environmental assessment as each other.

[1:45 p.m.]

The one difference on Trans Mountain is that it also requires some federal approval, because it comes across the border between B.C. and Alberta. That’s why there had to be a federal process as well. Even on LNG Canada, we had a process with the federal government worked out so that we could work together and not duplicate the work, to make sure the environmental assessment was as good as anywhere in the world.

Now, as we talk about these projects, I want to remind some people of a couple of things. This was the Premier on CFAX, December 12, 2011, about LNG Canada: “They’re going to be asking for the same cheap energy that the existing industry has, and we can’t let that happen. It’s a problem.” No sooner did he become the Premier of the province than he went and gave away the energy price to LNG Canada.

At the same time, they wanted to talk about selling out the resources of British Columbia. This is the now Minister of Energy: “Now, they wouldn’t understand what it means to say no to selling out this province. They put themselves in such a desperate position when it comes to negotiating for LNG that they had to say yes to any single thing that walked through the door. That’s exactly what they have done. This is the big sellout of British Columbia.”

She was referring to the agreement relative to the project that was proposed in Prince Rupert. They’ve gone way further. There’s a reason that that agreement should come to this House for debate. Not only have they done a deal on the power. Sooner or later they have to stand up and tell us what they did on the royalties. They’ve also got to tell us what they’re going to do about the PST.

I think they sold everything out. They don’t want to come here and talk about it, because they spent all this time saying how bad it was that we would even consider doing it in British Columbia.

I just want to remember…. One of the members from Surrey, who is the Minister of Labour, said on October 22, 2014, in the Vancouver Province : “The LNG…legislation introduced today was written by industry for industry.” It was pretty fair. It had an LNG tax, an LNG tax that the companies were agreeing to. You would have the gas flow through to the plant, and when shipped out of British Columbia, a small tax would be applied to it so that B.C. would get their fair share.

There’s no LNG tax. Now, the question with that is why? How did you replace this? What did you do? I’m not disagreeing with how they got to this format, but I think it’s important, when you’re talking about the Environmental Assessment Act, that you think about how you’re doing business when you want to change how you’re going to do business in the future.

Now, the interesting thing about this is that that tax was debated in this Legislature. It was brought to the floor. It seems to appear that they don’t want to bring their deal to the floor. The reality is this. The LNG tax was there for two reasons. We could offset with royalties in British Columbia to encourage natural gas from our gas fields in B.C. to be sent to the LNG plant. British Columbians get the full benefit, and that gas gets liquefied and sent around the world to produce greenhouse gases in other countries around the world.

When you remove that tax, which is one of the things I’d like to debate in this House, it means all the gas can come from Alberta and Saskatchewan along existing pipelines, and B.C. never gets anything for the gas because it wouldn’t be our gas. We’re doing our part on the exploration side. The pipeline is coming through our territories and First Nations territories, and the gas is being exported out of Kitimat.

As we go through that, we have to think about other things that are going on. I was recently in Ontario for a sad situation. My sister had passed away. At the same time, you get together with people and get to talk to them. One lady that I’d never met before but who knew my sister started to ask me about oil and the pipeline in British Columbia, to tell me how wrong it was that there’d be a pipeline to transport oil from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia so that it could be refined, some of it in North America and British Columbia, but also to be exported from Canada.

[1:50 p.m.]

She said the watercourse is put at risk and all of this. I said: “Do you know where your oil comes from?” She said: “What do you mean? It comes from refineries in the Maritimes, and basically, that’s how we get it.” I said: “Where do you think the oil comes from? Do you think it might come in on a tanker from Saudi Arabia or some other country? Do you think it might come up the St. Lawrence River and into the Great Lakes? It’s not coming down a pipeline.”

She was shocked to actually believe that there are oil tankers coming into Canadian waters when we have a resource in Canada. So I explained to her the whole thing about oil and how it works internationally and how people who tell us about our ethics in and around our environmental standards, which are the best in the world, and try and say we have unethical resources, when it’s also the cleanest LNG in the world, are the same countries, some countries, that have no respect for human rights for women. And we think that they’re more ethical because they’re coming from some other country rather than taking our resources?

We’ve got to give our head a shake and understand that the reason environmental groups are funded from U.S. entities into Canada to push back at our resources is that some of them are funded by major corporations who benefit from saying that there’s cheaper gas and cheaper oil being sent to the U.S. to be refined. So they get to make the money at the refiner when they crack the barrel and make the product.

I’m always happy to have a conversation about environmental assessment acts and see what’s new coming along. But we should understand that I’ve sat in boardrooms in China, Japan, Korea, England, the Hague, also other countries like Malaysia, and been to international conferences where people told me then that they don’t know how anybody invests in Canada because you can’t get anything done. I defended the fact that it takes longer to do stuff in Canada because we actually respect the relationship with our First Nations — to make sure they share in the benefits and that we also believe that the environmental work is worth doing.

If it takes you a year longer or two years longer, the difference you’re going to have is a stable environment for your resources in a very peaceful country that isn’t going to be conflicted, and you’ll be able to get your resources there for the duration of their value. I think that’s important.

Earlier today one of the members in the House got up in question period, from the Green Party. They said this: basically, mining is just an environmental disaster in British Columbia. An environmental assessment is done on every single mine in B.C., and there are standards around it.

The incredible thing about that is this. When the member stood to say that, after she said that, I thought: “You know what? I wonder if that member has a cell phone. I wonder if that member has a computer or a laptop or maybe an iPad. I wonder if she owns a car. I wonder if she owns a bicycle. And I wonder if she knows that every single one of those things that I just listed needs mining to exist.” Without the copper and without the other metallurgical things that come in to build those particular things, coming from mines, you don’t have any of it.

When you get to this thing about how special you are on the environment, you should remember those things, when you decide to be critical on one side and use the very resource on the other side. Even if a member has an electric car, the batteries need mining — to make the batteries. The fenders are petroleum products. Some of the materials on seats come from petroleum products. The glass comes from mines. How else do you get glass if you don’t get the base product to actually make glass for windshields and windows?

All of these things are related. We should understand that it requires a balance for us under any act that we do with regards to resources in our province.

[1:55 p.m.]

I think it’s important to understand that the reason Canada is successful is because, quite frankly, it has gotten better and better over decades at understanding the relationship with First Nations and the economic opportunities for all, and it’s gotten better and better at environmental work because we’ve learned more and more about how we do these projects. It’s very important.

I want to quote the Premier again, because I was really there that day in Vancouver when the $40 billion, the largest capital investment in Canadian history, took place, all under the environmental standards and the work that was done by the previous government. I want to just remind him of this, December 30, 2015: “I would stop spending all my time talking about an industry that’s going nowhere and instead look at those areas of the B.C. economy that are really thriving.” Well, I can tell you something. The economy in the area around Terrace and Kitimat is thriving, and it’s about to thrive big-time.

I’d like to spend a couple of minutes on the Trans Mountain pipeline, because I was one of the statutory officers that signed off on the environmental assessment approval on that — 800 pages, a lot of reading. What I spent a lot of time on, on that, though, was reading all the things that went back and forth from First Nations to get to the point where that thing could be approved.

This is what struck me. When I read this act the other day, I thought, you know, they’re saying that you’ve got to get in there early. You need to consult with First Nations early. You’ve got to get community support early.

I’m reading it, and I’m thinking that this act describes exactly what Ian Anderson from Trans Mountain did as the president of the company with regards to that pipeline. Before they went to market to see if they had the capacity or the oil to go into that pipeline, they went to communities — not just First Nations communities but every community along the entire proposed line for that particular pipeline — and engaged early and talked to people and worked with them. It was actually a significant commitment, and that’s why all the First Nations all the way down the line have signed off on this project and said they support it.

Now, there are a couple of exceptions where there have been challenges. That can always take place, like it did on the Site C dam that the NDP already approved with two First Nations wanting to have a conversation about it again. The same thing here. But the reality is that for anybody to describe anywhere along the line that people aren’t being listened to or consensus isn’t being built, they’re just not watching. They’re not paying attention, and they don’t understand the significance of what we’re talking about.

Now, if you have ever been to Lax Kw’alaams…. Some people might know it, in the old days, in the other days, as Port Simpson. It’s an eclectic little community where you can actually see, from Lax Kw’alaams, Alaska. I went up there one time when we were talking about LNG with that leadership and that community to a full hall. People were talking about the environmental issues and impacts, and when people started to understand that the gas was the gas and it wasn’t liquid until it was frozen, they thought: “Well, that’s not going to be a big environmental challenge, relative to water courses and what have you.”

We had different people presenting, explaining the project and what have you, and then it was opened up for conversation from the community. And I’ll never forget this as long as I live. At the very end of the meeting, when people had to rush away to catch the ferry to Rupert or the water taxi to Rupert from Lax Kw’alaams, because you can’t get there by road, an elder stood up. Well, actually, he stood up with a walker, and he was quite elderly. He went up to the front of the room and took the microphone, and he started to talk to the kids, because the grade 10 and 11 students, from the school that we were in the gym of, were in the room.

He talked about fishing, and he talked about the fact that there was something going on out there where somebody was taking fish before they were getting back. He’d been fishing for 60 years. And he talked about things like suicide and children or grandchildren that he had lost, or nieces and nephews, over the years.

Then he turned to us, looked at us, and he looked back at the crowd, and he said this: “I’ve been fishing for 60 years. Those jobs are for the most part gone. Gone. These young people need a future. They need a future where economic development, jobs and training are there for them.” I’m paraphrasing.

[2:00 p.m.]

He said: “There was a day we talk about when you could walk across the fish in the Skeena, when fish were plentiful.” We talk about the days where things like…. We’ve had some of the reduction of fishery over my lifetime. He said: “These children need a future. This is an opportunity for their future.” And he says: “Let’s understand something. All of those things you talk about that aren’t working so well in the fishery…. LNG’s not here yet. You can’t blame it on that industry.” He said: “Get these kids their jobs.”

I will never forget it, because there was the passion of somebody probably 80 years old — the passion. When we went back up there to sign the final benefits agreement, he was there, smiling like a Cheshire cat because he thought we were getting closer and closer to a final investment decision on a project up near Prince Rupert which would benefit his First Nation and his grandchildren and his children.

You can’t understand until you sit in a room with a chief in the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council who has had other people coming in from outside communities — First Nations leaders, particularly — saying: “This is how you should be doing things” and “Don’t negotiate” and what have you. And finally — a day in Prince George I’ll never forget because the tears in the room were profound and they were coming from the other chiefs around the table when he stood up — he said: “Enough talk. I had three suicides in my village last week. I want to make a deal. I want to get on with this. I want to sign today with Rich and the government. Let’s move forward.”

He said: “I don’t want to do this anymore. I don’t want to see this in my community. If we don’t do something for its economic development in the future, we’re letting them down.”

Don’t let the language in this bill take away from the fact of what my friend from Skeena says, and that is that it’s important to remember what economic development does, what job training does, to change the cycle of poverty and the changes for outcomes for generations for First Nations. Our job should be to get in there early, which I agree with. To get it done, I agree with. But don’t just do it on the basis that if there’s one competing, cross-border situation between First Nations, you can’t get on with it.

The Tsimshian First Nations are a proud group of people — the Kitselas, Lax Kw’alaams, the Metlakatla, Kitsumkalum and others, the same territory as treaty lands held by the Nisga’a. Those First Nations need to work together on whatever land use is going to take place from here up in that area of the province. Because they all need to benefit. The government, when they do their negotiations, should understand that.

They’re negotiating on some stuff now. What I would suggest they do is they go sit down with the chief of the Lax Kw’alaams, Metlakatla and Kitsumkalum to understand what they feel about any deal they might be wanting to make on land. Otherwise, it’ll just end up in some court area, and nobody will be successful.

The area I’m talking about is in the Nasoga Gulf, which is an area that is under some conversation with government on its sale. At the same time, it appears that government is ignoring the wishes of all the First Nations in the area. Don’t do that if you believe in the legislation you just put in place here. Because you’re actually breaking your own thoughts about what you should do.

As we go through environmental assessment and the stuff with First Nations contained in the bill in committee stage, we need to have these discussions. I want that guy in Lax Kw’alaams to see his grandchildren get trades and jobs and opportunities. I want that First Nation on gravel road 50 kilometres out of Fort St. James to have the same benefits and opportunities. I want to see the benefits of economic development flow into those communities along with the jobs and opportunities, so they can change the outcomes, like they have with the Haisla and other First Nations that have had economic opportunities. You can only do that by working together.

Don’t put something in legislation that you put in a place, that actually obstructs the ability for people that deserve to benefit from what goes on in this province, simply because you want to write something down on paper.

[2:05 p.m.]

My negotiations — all the negotiations, the deal that I did — as a direct government-to-government negotiator, as a minister, came together because of relationships, trust and understanding — and compassion and understanding from each side of the table for what was going on here and how people could benefit. Let’s not lose that.

As we discuss the rest of this bill, remember: the future for the most important, impoverished people in our province is in front of us. We need to continue to make that stuff work with economic development, like the member for Skeena has been telling everybody for a long, long time.

J. Rustad: It’s an honour today to rise and speak to Bill 51 on behalf of my constituents of Nechako Lakes. I just want to take a moment to think about that. I’m here representing the constituents of Nechako Lakes because I was elected to do that. If the electoral system changes, guess what. Some people may actually be here to do that, and some people may not be. Some people may be here to represent a party, as opposed to being elected directly by constituents and have that honour and responsibility of being their voice here in this Legislature.

It’s something to think about when we’re talking about something as important as Bill 51, on the environment. People that come in here and have the opportunity to say something and raise their voice for or against a particular bill or in a way to try to improve a bill…. Their priorities are based on who elected them, why they’re here. If they’re elected or appointed because of a party, is that the kind of democracy that we want to see in this province?

On Bill 51, the reason why I’m so pleased to be able to stand up and speak about this…. My riding of Nechako Lakes is a relatively rural riding…. Well, not relatively; it’s probably one of the more rural ridings in the province. It’s about 2.2 times the size of Vancouver Island with many small communities, and resource activities are critical. Whether it’s agriculture, mining, forestry or projects like LNG, it’s critical for my riding.

And you don’t get projects that come along very often. Lots of people would like to see projects develop, and there are potentially hundreds of projects. But the reality is that out of all of those, maybe you get a chance at one. The process of going through, trying to get a project moved forward that can change lives and support communities, that supports families and keeps families together so that kids can have jobs in an area…. The process of going through that has to be able to be fair.

It has to be able to be comprehensive, of course. This is about the environment; it’s about environmental assessment. But it has to also be in a way that is achievable. It can’t be endless. It can’t be going on with tremendous costs so that it discourages a small company from even wanting to bring a project forward because they can’t afford to go through the process. It takes too long. It’s too involved and too engaged.

I believe in small business. I believe in small companies. Most of the area in my riding is small companies and businesses. Yes, there are the large Canfors and the West Frasers, but there are many small businesses, which hire the majority of the people in my riding.

This bill here, as it’s brought forward, will create some challenges for those companies to be able to actually move forward and do projects — do projects of a significant nature, one that requires an environmental assessment. I look at this and think: “What’s the intention of this government? What are they trying to do with this bill, combined with all the other bills that they have been doing?” The layers of challenges and expenses and bureaucracies that are coming on are going to make it difficult.

Yes, the economy is moving along, and we left the economy in great shape when the current government inherited it. But as things slow down, it’s going to be very, very challenging. We’re even seeing today, especially in forestry, companies stop investing in British Columbia. They’re investing south of the border instead. Capital is mobile. It can go anywhere. It’s that investment and that confidence that creates a real challenge to this province.

Somebody said many years ago that there are two types of strikes: there’s a labour strike, and there’s a capital strike. And a capital strike is far more damaging to an economy than a labour strike, because without the inflow of capital and without the confidence of people being able to invest in a province and being able to see projects move forward, what do you have?

[2:10 p.m.]

You have a slow deterioration of your existing infrastructure, and you do not have the renewal and the new investments that are needed. Part of that, that idea of being able to track capital, is for people to have confidence to be able to move forward a project. Environmental assessment, particularly when you’re thinking about a new mine or an LNG project, is critical. If a company can’t see a way to be able to move forward or sees that it’s just too challenging to do, you’re considered high risk, high cost, and the capital goes elsewhere.

Looking at this bill, the Environmental Assessment Act, there are many things that are in this bill that I think are interesting. In my riding, Nechako Lakes, I have 13 First Nations that have their head offices or the main — if you want to call it this — the core territories within my riding. I’ve got many other nations that overlap into my riding. But I think about those 13 First Nations and what they’re trying to do.

My colleague and friend from Langley East talked about an example that I want to elaborate on a little bit more. The Chief of the Tl’azt’en Nation was the chief that the member was speaking about who, upon seeing this LNG opportunity, negotiated hard and came to a position where he said: “Okay. This can go ahead.” There were tears in his eyes because he knew what a difference it would make for his nation and for his people.

As a chief, when you’re thinking about…. I’ve never been a chief. But when you’re thinking about your people and you think about suicides that you have to witness and the tragedy that brings to families and to people and to loved ones in a community…. Why? Why do those suicides happen? Because people don’t have hope. What are they looking forward to? Where’s their future?

There was a lady in a neighbouring nation, the Nak’azdli Whut’en, which is in the Fort St. James area. She came to me back a few years ago, and she had brought me a little gift. She brought me a meat offering, which is really…. I was very, very touched by her coming and doing it. I asked her why she did that. She said that she’d been living on the street, a single mom, and she didn’t have an idea where to go with her future. She was depressed. She couldn’t provide for her child. She was wondering: where could she go? What was her future?

A mining project came along. That very nation that she was from…. As a matter of fact, a lady who ran against me, who currently works in this government, tried to oppose that mining project.

She, with her nation, went on and on and on, through the environmental assessment process, fighting for this project to come to fruition. That young lady, because of that project, got a training program. She got into the College of New Caledonia up in Fort St. James, and she got herself a little bit of training and education. She got her first job, and she was so proud of the fact that she was able to now provide for her child because she now had a job.

She came back from that job. When I saw her, she had gone back into college. She was taking additional training because she wanted to be able to advance and do some additional jobs. There were openings and potential for her. She said to me that the difference this had made for her is now that she…. She was a better mother. She was able to provide for her child. She was more engaged with her nation. She was more proud of her heritage and who she was, and she had hope for the future.

That young lady was able to get that work because Mount Milligan was able to get an environmental certificate, and Mount Milligan was able to go forward and become a reality. Hundreds of people now work at that mine. Hundreds of people from my riding and other areas around the province go in and work at that mine. Yet through the environmental assessment process, there were challenges. It was difficult to get through. And rightfully so. Projects do need to be scrutinized. Projects do have to have the opportunity for input to try to improve them and try to move them forward.

[2:15 p.m.]

When you look through at what this bill does, this actually creates even further barriers to how a project can proceed. I think about the future of that young lady and what a project like Mount Milligan has meant for her and for so many like her. I think about this government’s approach of layering on bureaucracy, layering on challenges, making it even more difficult. That’s not reconciliation. That’s not trying to improve lives. What is it we’re trying to do here?

Looking through the bill, the bill has many places where it talks about engaging and needing consent and going through the process. That’s fine. You know what? That’s what we were doing.

Under our government, we had brought First Nations in to be actually at the table — not on the opposite side of the table but on the same side as the environmental assessment, working to make sure the information was in, to make sure that we had a full understanding, engaging and bringing the whole process forward so that it could be as comprehensive as possible, taking into consideration all of the factors that need to be done. That’s a good thing. It’s an important piece of how projects should go forward, but it wasn’t an added layer of bureaucracy or cost.

When you look at this bill, one of the most startling components is that this government is now going to download the entire cost, or potentially the entire cost, of an environmental assessment on to the proponent. When you think about the hours and hours and hours of engagement, trying to build consent, dealing with dispute, dealing with moderators, going back and forth trying to do all this work — wow. That is a very expensive process.

Not only does the company have to pay, of course, for their side of it. They’re now going to have to pay for First Nations engagement and, likely, government engagement, in terms of the fees and schedules that’ll be set up as part of going through an environmental assessment.

I don’t know what these guys think. I’m proud of the fact that in my life before I got into politics, I ran my own company. I signed the front side of a paycheque. I understand what it takes to hire people — the risk, the challenges, worrying about making sure that you have enough work for somebody to be able to go through on a daily basis. These guys don’t know that. I don’t know if there’s a single person over there that’s ever signed the front side of a paycheque.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The member opposite says: “Give him a break.” Stand up and talk to this bill and give us the example of you signing the front side of a paycheque.

Speaking from my side of this Legislature, speaking for my party, you have many people on our side who understand that. They understand the challenges of what it takes to be successful in the business community. They understand the fact that sometimes, when you’re doing work and you’re going throughout the entire year, you actually don’t even collect a paycheque until the last few months of the year because everything else is being eaten up in expenses. It’s tough.

Layering on additional costs like the employer health tax, like the other components that this government has done — and now, additional costs of trying to move a project forward — just drives people out of this province.

It comes back to what I was talking about earlier, about a capital strike. When capital and companies and individuals have the lack of confidence to invest in the province, you dry up that investment, and you ultimately choke off your economy. It’s not a healthy environment to be able to be in.

The certainty that’s needed when you think about a project going forward through an environmental assessment is critical, because once again, it’s the confidence. What you see that was actually written into this bill is if a project does not follow government policy, it can be terminated. Government policy? We have seen from this government their desire to kill the Trans Mountain Pipeline project. In the CASA agreement they signed, they said they would use every tool in the book to stop a project like that from going forward.

Under this new environmental assessment, that project wouldn’t even have an opportunity to get an environmental certificate because it doesn’t follow government policy. There­fore, it can be terminated without cause simply because of a political decision — not whether it’s good for the environment, not whether it’s good for the economy or for society or social issues, but simply because of politics. It’s not the way a government should be run.

[2:20 p.m.]

I think about the Trans Mountain project and its going through. My colleague from Langley East once again talked about all the nations that had been engaged and involved and were part of that. That’s great to see.

When I think about 43 different nations that have signed on and are part of it and supporting it and want to see it happen, there are two that opposed. And they aren’t even on the line. They just have traditional territories that go in. Yet those voices are far louder than the 43 that are supporting the project.

Is that fair? Is that right? Think about that chief. Going back to the Chief of Tl’azt’en Nation that I spoke about earlier, it’s very sad to know that he won’t see the LNG project come to fruition. He passed away before the announcement could be made. It’s very sad. This was his hope for his nation — to be able to see the changes.

Those 43 nations along the line, along the Trans Mountain pipeline, are thinking the exact same thing. This is their hope, for their people, to try to lift people out of poverty, to try to make a difference and change. Yet this government continues to fight against it, and this piece of legislation will give them another tool for any project like that, simply because of politics and it doesn’t follow government policy. It’s not right.

On Monday and Tuesday of this week, I had the honour and pleasure of attending a conference in Vancouver. It was the conference of the National Coalition of Chiefs, chiefs from across the country — particularly, though, from the Prairies and British Columbia — that had gathered to talk about how to be engaged and involved, how to benefit from resource development, how to look at things like ownership of something like the Trans Mountain pipeline, how to build their future. Many chiefs got up and spoke, one after another, and talked about what economic development had meant for their nation.

One chief from Alberta: the average income for people in his First Nation community was $75,000 a year, more or less — compared to the average in Alberta for other First Nations of around $22,000 or $25,000 a year — because they were engaged in resource development and the difference it made.

What do you think those people are doing? They’re buying vehicles. They’re building their home. They’re building their future. They’re raising their kids. They’re being able to provide, and they’re not reliant on government handouts. That’s the difference a resource project can make.

In attending this coalition conference, it struck me when I thought about projects like Trans Mountain pipeline: that’s the core of reconciliation. You cannot have reconciliation if you do not have economic development. It’s not there. Government and government cheques have been part of the problem, not part of the solution, for First Nations right across this country but especially here in British Columbia.

How do you provide for your people when you have to be reliant on government and a cheque that comes in? How do you support your people when government is overlooking every step that you do, in a paternalistic way? It’s not the right thing to do for First Nations. Yet you look at this bill, and guess what. It just follows in the same footsteps. It’s doing more of the same. It’s not trying to figure out how to get First Nations out of poverty, how to get them away from things like the Indian Act and how to move them forward with progress.

Certainly, it’s not surprising, given this government’s position on something like the Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Just a side note. It has gone back to the courts, and they’re going to look at the potential impact on orcas from tanker traffic and these types of things. Well, 23,000 ships moving through that area annually, and they’re talking about one ship a day going through and having an adverse impact? It has to be looked at. Okay, the courts have said to go back and look at it.

[2:25 p.m.]

The funny thing is this. I always used to like to think about Paul Harvey from back in the 1980s, the radio broadcaster who’d say: “Now for the rest of the story.” Back when whales were being hunted to extinction, Victoria, at the time, had postcards showing a whaling ship harpooning a whale and saying: “Come to Victoria for opportunities, because there are so many whales off our coast.” Whales were being hunted to extinction.

Do you know what saved the whale? It wasn’t protest ships. It wasn’t environmentalists. It wasn’t all the groups standing up to this. It was the oil and gas industry. The Canadian invention of kerosene, overnight, replaced the need for whale lamp oil. The need for hunting whales came to an end overnight, thanks to the oil and gas industry. Just a little side note in terms of protecting orcas, when we think about tankers moving through the straits, as one ship of 23,000 movements that go throughout a year. But I digress.

When I think about environmental assessment and going through this, the Trans Mountain is one side, and these chiefs were very emphatic about their desire to see these kinds of projects go forward. I hope that people will start listening to their voices. I hope that they’ll have the chance.

One of the big obstacles fighting them, quite frankly, is foreign money coming in, funding groups fighting against our natural resource industries, fighting against the kind of prosperity that can come for First Nations and, in many cases, providing false information and misleading First Nations people or, in some cases, actually paying them to be protesters, paying them to go out and block projects going forward, for their own purposes and for a foreign agenda. That is not right.

Whether it’s through environmental assessment or the courts, protests or blockades, we’re seeing that money come in to try to stop, in particular, oil and gas — but other activities as well — in British Columbia. And it’s not right. That shouldn’t happen. Canadians should be in charge of their own future. We should not have that kind of influence of foreign money. That needs to come to an end.

It reminds me of an article that I just read today, actually. There’s a new LNG plant proposed in Washington. Do you know what they said about this plant? It said it must use B.C. gas. Imagine that. Here are the same groups that are being funded from these organizations in the States to try to prevent our LNG project from going forward, to try to prevent oil and gas exploration, yet down in the States, they’re proposing one, and they’re saying: “We should be using B.C. gas.”

You might think: “Well, why? Why do they say they’re going to use B.C. gas?” Because we are between five and eight times less emissions and because we’ve got better environmental standards than anywhere else. So if the project is going to go forward, they should use the best gas in the world, the best gas available in North America, which is the gas that we produce right here in British Columbia. Yet for some reason, these guys think this is bad.

You look at the targets that they’re proposing to make through environmental assessment, which is now saying that greenhouse gas targets are going to be a factor of whether a project should go forward or not. It has to be able to meet greenhouse gas targets.

Lots of people, including myself, are concerned about the environment, concerned about the future. But what that essentially means, depending on where they put the targets…. And we’ll have to wait and see, actually, where that comes, because that’s more legislation that’s promised or more reports that are promised before the end of this month. That could very well kill any future LNG opportunities in British Columbia.

If they set that target at a level that won’t allow a second major LNG plant to go forward, it’s over. We’ve got projects in Prince Rupert, projects in Kitimat, a project in Port Alberni — projects that want to go forward with LNG. What this assessment will mean is that if that project is going to go over that limit, it’s terminated.

Projects can be terminated because of politics. Projects can be terminated because of arbitrary lines. Yet projects on the south side of the border are saying: “We want to use this because it’s the best and cleanest gas that’s produced in North America.”

[2:30 p.m.]

How does that equation get squared? With the exception that from the south side of the border, there is money coming in to influence politics, to influence environmental groups and to influence First Nations to oppose development in here. Why? Because they want it down there.

With Trans Mountain…. Do you know what the price of oil coming out of Alberta is today? Just today I looked, and $17.65 a barrel was the price tag for Canadian heavy crude oil. Do you know what the international price was? About $70. How is it that we can find that to be acceptable?

How can we accept the fact that the product that we produce in this country can’t get to international markets, and we are forced to give it away and subsidize gasoline prices in the United States? I don’t get it. Yet with this bill, the British Columbia government, for political purposes, could just make sure that that could never happen — that Trans Mountain could never happen in this province. It’s a sad state, a sad piece, that this bill is talking about.

I’m proud to be Canadian. I’m proud to be from British Columbia. British Columbians and Canadians need to see these benefits that come from resource development. It’s what built this country. It’s what continues to be the backbone and support of this country. Our health care, our good education system — all the qualities of our standards of life and living — are supported by our resource industry. Why are we continually being ashamed of it or putting barriers in front of industries like that through bills like this?

The members in government will bill this as part of enacting the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It bills this as being part of reconciliation. But I don’t quite see how that is the case.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Even in their court case on Site C just recently, the government argued: “Consultation will not always lead to accommodation, and accommodation may or may not result in agreement. In the absence of agreement, Indigenous groups do not have a veto over government or a proposed course of action.”

Many First Nation groups want to see the idea of consent, consensus, as being that veto. Now, I admit this bill doesn’t go there. It does in a few components, which seem to be fine. However, the attempt here in going through this and the way they have billed it does raise some real questions. What is the purpose here? Is this government really serious about reconciliation? Is the government serious about wanting to make a difference for the future of First Nations? Or is it using that to further its own ends?

Mr. Speaker, just to note, I am the designated speaker on this bill.

I ask that question, and I wonder about that question. I’ll be asking questions like that during the phase of committee coming up — assuming, of course, that we get this opportunity for committee stage. But I ask that question because of what I said earlier. What is reconciliation if it is not founded in economics, if it’s not founded in the ability to be able to move forward projects? What have you achieved? It’s still going to be reliant upon government, and we know that’s not the solution.

When I had the honour of being the Minister for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in B.C., I had an opportunity to meet with Nisga’a, and we signed an agreement and came down here. One of the elders who has been well recognized and received a doctorate said: “It’s long past time that First Nations not only have the opportunity to catch up to the rest of Canada economically but, if possible, to surpass.”

[2:35 p.m.]

That’s a worthy goal to go after, because community by community by community has been held back, whether it’s through federal government and the Indian Act or through other issues that have been raised, potentially even provincially, in decades gone by.

Now is their time. Now is the time to be able to make the difference. We have big project opportunities. LNG, a $40 billion announcement — that’s great. The difference that’s going to make for the 25 nations along there is phenomenal. But why are we limiting it to that? We need to see more of those types of projects go forward. The economic success or opportunity for First Nations should be a focal point in this act.

Economic activity that supports communities like mine in Nechako Lakes and communities like Vanderhoof, Houston, Burns Lake, Granisle, Fort St. James and Fraser Lake — many of the unincorporated areas — all depends on the opportunity for projects like this to go forward.

It plays a secondary role. It’s a minor footnote when you read through this act. Why is that not front and centre? Yes, it has to be done right. Yes, it has to be done respectfully. Yes, First Nations need to be engaged and part of it, of course. That’s the world we live in today. More importantly, it’s the right thing to do. But why are we not heavily weighting what those economic benefits can be?

I’ll give you an example of what the world used to be like, right from my riding. I guess I don’t even know whether environmental assessment was even considered back in this day. But in the 1950s, there was a project that moved forward, and it was the Kenney dam. They dammed the Nechako River, built a massive reservoir and put water outside of the Nechako-Fraser system, over the mountains to Kemano, to generate power.

Why was that justifiable? Because of the economic activity that was created from a major smelter in Kitimat — a big project. It made a big difference. It probably never would be able to have been allowed to happen today. Maybe that’s the right thing for it not to happen today. I don’t know. You can’t judge yesterday based on today.

It’s interesting what happened, particularly in the engagement with First Nations at the time. If you go back and look at the records, at the newspaper articles at the time when this project was coming forward, the newspaper articles said: “Nobody will be displaced by this. It’s just a few natives living in the area.” When that project was being built, the company people went around to the Cheslatta communities, knocked on their doors and said: “The dam is being built. The flood is coming. You have two weeks to move.”

They weren’t engaged. They didn’t have an opportunity to benefit. They had to up and move, or their community would have been flooded. They had two weeks to pick up what possessions they could and be displaced to another nation’s territory. To make sure they wouldn’t come back, their homes were burnt and destroyed. That was the way the world was back in the 1950s, and it’s sad. It’s very sad to think that that is how people were treated back in those days.

Going forward in looking at environmental assessment, having First Nations involved, engaged and part of it is critical. As I said, if it’s not about the economy, if it’s not about how you help to build that future, then what are we trying to do?

As part of being minister, I had the great honour of visiting many First Nations communities. As a matter of fact, I think, if my memory is correct, the total number of nations I managed to engage across the province over four years was about 169. Not all of those was I able to visit — their territory — but I had meetings here. For many of them, I did get a chance to go up and visit their territory.

[2:40 p.m.]

I’ve been on many reserves and seen the conditions, and it’s sad when you see 50, 60 or 70 percent unemployment. It’s sad when you think of communities like the Burns Lake Band, where the Chief, when he travels, has to carry extra blankets in the trunk in case he’s going to visit a suicide. That’s normal. It’s not right.

It has to change, and that means the only way those will change is to be able to have that hope and that opportunity created for those people that live on that reserve and are part of that community. So I ask again, in this environmental assessment bill, Bill 51: where is that in this bill?

How does this move forward reconciliation? How does this lift people out of poverty? How does this give hope for those young families? That should be the measure of every government in their actions and their bills. It certainly was with what we did.

I was proud of the 435 agreements or thereabouts between government and First Nations that I applied my signature to, because I know what a difference those agreements made. Those LNG agreements — we’re seeing the first of those projects go forward, the half a billion dollars that will flow to First Nation communities. Training, jobs, environmental stewardship — benefits that would not have been there without a project like that. Life-changing benefits. When I think about what governments need to focus on, I don’t see that in this government.

But there’s more than just that one project. Every project that was going out to the northwest coast of British Columbia had these types of agreements. There are other nations that are waiting to see benefits go forward. One of the other big projects, of course, happened to be the Pacific NorthWest LNG and Petronas. Members on that side signed a petition in protest to stop that project from going forward. They intentionally hurt communities, intentionally hurt First Nations, by not allowing the project to go forward, the benefits that would have flowed through those communities. That’s sad.

I think back to the young lady that gave me that offer and what a difference one small project made. Think about a major project and the difference that would make in so many lives.

In going through the bill and looking at all the components of engagement that come through, I find it interesting. There are a couple clauses in here. You go in and look at the clauses, and they were designed specifically because of circumstances that I don’t think this government likes.

One of the clauses that’s in there would mean that Site C could never have been built. We’ve got a project, once again, that is going to see huge benefits, that’s going to be a legacy for this province, that is something that is going to be needed. This new act — I don’t think you could ever have gotten that project through. Another project — the one, of course, I talked about — is Trans Mountain pipeline. Simply because of government policy, that project could never have gone ahead. It still may not go ahead. There’s still lots of water to cross under that bridge.

Those communities that have signed agreements and are looking forward to those changes — it’s a shame to think that government simply ignores that or turns a blind eye because of ideology. Or worse, simply because of politics. Governments are supposed to be there for all the people of the province, supposed to try to make conditions better for families.

[2:45 p.m.]

Yet what you’re seeing, with acts like this and others, is more politics at play — trying to win votes, trying to stay in government as opposed to taking into consideration what really matters, which is the lives of individuals and how they can be improved.

One of the things that I was proud of when we were in government was the number of children that were lifted out of poverty. The members opposite run up the flagpole: “It’s the worst child poverty rating in the country” — or second worst or whatever happened to be the statistic of that particular month or year. But the reality was that since the early 2000s, through to the time that we were in government, we saw child poverty rates in this province drop by 42 percent to the lowest levels we had seen since the early 1980s.

It wasn’t a poverty reduction plan. It wasn’t nice words, bills, large speeches; it was people getting a job. It was the difference of projects going forward, through environmental assessment and otherwise, that we were able to help bring people out of poverty.

There’s another interesting stat that doesn’t get talked about very much: the number of children in care of the state. There was a 30 percent reduction in the number of children in care under the B.C. Liberals. A 30 percent reduction in the number of children in care — that’s remarkable, when you think about what happened in the 1990s and the children in care skyrocketed.

But there was one piece of that stat that I wasn’t happy about: the percentage of First Nations children in care actually increased. We saw a significant drop in the number of children in care, but at the same time, that percentage that were still in care had gone up from 50 percent to higher than 50 percent. That needs to change.

If we want to see a society that truly cares about poverty and poverty reduction, that truly cares about the people in this province, it doesn’t come with a government cheque. It comes with a job. In particular, for First Nations, it comes with resource development jobs that are in and around and near their communities. That’s what can make a difference. Putting rules in place that make it harder, that make it more expensive, that have political policies that just give reason for termination is not the right thing to do.

I think once again about my riding of Nechako Lakes. There’s been a lot of progress over the years. I had a chat with the former Chief of the Lake Babine Nation. He had this great idea. He wanted to get a pellet plant going and use some of the wood fibre for the pellet plant. He wanted to get an energy project going. I thought: “Great, some economic development. This is good.”

“So what will this mean for your Nation? What does this mean for the long-term benefit and how this will change the Nation?” He said: “Well, it’s going to create jobs. It’s going to give us some opportunities.” I said: “I’m all for that. How do I help? That’s good, but you also have to realize that that pellet plant you’re going to put in is going to hire maybe 20 people. The power plant will hire another ten, 15 people — and maybe times two in terms of the number of jobs that come from the forest side.”

I asked him: “How many people do you have in your Nation?” He said: “About 2,400 people.” And I said: “What’s the unemployment rate?” He said: “About 65 percent.” So those projects he was focusing on were going to hire less than 100 people out of the 1,200 people that were unemployed.

You need big jobs. You need big projects. You need to work on the other ones, too, but if you’re going to make a real difference, you’re going to need to see big projects being able to go forward.

I had the chance, as well, as minister, to travel to some national conferences and talk to Premiers and other ministers from other provinces and leaders of First Nation communities from other places around the country. The funny thing, through all of that, was they’re all facing the same problem.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s not unique to just British Columbia. Whether it’s the Premier of the Northwest Territories or whether it is the minister responsible in Quebec, they all had these same issues. Foreign money coming in and foreign influence — all trying to stop them from being able to advance projects. Misinformation going to communities.

When I think about misinformation, here’s one from the LNG world, from out west, one of these projects that is proposing to go out to the northwest coast. One of the community members came to me and said: “This LNG project cannot go ahead. It should not go ahead. The pipeline can’t be built.” I asked him. I said: “Why? Why did you come to that conclusion?” He said: “Because if that pipe ever ruptures, it’ll poison the water.”

I thought about it for a second, and I asked him. I said: “Well, but the pipe is going to be moving gas, and gas and water don’t mix. It’ll bubble up and go up into the atmosphere.” “Oh, yes,” he said. “I know that. But when it rains, it’ll bring it back down, and it’ll poison the land, which will then poison the water.” I said: “It’s still a gas. It can’t…. That is not physically possible. The laws of physics won’t allow it.” But he insisted that was the truth because experts had come and said that to him, the very experts that were paid, in part, through money flowing from the United States to environmental groups to try to stop our projects from happening.

I had another chief along the LNG pipelines…. He came to me, frustrated at the time. This was before we were able to enter into an agreement. He was frustrated, and he said: “Is there any way government can stop this campaign of misinformation and lies that’s coming to the people in my community?” I thought about it for a bit. I chuckled, and I thought: “Well, that’s pretty sweeping powers that you’re asking government to take in terms of freedom of speech and information.” But it’s a challenge.

Not only do companies face these types of challenges, whether it’s here or in other places in the country, but now you’ve got a bill that continues to erode that confidence and that ability to be able to move forward projects. When you look through this….

I know that the members from the Green Party and others have expressed concerns about projects going forward, whether it’s mines or other types of things. There is nothing in this act that actually talks about improving environmental standards. It talks about bringing in more engagement with First Nations. That’s good, as I said. That’s what we were doing. It kind of just brings into the act what we were already doing. But then it adds these layers of politics and costs and procedure, and somehow that is better. I don’t understand how that equation can happen.

For the First Nations in my riding, for the First Nations associated with the Trans Mountain project, for the First Nations right across this province that are looking to find ways to lift their people out of poverty, I encourage this government to start thinking about them — not just writing a cheque and having a poverty reduction plan but how a difference can really be made, which is to get to yes on projects. Nice slogan. You guys like slogans. It’s a good slogan you can use. But you’ve got to figure out how you get to yes on projects. You can’t just layer on costs and bureaucracy and challenges and issues and process until some people just say, “Uncle,” and they leave. It doesn’t work that way.

You look at other jurisdictions around the world, and I can’t find another jurisdiction in the world that doesn’t already have the same types of standards or better standards than we have in British Columbia for oil and gas, for mining, for how we work on the land base, how we’re engaged with First Nations. You go across this country. They’re nowhere close to engaging and respecting First Nations to what we are in British Columbia. We moved the dial so far. There’s much, much more to be done, but the other jurisdictions are way behind.

[2:55 p.m.]

So this helps. This will move the dial a little bit further. But what was the purpose? Was it to find ways to be able to help lift First Nations out of poverty? To give them independence? To work to solving the land question? To seeing hope brought to First Nations kids? Or was it designed to further stymie and process to death the opportunity of projects and to add a political layer just to say no to things that aren’t aligned with what a government wants to do? When you look at this and you look at other bills, it’s the latter. That’s really unfortunate.

The government talks about community benefit agreements.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The Minister of Labour has woken up and gave me a big thumbs-up with that. Yet these community benefit agreements only touch 15 percent of the workforce — 15 percent. There are way more First Nations people working for companies and for unions outside of those 19 handpicked unions than there are for them, yet they’re excluded.

That’s a real shame, because when you’re talking about the environmental assessment bill, when you’re talking about the layering on of what this government is doing, it’s creating a real problem for this province. That is why I say we’re going to see a capital strike. We will see a capital strike. We’re already seeing it, and it’s a problem.

This economy has already shed….

Interjections.

J. Rustad: The members opposite have finally woken up from the lunchtime side, which is good to see.

Deputy Speaker: One speech at a time, please, Members.

J. Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You look at it, and you look at the layers coming on and a capital strike. We have already seen more than 40,000 private sector jobs lost, just in the last year alone.

Deputy Speaker: On Bill 51, Member.

J. Rustad: On Bill 51. This is about Bill 51, Mr. Speaker. This is about the layers of bureaucracy that are being added, and this is one more piece. Not only have we seen more than 40,000 jobs lost, but we’ve seen a 50 percent reduction in housing sales in Vancouver.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The Minister of Labour is chirping about 4.1 percent unemployment. You know what? Let’s celebrate that. You inherited that from the B.C. Liberals, and you’re welcome. And 16 months later, what did we see? Forty thousand private sector jobs lost in this province. That’s what you’re going to inherit.

This is what I’m worried about in terms of capital. We are seeing housing projects cancelled. We’re seeing forest companies investing south of the border because of high costs. We’re seeing layers of problems that are happening.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Rustad: We are seeing more and more of this, and capital is moving south because of the lack of confidence.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The Minister of Labour continues to want to engage in this, and I’m happy that he is engaging in this. Because I’ll tell you what. Do you know what else about forestry? This is a stat they conveniently forget. Under Christy Clark and the B.C. Liberals, we saw almost 10,000 jobs gained in forestry. Go look at the stats. The minister doesn’t believe it. It is in Stats Canada. Go ahead and look at it.

That is the reality of what we did in this, which is why I’m talking about Bill 51. It’s just another layer of challenge in this province. And the capital that we need to see flow in and the investment we need to be able to create the differences…. It’s to support communities like mine, support communities all across the province — not to see job losses, not to see the loss of confidence that comes with policies that stymie and stagnate our economy.

With that, I look forward to seeing the debate that comes in the committee stage. There are many questions that need to be raised as we go through this process, even clause 39. I have to admit I affectionately dubbed it the Jumbo clause, because it now sets these time frames in place and creates, once again, another opportunity to try to get to no on a project. It is a real challenge.

[3:00 p.m.]

The Minister of Labour seems to be very active. He wants to get up and perhaps add in to the speech on this. I don’t think he’s had that opportunity yet, but we’ll see. We’ll see whether he wants to do that.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The Minister of Labour doesn’t want to be encouraged. I don’t see why he doesn’t want to be encouraged. This is what a representative democracy is all about, not a democracy under PR where some people are appointed.

Bill 51. You’ve heard many of my colleagues stand up and talk about this. The member for Skeena talked so eloquently about the challenges and issues, and I’m always reminded of his example. It’s an example that’s worth repeating.

Here you’ve got the Haisla Nation, which was in a situation where they had about 65 percent unemployment, and because of engaging in economic opportunity and because of projects being able to advance and move forward, it went down to 15 percent unemployment. That’s huge.

That is the best poverty reduction plan that any government could ever implement. But it would never happen unless projects could advance. It would never happen unless projects and companies had the hope of being able to go through an environmental assessment and come to a reasonable solution within a reasonable period of time, a reasonable expectation to advance.

You see, the problem with government policy being one of the potential issues for termination is that governments change. Governments can change direction. Governments can be lobbied, particularly by foreign money that comes in and supports campaigns to help people get elected.

If you’ve got a bill that actually talks about government policy as being a reason for terminating, how does a project know that they’re not going to be the target of the next campaign? How does a company know that they’re not going to have to stop a process because suddenly there’s a change in government and government direction? These things are not good, and they’re not healthy.

With that, it’s been a tremendous honour to be able to stand and speak on behalf of my constituents of Nechako Lakes. The people in my riding want to see economic development. They want to see investment. They want to see projects move forward because they know what a difference it can make.

I want to close with one last story, because I know that the members opposite are so looking forward and paying so much attention to what I’m saying with regards to this. But I want to close with one other story. This is really quite relevant. The members of the Carrier-Sekani Nation and a number of the First Nations there were involved in working with a company on wanting to see a mining project advance. They had a meeting with us as government with regards to the project advancing through the environmental assessment.

Do you know what they said? They came to us and said: “Get your act together, and get on with the project. We want to see this.” They said that because they know what a difference it can make for their constituents. They know what a difference it would make and how meaningful it’d be for their kids and for their community to be able to see the benefits and the jobs and what it can mean.

That is reconciliation. That is what needs to be focused on. That is poverty reduction. That is investment, and that is building a future that all of us in this province should be proud of. And every piece of legislation moving forward should be part of doing that.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s been interesting listening to the comments on the bill. First of all, I want to thank the members for Cowichan Valley and for Port Moody–Coquitlam for the important points that go to the expectations of the public for a clear and transparent process so they can have trust that their air, land and water are being protected. We heard one member talk about clarity, consistency and common sense. Frankly, I wish I’d heard more of that from the members of the official opposition.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m not going to go into great detail, but we know there are negative impacts on communities from some projects, and we know some projects were approved under the previous government that have created problems. We know that there are impacts on Indigenous peoples. We know that there are impacts on communities.

This bill is in response to the demands of the public and Indigenous people for something that is clear, independent, transparent and robust.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson posited that we were creating a longer project. I don’t know where the member gets this idea, but I do know that the current process averaged, over the last five years, over four years — four years. We will do better than that, this act will do better than that, and the timelines will be contained.

The member for Skeena said that this act was a place to talk about economic opportunity and reconciliation for Indigenous peoples. The member should know that by incorporating UNDRIP, the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, into this bill, it encompasses the economic rights and the economic future of First Nations. That’s why they worked with us throughout the whole process in order to put this bill together and why they stood with us when we introduced it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It’s necessary to enhance public confidence. It’s necessary to advance reconciliation. It’s necessary to protect the environment while offering clear pathways to sustainable project approvals. That’s why we introduced the bill. That’s what this bill will do. I look forward to working with Indigenous nations, environmental assessment practitioners, industry and communities to ensure that the extensive engagement on regulation continues.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

An Hon. Member: Division.

Mr. Speaker: Division has been called. Members, if we may defer division, as the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. We will proceed immediately afterward.

[3:10 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Poverty Reduction Strategy Act

Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act

Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018

[3:15 p.m.]

South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018

Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act

Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Once again, it’s such a pleasure to see all of you here today. I thank you, again, for all of your very, very hard work. I understand you’ve got a break next week, and I do hope that you all have some time to spend with your families and friends. I know it’s been a pretty busy fall for you, and I know there’s a lot of work ahead. It really is a pleasure to see you.

Thank you, again, so much for all that you do.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[3:20 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ACT

(continued)

Second reading of Bill 51 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 41
Chouhan	Kahlon	Brar
Heyman	Donaldson	Mungall
Bains	Beare	Chen
Popham	Trevena	Sims
Chow	Kang	Simons
D’Eith	Routley	Ma
Elmore	Dean	Routledge
Singh	Leonard	Darcy
Simpson	Robinson	Farnworth
James	Eby	Dix
Ralston	Mark	Fleming
Conroy	Fraser	Chandra Herbert
Rice	Furstenau	Weaver
Olsen		Glumac
NAYS — 37
Cadieux	Bond	Polak
Lee	Stone	Coleman
Wat	Bernier	Thornthwaite
Paton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Isaacs	Morris
Stilwell	Ross	Oakes
Redies	Rustad	Milobar
Sturdy	Clovechok	Shypitka
Hunt	Throness	Tegart
Stewart	Sultan	Gibson
Reid	Letnick	Thomson
	Foster

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 51, Environmental Assessment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 52.

Just to remind members that, in the recess that took place for royal assent, we are still on committee stage of Bill 49.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

BILL 52 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. L. Popham: I move that the bill now be read for a second time.

Before I outline the amendments in this bill, I would like to provide the rationale on why these changes are being made. One of my mandate letter commitments was to revitalize the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. This commitment is important to me because we have a lot to be proud of about agriculture in B.C. We have one of the most diverse agriculture sectors in Canada, with 17,500 farms producing over 200 agricultural products produced here.

[3:25 p.m.]

A successful agriculture sector needs productive agricultural land to ensure that B.C. crops are available to the processing sector, which is the second-largest manufacturing sector and one of the fastest-growing sectors in our province.

What we can also be proud of in British Columbia is that we are one of the unique jurisdictions around the world that has a provincial land reserve dedicated to farming and ranching. To successfully deliver on this important mandate, in January I appointed an independent advisory committee to undertake a provincewide engagement process so that British Columbians’ voices would be heard in our efforts to revitalize the ALR.

This committee led a comprehensive engagement process, travelling to nine communities, meeting with local governments, the agriculture sector and other key stakeholders, and received about 2,600 written and on-line submissions. The consultations showed overwhelmingly that British Columbians value the ALR and care about preserving it for future generations.

The committee submitted an interim report to me in July, with recommendations that included the need for immediate legislative changes to address issues that are eroding the productive capacity in the ALR and to curb land speculation in the ALR. I have considered the recommendations and have planned out a two-phase approach that will focus on four targeted areas: protecting the ALR land base, preserving the productive capacity of the ALR, strengthening the governance of the ALC, and supporting farmers and ranchers in our province.

The amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act that I am bringing forward are a first of a two-phase project. The second set of amendments to the act will be brought forward in a later bill in the spring, to be determined by cabinet, and will address further recommendations made by the committee.

The first phase of amendments will implement a maximum house size in the ALR to address a significant rise in mega-homes and land speculation. Because the ALC’s approval of any additional…. Oh, also require the ALC’s approval of any additional residence on a parcel in the ALR to curb non-farm development. Implement clear rules to better regulate the placement of fill, to prevent damaging material, including construction and demolition waste, on the ALR’s productive soils. The rules will also better manage the removal of prime agricultural soil from the ALR. Eliminate the two zones to make sure that all land in the ALR receives equal protection and ensure a consistent provincial approach to farming and ranching. Finally, to add offence provisions to ensure that there is greater ability of the ALC to take compliance and enforcement action when required.

This bill also includes a grandfathering provision for those that have larger primary residences than the maximum size and to allow landowners who are substantially in the process of building a larger primary residence or additional residences to finish. It adds regulation-making authorities for creating greater clarity on residential uses, siting and sizing of residences and accessory buildings in a future regulation.

It includes a provision for a notice of intent and an associated fee to be submitted to the ALC as part of a new streamlined administrative process related to notifying and obtaining ALC approval for soil and fill. The notice of intent will be set in a future regulation by cabinet, and it is intended to be significantly less than the application fee that is currently required when a landowner currently applies for soil or fill use with the ALC.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This is the first phase of amendments. Vital changes are being made that will lead to lasting positive impacts: by addressing the mega-homes and lifestyle estates that are being built, to inappropriate use of soil and fill, and to ensure that the ALR is treated as one unified reserve. I believe the amendments proposed for this first phase will move us firmly along the path towards this revitalization and support our agriculture sector so that it continues to grow and prosper with good-paying jobs in communities across the province.

[3:30 p.m.]

I look forward to comments from other members in this House. As I believe that our agricultural land reserve is valued by everyone in the province, I’m hoping that there’s going to be a lot of support from the other side.

I. Paton: It’s my pleasure today to rise and to speak to Bill 52, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018. I would like to thank the Minister of Agriculture for her comments. I can say that most items in this bill are rather pleasing. There are a few things that I do have concerns with, and we will work on those in the next few days and at the committee stage.

As a third-generation dairy farmer, I’m keenly aware of the hard work and dedication needed to be successful in this agriculture industry. I’ve been involved in agriculture my whole life. I was born and raised on the farm that I’m still living on today in Delta, 62 years ago. I went off to UBC and got my degree in 1979 and came back to the family farm.

I certainly know what it’s like to be involved in agriculture, with the risks and the demands. In the 1980s, I took on debt of around $800,000, and luckily interest rates had come down to about 17 percent in the mid-’80s. Joking aside, it was a pretty tough go during those years of high-interest rates.

My father by the same name was chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission. He was also a degree in agriculture from UBC. I saw my grandfather milking cows on our property when I was a kid growing up. I saw my dad follow in his footsteps, and I saw how difficult it was for my grandfather and my dad, both in the dairy business and the chicken farming business, to make ends meet in the 1960s. I continued on in the ’80s with my dairy farm.

I’m very proud to say that having known my dad as chairman of the land commission, I really valued his opinion and the things he fought for in British Columbia to preserve certain parts of this province from being overdeveloped by housing and industry. I’m very proud of the fact that on the farm that I live on today, we have basically never covered any part of our farm, since I was a kid in the late 1950s, with any sort of asphalt or pavement. I’m so proud of that.

The only houses we have on our farm are a 1905 that my mother still lives on and a house built in the 1930s that was my grandfather’s house that I still live on. The only thing we’ve ever added on our farm is a couple of new buildings for some heifers and for some milk cows. Other than that….

In fact, I do have a section of the farm that was subdivided off many years ago before my dad passed away. I have the opportunity to build a new house for myself on that piece of property, but I cannot bring myself to cover up that piece of pasture land right next to the dike with fill material to build a house on, so I’m quite happy to stay where I’m living in the house that was built by my grandfather.

At the very heart of the ALR is, of course, the farmer. The farmer wakes up early, usually with everyone else in the family, and gets going on the chores. The farmer spends an enormous amount of time tending to the food being grown or the animals being kept, as well as the property those things are housed on. The farmer spends an enormous amount of money on land, structures, machinery, equipment, tools, feed, hay, fuel and staff and is the last to take a paycheque.

Of course, he’s also the one doing the bookkeeping and tracking every dollar — and every dollar in and out. He’s the last one to bed and often lies awake at night worrying about the weather or the things he didn’t get done that day, thinking about his or her future.

With that in mind, it is my belief that the farmer should also be at the heart of important pieces of legislation like this one. Yes, we should protect the land and its uses. There’s no question about that. But I’m fond of reminding people that there is no farming without the farmer. In fact, I have a bumper sticker on the back of my truck that’s getting pretty worn and faded, and it says: “It’s not farmland without farmers.”

In other words, if we can keep the farmers healthy, we can keep the next generation interested in coming along. We can make sure that they’re making a living all over this province. Not just in the Fraser Valley, not just on Vancouver Island or in the beautiful, fertile lands of the Okanagan, but on every square inch of this province, we need farmers to be able to make a decent income.

[3:35 p.m.]

If they are making a decent income, they will stay on those farms, and we’ll keep that land in agricultural production. We need to be cognizant of that truth when we make decisions that impact this important industry.

I have to ask: why do we have to make these massive changes to the ALR and to the ALC? A committee was formed, just over a year ago, that said: “I guess we have issues. We have problems with the ALR and the ALC.” Quite frankly, my time on municipal council, I saw some great improvements to the ALR and the ALC in the last two or three years.

On Delta council, we saw massive wait times in at the ALC for applications and permitting to get things done in Delta — not applications to take land out but just the typical things that you send forward from your municipal government to the ALC. For over a year, items would sit in stacks at the ALC without getting taken care of.

Then there were some changes. Then Mr. Leonard came along, and he said: “I will make sure that we start dealing with all these issues and this paperwork within 90 working days.” Things really started to speed up.

Then we came to the panel section. We had the west coast panel. We had three people on each panel throughout the entire province of B.C., making decisions on behalf of the Agricultural Land Commission. These were panels of people that lived in the area where applications were coming from so that the commission didn’t have to all come together into Burnaby for massive meetings — that the whole commission didn’t have to fly off, at great expense, to different parts of the province to look at one particular project.

These panels of three from all over the province were able to make quick decisions. Go out in their vehicles, and check on the item that was being brought forward. I thought that the panels were certainly a good idea. I have, by good authority, that the panels are also being imploded, for some reason, with this committee that was put together by the ALC.

I was never too happy with the committee that was put together. I thought the committee was rather handpicked. I didn’t see too many people representing too many facets of agriculture in British Columbia, people that really knew the hard work, the toil, the hardships of agriculture, making these decisions. But I think they were guided in a direction that we wanted to see certain things done by the NDP government. I see the outcome as basically the wishes of the Agriculture Minister.

My fear with this bill is it puts a focus on the land and not the farmer. If you’ve been lucky enough to see most of this great province, you know that each region is different. Its geography is really unique. When I became Agriculture critic, I thought: “Wow. I’m a pretty smart guy with agriculture. I’ve been around farming since I was a little kid.” But really, I’m familiar with agriculture in the Fraser Valley, so I’m thinking: “Wow. I know quite a bit about berries, cranberries, dairy farming and all those certain things common to the Fraser Valley.”

Then when I thought: “Wow. We have a tree fruit industry in the Okanagan. We have the grape industry, the wine industry. We have beef cattle in the central Interior. We’ve got beef cattle and different types of agriculture in the Kootenays. We have grain and canola in the northern part of B.C. We have seafood. We have fish farming.” I thought: “Wow.” There are so many things to this Agriculture portfolio that — I’ll tell you — I’m not exactly aware of, and I’m making a real effort to get around this province and learn about all the different beautiful things that we have in this province that make up the portfolio of Agriculture.

We have a lot of farmers working hard to make a living in all corners of B.C., but it’s easier said than done in some areas. I’ll talk about the zone difference, of zone 1 and zone 2. In places like Mexico, California and Arizona, we have farmers in that wonderful climate that are basically planting and harvesting 12 months of the year.

When you come up to a climate such as British Columbia, we have a reasonably good climate in the Fraser Valley and on Vancouver Island. We have farmers that can kind of survive and get some pretty good stuff done year-round.

[3:40 p.m.]

A massive part of our province was zone 2. Zone 2 were the poor farmers that everybody kind of forgot about in the eastern and northern corners of our province, farmers that basically worked as hard as they could with the climate they had for four to five months of the year. For the other six or seven months of the year, they’re sitting and looking out the window at snow, ice and rain in this province. That’s why I believed in zone 2.

We have a motto that we just pledged this past weekend. It’s called: “Opportunity for all of British Columbia.” That, to me, talks so highly of agriculture that we need to offer opportunity to everyone in this province to be able to make a good living on the farm or the ranch that they have.

Zone 2 offered the Agricultural Land Commission a chance to add leniency to farmers and young people on their farms in zone 2. They were able to put a little business there.

Perhaps a young man was good at welding or auto body or something like that and said: “I want to set up a little shop on my farm so I can add value to what I’m doing, so I’ve got something to do in the wintertime to add value to my farm, which I’m basically only farming in the summer months.” Our former government created a second zone under the agricultural land reserve. As I said, it was a massive part of our province, zone 2. This permitted farmers in some ways, limited ways, to add value to their operations during those particular months.

Farming in British Columbia is tough enough as it is, whether you’re in zone 1, zone 2, the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan, Vancouver Island. We’re battling the USMCA agreement. We’ve got more milk products being able to come into our country. We’ve seen this government on the other side…. I told farmer after farmer in the last couple of days at our meetings over here…. I said: “Guys, you don’t even know what you’re up against yet.”

This government has dumped on increased carbon tax, increased minimum wage. They’re likely going to take away the piece rate for picking. There is the employer health tax, which is going to affect massive agricultural companies, including the greenhouses in Delta, including BCfresh, including the trucking companies. Carbon tax. The guys who pick up your milk, the guys who deliver your feed, the guys who come and do your welding and your tractor repairs — everybody is going to be paying more in carbon tax and employer health tax.

Maybe that farmer is also a welder and can set up a little side business on a small corner of his property for those slow periods — or a mechanic who offers repair services, that sort of thing. Small ways that they can make a bit of extra money during those tougher times of the year. The truth of matter is that if a farmer isn’t making money, he’ll leave. That farmland will sit vacant, and that’s where speculators will come. The speculators will come in if you see a dormant, vacant, fallow piece of farmland that’s not being farmed. Again, there’s no farming without the farm.

Instead of considering the farmer and perhaps modifying the two-zone system put in place by our former government, the minister has chosen to wipe it out, and with it, a legitimate and needed source of income for farm families in the northern, eastern and frozen parts of this province. I think there should be opportunities for everyone. We need to support farmers in all regions of British Columbia. That means we need to acknowledge the regional differences that make it harder for some farmers to operate than others.

There are some other details and language I find troubling in this bill. If this bill passes, agricultural land will no longer consist of the land that has been established as part of the agricultural land reserve. Instead, all agricultural land will be in the ALR. That means that all land suitable for farm use is part of the reserve, based on what I’ve read in the sections of this bill. That represents a broad expansion, and one can only wonder what the government intends to do.

Really, no one can wonder, because of the dozens of places this bill is based on the philosophy of: “Just wait for the regulations to come out.” This bill represents yet another concentration of power at the cabinet table and away from this Legislature. It doesn’t sit right with me, especially after we saw the makeup of the minister’s ALR and ALC advisory committee that examined all of these issues ahead of this bill. We didn’t see many farmers on that committee, people who have actually worked the land. We saw a number of B.C.’s key agricultural regions and sectors shut out as well.

The results of this committee are working out almost exactly, I believe, as the minister had kind of hoped they would work out. So I hope we’re not seeing a pattern here of farmers being shut out and major decisions impacting them being made behind closed doors and not properly debated in the House.

[3:45 p.m.]

Moving on to some other points or aspects of the bill, I would say that in every account, I’m pretty happy with home sizes, soil deposits and fill removal. Of course, who wouldn’t be? In Delta, we took on these bylaws several years ago, and I’ll speak a bit about that. We certainly don’t want to see enormous estates taking up valuable land for farming, and I’m sure we can all agree on that. I’m always proud to remind this House that Delta was a leader in that regard, an early adopter of the provincial standard that was set by our former government.

Our former government put forward the minister’s bylaw standard for home size on agricultural land, and Delta jumped in several years ago and adopted that. We’re very proud of that. We had some mega-homes going up in Delta. There were a few of them that got started, but we nipped it in the bud. We brought forward a bylaw that said: if you owned under 20 acres of land, you could only build as big as 3,500 square feet. If you owned land over 20 acres, you could only build to 5,005 square feet, which is even less than the actual permitted square footage that is in this bill now.

The other thing we did in Delta that’s very interesting and that’s not in this Bill 52 is the siting of the house. If you want to build a house on a farm in Delta, you cannot plunk it in the middle of that farm with a 200-foot-long driveway going right up the middle, like we all see in south Richmond.

By the way, we have some politicians in south Richmond — one that’s been in politics for over 40 years, in Steveston, and another who has been the mayor and in politics for over 30 years. Combined, they could have fixed this problem years and years ago, but no, the horses got out of the barn a long time ago. Now they’re so happy that the government has brought forward legislation which will get them off the hook and finally get rid of mega-homes on beautiful farmland in Richmond, British Columbia.

Getting back to our footprint in Delta. If you want to build a house in Delta, you have 60 metres from the main road — 60 by 60. You can only go back 60 metres from the main road, and it can only be 60 metres wide…

Interjection.

I. Paton: Excuse me?

…and it has to be sited in a corner of the property so that we don’t have houses being built right in the middle of the farms. I’m very proud of what Delta did. Municipalities all over the province, if they had control of some of these things, could do the same thing. The municipal governments could take on a bylaw, the minister’s standard, and fix the problem with home sizes by creating their own bylaw, which we did in Delta. We’ve been successful.

By the way, I’m happy that the minister brought this forward. I will always say that there is no need for massive houses. In fact, at 5,400 square feet, that’s a pretty darn big house. I don’t know who would be rather unhappy with 5,400 square feet, since I live in about 1,450 square feet of my grandfather’s old cottage on our farm.

I will note that I’m of course supportive of measures to prevent the dumping of waste and debris on farmland. Delta also enacted a soil deposit and removal bylaw, bylaw 7221, while I was on council about four or five years ago. We’ve all heard the stories of dump trucks making deals with farmers, going in and going: “Hey, we’ve got a construction site in Vancouver. We’ve got a new hotel being built. We’re going down 40 metres into the ground. I’ll tell you what. We can pay you 200 bucks a load if you’ll take this fill material from this construction site in Vancouver.”

Of course, darkness sets in on a Sunday night, and the dump trucks start rolling in through the back roads of Delta, Langley, Surrey and different places like that. So of course, I’m all in favour of the minister’s conclusions here to deal with this soil removal and deposit. It’s very important; we need to get to the bottom of that.

Some questions that we will be bringing up, of course, in committee stage, are on enforcement. We know that the land commission is very much under stress, as far as having enough enforcement officers. Municipal governments are able to deal with themselves. In fact, Delta, which has this bylaw for soil removal and deposits, makes use of our own bylaw enforcement department, and we’ve got a great department. We’ve probably got 14 or 15 people on our bylaw enforcement.

[3:50 p.m.]

We have a Neighbourhood Watch program where all the farmers in Delta contact each other. If they see anything nefarious going on with dumping of fill, it doesn’t matter what day of the week it is or what time of night it is; there’s a hotline call into Delta bylaw enforcement. We’ve nipped it in the bud over the years, with illegal soil deposits of poor-quality toxic soil that’s full of asphalt, rebar, concrete and different things like that.

As I said, other municipalities have had the opportunity to do the same with bylaw enforcement, not only with house sizes but also with soil deposits and soil removal of illegal soil dumped on farmland.

So that’s got me wondering who is going to supervise or enforce this, which I just mentioned. My understanding is that it will be up to the Agricultural Land Commission to enforce its own act and regulations. However, I think there remains a concern about whether they have enough enforcement officers. That’s an issue I suspect we’ll delve into more deeply at the committee stage.

I’m pleased to see the issue addressed in the bill, and I’m sure we can all agree that dumping of waste of any kind on arable land is simply unacceptable and should be curbed. While there are a few measures that I’m happy to see in this bill, there are also a few that I’m concerned about and expect to canvass more fully at the committee stage.

I’ll finish by saying that I’m totally supportive of talking about mega-homes, talking about illegal fill material. A concern I have is zone 1 and zone 2. If we go to zone 1, I just hope that every farmer becomes 1. And all the farmers that had leniency in zone 2, to make a few extra bucks…. We’re all not getting rich in zone 1, either. There are lots of people hurting. Interest rates are going up.

We want young people to get into the business, to take over these farms. If there isn’t enough money coming in from the crop — the potatoes, the Brussels sprouts, the dairy, the milk — they need to do something else to help pay the mortgage. We need to allow young people to think outside the box, to add value to their farming operations, not only in the Fraser Valley but all over this province.

It’s my hope that the farmer and the importance of protecting the farmer will always be top of mind to this minister, and I’m sure it is. I know she’s extremely keen on making agriculture the best it can be in British Columbia.

I will leave remarks here. I look forward to further discussions on this bill in the committee stage.

A. Olsen: It’s my honour to rise and speak to Bill 52, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. Certainly, there are issues in this bill that I am glad to see are being dealt with by the appropriate level of government.

I’m certainly not as experienced at agriculture as the member for Delta South. That’s for sure. I can’t say that three generations of my family have been in agriculture. But I certainly can say that many, many countless generations of my family have been harvesting and developing food-harvesting areas within the territories of the WSÁNEĆ for countless generations. So while it might not have been what we see today as agriculture, I would like to acknowledge that we have a long history of developing 100 percent of the food that was eaten and consumed and, in fact, traded in a commercial way right here in our territory.

I certainly think that this is something that we need to be working toward — ensuring that we are ensuring the food security. While I do agree that farming requires farmers, farming also requires farmland, so I think that it is important that we look after the jurisdiction that is ours, which is the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the agricultural land reserve.

That is indeed a provincial piece of legislation, and it is indeed our responsibility to make sure that it is doing what it needs to do and doing what it should be doing, which is governing the agricultural land within the agricultural land reserve.

I have some experience from the perspective of a local councillor, as well, in the district of Central Saanich. I was the former councillor there, and 70 percent of the land within our district was in the ALR, meaning 30 percent of the land paid most of the bills.

[3:55 p.m.]

It was really an interesting municipality to be sitting around the council table on. Certainly, a lot of what happened in the agricultural land reserve impacted our community in deep ways.

I think that it’s important to acknowledge, in response to the member for Delta South, that while it is under the purview of district councils to make these changes one community by one, it is certainly within the purview of the provincial government to look after its own legislation. To update this bill would mean that it doesn’t require numbers and numbers and numbers of municipalities to all go through the highly intensive process that we went through to get a soil deposit and removal bylaw.

In our community, it took 13 months. It took 13 months because it sat on the minister of the former government’s desk while we tried to determine what kind of impact this was going to have on the development community in this particular area. That was the question that we were asked when we went to find out why it was that that bill wasn’t signed off. The government at the time was wondering what kind of impact it was going have on the holes that were being dug for large buildings, as the member pointed out.

By amending this bylaw and by fixing it at the provincial level, then we don’t have the 13-month delays. Certainly, many chunks of asphalt were dumped on agricultural land day in and day out while we were waiting for the sign-off on that bill.

Another piece that I’d like to point out…. It might just be some language, but I’d like to acknowledge the women in agriculture. I know that we often use language here of “he” and “him” and “it’s his farm.” But I think that it’s important, because many of the incredible workers in agriculture operating farms, running farms in my riding, are women. I would like to just raise my hands to the women that are working on the agricultural land.

It’s interesting. We hear the slogan continually raised now — I guess it’s just brand-new, fresh, like BCfresh or something — “Opportunity for all.” I imagine that we’re going to continue to hear it, as a mantra, get repeated in this place over and over. “Opportunity. Opportunity for all.”

The other slogan is “Winning takes work,” apparently. We haven’t heard that one too often. But I’d like to say that it is the mantra that I’ve heard from the farmers in my riding — the work of agriculture. I think that it’s important that we are acknowledging and raising our hands to those who are doing the work.

Yesterday — was it yesterday? — or maybe the day before I had the opportunity to meet with farmers, as did the members from all parts of this House. I acknowledged the hands, because I come from a family that didn’t produce food. We were in horticulture. Whenever I talked about the dirt, my grandfather would shake his big mitts at me and say: “You know, Adam, I don’t work….”

Can I even refer to myself by my own name?

Interjection.

A. Olsen: I can? Okay.

He said: “Grandson, I don’t work in dirt. I work in soil.” My grandfather was a man that always reminded me that we come from the soil and that he worked in the soil. So I acknowledged, while I was sitting around the table in the hotel next door, the hands, the mitts and the soil that was under the fingernails and the hands of the farmers. I do raise my hands, which are much softer and much less worthy, to the agricultural workers: the farmers, the ranchers, the orchardists, the people who produce food for us and for our children and for our grandchildren.

With that, I would just like to say that the B.C. Green caucus is very supportive of the three main aspects of this piece of legislation. We are certainly, and have been for quite a period of time — going back before my time in this place — encouraging government to impose limits on the house sizes that can be built on agricultural land.

[4:00 p.m.]

We’ve seen the ALR prime farmland being turned from agricultural uses to rural estate uses. Certainly, the more urban you get, the more threat there is to that land. Even though it was in the guidelines, limiting house sizes to 5,400 square feet within this bill is very welcome, from our caucus’s perspective. As we’ve seen the impact of speculation on land, all land, all zones throughout British Columbia, farmland has certainly become a casualty of that. So we very much welcome the limiting of house sizes on agricultural land.

I’d like to acknowledge the comment that was made by the member for Delta South with respect to home plates, because this is a piece of work that absolutely still needs to be done and that we need to continue to push. It’s not just the size of the house, but it is, as was mentioned, the siting of the house. If you put a 5,400-square-foot house in the middle of prime agricultural land, you’ve still limited the capacity of that land to produce in an uninterrupted way. I recognize that.

It’s not just the 5,400-square-foot house; it’s the 100- or 200- or 300-metre driveway that goes up. So much of that land is now interrupted and has asphalt on it or even gravel or concrete. So I certainly am very, very supportive of the government moving — and as the minister stated, this is one of maybe multiple parts — further down the road towards the siting of homes, the home plate.

I think the other thing, too, which comes up…. I represent Gulf Island communities, and one of the things that comes up for me is that much of the farmland, agricultural land in the Gulf Island communities is operated now by multiple families that have kind of gone in together. They’ve purchased the land, and they’re working the land together because that’s the only way that they can afford it, frankly.

They ask me the questions about multiple homes being built. Can multiple homes be built on agricultural land? Of course, we know that there are significant limitations, and for good reason. I respect the comments that were made that there could be two homes, maybe, built on a piece of farmland, but that would be the limit. One of the questions that gets brought to me….

I’m not resolved on this issue, but it’s one issue that I think we can explore a little bit further and that perhaps all sides of this House can explore. If we set a home plate size and a square footage size, maybe we can allow for some flexibility from that owner within the home plate, within the square footage size. It’s just something that I put out there. If we have a limit of 5,400 square feet and we have a home plate within which you can build, then perhaps multiple families…. Or you could have a couple of different dwellings there so that multiple families could…. There’s some flexibility there.

I’ll just leave it at that. I’ve talked to a number of people on the Gulf Islands that this impacts. They don’t have that flexibility. I did let them know that I would raise it. I’d raise it with the minister, and we’d put it out there and see what happens with it.

I did mention, when it came to illegal fill, the frustration that we had in the district of Central Saanich. I’m glad that we’ve responded to the challenges that we had with development fill coming in from the urban centres into the rural and agricultural lands. Certainly, it was a long and painful process for us to get to where we’re at. So I am very, very supportive of the action that the government is taking to remove this as an option, let’s say.

Again, I have some questions about enforcement. That was the big issue that we had: okay, it’s great to have this soil deposit and fill bylaw, but if we’re not resourcing the Agricultural Land Commission with enough money to actually enforce, then that is causing significant problems. I would just say that we absolutely support the move to regulate this more strictly.

[4:05 p.m.]

As well, I’d say that we could even go a step further and work with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and maybe have some coordination around tracking development fill and putting some recommendations in place where these two ministries and these two bills can interact, to say: “Look, if you are Metro or the CRD or you have an urbanized part of your district, then you should, if you’re getting a building permit, be tracking that hole that is being dug and the fill that’s coming from it.”

Finally, I would say that it is welcome — and it was part of the platform of the B.C. Green caucus — to move back from two zones to a single zone. I’d just say, in this context, the change to two zones did threaten agricultural land. It opened it up. It said that some lands were more capable, while others lands were not.

We do know that lands outside of the more mild climates of southwestern British Columbia are also very valuable for their agricultural production. Just because there’s snow on them for parts of the year doesn’t mean that we should leave those vulnerable or that they should have a different set of values. It’s still about food production. It’s still about making sure that we can provide the food, like we have in this province, that we can eat food that’s grown here.

On those notes, I would just like to congratulate the minister. We share Saanich. She’s Saanich South; I’m Saanich North. A lot of agricultural land within our two jurisdictions. I know, as the former critic on this file and a farmer, that this has been something that has been long awaited from the minister and the member for Saanich South. I’d like to congratulate the minister on the good work that’s been done. You have the support.

We will be going into some details on this bill as we go through committee stage, but congratulations, and thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak at second reading.

N. Simons: I just have a few comments of my own on this bill, having been interested in this subject for some time. I believe some corrections are being made to some changes that were initiated a few years ago with Bill 24 that were widely criticized by many in the agriculture sector. I had the honour of being Her Majesty’s Official Opposition critic for the Ministry of Agriculture at the time, and I remember the debates that went on for days about their particular changes to the agricultural land protections that we had.

I’m just so pleased that the Minister of Agriculture saw fit to make this one of her early priorities in terms of legislation. I think it’s highly supportable, and I’m pleased that members from the Third Party are in support as well.

I hope that the critic knows that some of his concerns raised in this second reading are misplaced. I’m sure he’ll be very pleased to know that — his concerns over some things that are not in this act, which he was worried about, including the panels. There’s no change with respect to panels in this legislation.

The zones. Putting back to one zone was an overwhelming request of the B.C. Agriculture Council. I am not sure if he’s the lone voice in the wilderness on this or if he’s just been separated from the herd, but the fact is this is legislation that’s been created after widespread consultation with a broad sector of the agriculture community, including a number of farmers, academics, experts and scientists. I think that their consultation process is a marked contrast to the consultation, or lack thereof, that took place before the introduction of Bill 24.

I would say that I’m pleased with the changes that have been made. I’m pleased that there’s a regulation around house sizes, on fill dumping, on the removal of good soil from agricultural land. Those are important changes. Restoring the one zone, one value with respect to the protection of farmland, I believe, is an important recognition of the requests from the agriculture community. It also reflects our view that we protect land for the future needs.

I’m glad that these changes have been undertaken with the interests of the farmer. The farmer is successful when there’s farmland, and the farmland is productive when there are successful farmers. We need to make sure that those balance each other well. I think that other changes the government has made with respect to the agriculture industry do support the entry of young farmers into the sector.

[4:10 p.m.]

I believe that our support and initiatives that strengthen the economic viability of farms have been important steps, and I hope that the critic recognizes those investments from the province. The people of the province believe strongly in the importance of our agriculture sector. And government, in allocating the resources of our collective wealth, I think, supports the continued viability and the continued strength of our agricultural sector.

I’m looking forward to hearing the debate in third reading. I think that there’s a good opportunity to canvass the specific sections of the act, and that’s an important part of this process in reviewing the legislation that we have before us. Bill 52 is a wonderful response to, I think, what has been a failure of previous legislation, but that’s often why we introduce new legislation.

I’m pleased that we’re taking some very, very strong steps towards maintaining and enhancing the viability of our British Columbia agriculture sector, and I will agree with all of the previous speakers, and I know that our minister is the number one advocate for farmers and for the protection of farmland.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure today to speak to Bill 52, which is the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. It’s an act that amends the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It does so in three particular ways that I want to talk about today. It confines the size of homes that you can build on the ALR. It does some work to guard against contaminated soil on the ALR. And it changes the zoning of the ALR from two zones to one, as it was in 2014, when the B.C. Liberals created a new zone, a second zone in B.C.’s north.

I want to add some context to the discussion, because I do have some experience in farming. I worked on farms as a lad in the Edmonton area. I worked on dairy farms, and I have fond memories of throwing thousands of bales and driving tractor and chasing cows, in rubber boots, and waking up at five in the morning and going out in the misty pasture to get the cows to milk. It was a great time.

I worked for the Minister of Agriculture here in B.C., when I moved to Chilliwack. The Minister of Agriculture is still going strong. Harvey Schroeder is his name. I worked for him for two years, from 1984 to 1986, and I became chief of staff to the Minister of Agriculture federally, in 2006, and I was there for 18 months. So I’ve had hands-on, personal experience, I’ve had some provincial experience, and I’ve had federal experience. So I know a little about agriculture.

Going back to 2006, times were tough on the farm all over Canada. Crop prices were low. There were farm auctions all over the place. Farmers were getting kicked off the land. Farmers were struggling for opportunity.

The very first day on the job as chief of staff, I remember my boss, Chuck Strahl, not even having a grasp on his file yet, had to go outside to speak to a demonstration of about 150 farmers, who were worried, angry that their livelihood was in jeopardy. So he did that, and the officials told us: “By the way, there are going to be several plainclothes police officers in the crowd to make sure that you’re safe.” That was the introduction to the federal scene. It was a bad time.

I remember a meeting of farmers around the table. There were eight or ten of them. They were from the prairies. They were all going broke. They wanted opportunity. At the time, the whole industry was excited about the possibility of biofuels and making crops for energy, and these farmers wanted a biofuels plant. And I remember an older farmer — he was a grizzled guy; he had spent his lifetime outside on the land, a hardened fellow — breaking into tears and saying: “Minister, this is our only hope.”

Well, they got the subsidy. Soon after that, prices began to improve. As chief of staff, I set up a line for farmers, a crisis line that they could call and get information and talk about their problems. In one month, 300 farmers phoned that crisis line. A year later, in the same month, in 2007, we received just 30 calls on that line. So times were better on the farm, as farmers found more opportunity.

But farmers in the west were still looking for opportunity. The wheat board was another similar situation. Farmers had gone to jail seeking opportunity. They would drive over the border with loads of grain, where they could sell their grain at a higher price.

[4:15 p.m.]

The wheat board put shackles on farmers. It didn’t allow them to diversify their crops or put value-added plants in the west, because everybody had to sell everything, all kinds of grain, to the wheat board. So we organized a plebiscite for farmers attached to the wheat board. The Conservative government proceeded to dismantle the wheat board, but it took years. It was a hard thing. It was very ingrained in the culture there. It was only completed in 2012.

After the wheat board, when we got rid of the bureaucracy and the constriction and let farmers put their freedom and their ingenuity and their brains to work, there was success. Big companies invested billions in infrastructure on the prairies, where they didn’t before. The Alberta Wheat Commission said, in the year following the demise of the single desk — the wheat board monopoly — that farmers were paid more for their grain in that year, the first year, than they got from the wheat board. So the removal of the requirements of the wheat board created opportunity for farmers.

Now, I learned a few things about farming as chief of staff to the minister. One thing is that farmers will do just about anything to stay on the land. They’ll take less and less of an income off the farm. They’ll find a job off the farm. They’ll get some extra income. Both husband and wife will often do that. They’ll scrimp here, and they’ll cut corners there. Because it’s a way of life. It’s a matter of pride. It’s a love for the land. It’s a generational thing. It’s about the history of the area. I remember farmers who were in hard times saying: “I’m the sixth generation on the farm, and there’s no way I’m moving. I will find a way to stay.”

We found that there was a pattern on farms. About a third of farms were very prosperous. They were well managed. They were well run. They were forward-looking. They were creative. They used the latest technology, and they were very profitable.

There was about a third of farms who were in the middle. They occupied a middle income and were sort of middle of the road, everything that they did.

Then there was a third of farmers who were on the low end of the scale. They had little education. They were low in technology. There was poor management. Often they were older farmers.

There were two factors that were most relevant that I want to talk about. The more prosperous farms generally had two things going for them.

The first was geography. If you live in southern Canada, you have a better climate — pure and simple. It’s an easier growing time. It’s a longer growing season. It’s easier to make a go of farming in the south.

Consider in the Fraser Valley. You don’t have issues of frost and hail like you do up north. There’s very little snow. So you don’t have to spend time and money guarding against the weather, like you do in B.C.’s north. You can run greenhouses profitably, because you don’t require a lot of heating. You can grow hazelnuts. You can grow berries and vegetables and other more delicate crops — other things that you can’t grow elsewhere.

Where your farm happens to be determines, in no small measure, how well you’ll do. In the Porcupine Plain in the middle of Saskatchewan, the windswept plains, there are not a lot of options for you if you’re a farmer.

I remember my grandfather. He came to Grande Prairie in 1918. One of the reasons was because he was told by recruiting agents: “You can grow oranges in Grande Prairie.” Well, he quickly found out that there were no oranges to be grown in Grande Prairie.

The other factor is how close you live to the city. Near a city, there is much more demand, because that’s where the population is. For example, I have a land-based fish farm in my riding that supplies fresh-fish markets in Vancouver. Well, they’re an hour or two away. A truck will come and take the fish away. A couple of hours later, they’re selling that fish in the fresh-fish market in Vancouver. You can’t do that if you live in Cache Creek.

If you live in Chilliwack, you’re an hour and a half away from the airport or from the Port of Vancouver. You can cut your flowers, your roses, in the greenhouse — I’ve seen that before — in the morning, and you can fly them anywhere in the world that day or take them over the border to Seattle or other places in the States. Chilliwack is located right beside the No. 1 Highway. So greenhouses own dozens of trucks, and they ship their plants everywhere in western Canada, and even out east, through those transport networks, those links that are right there.

Many farmers in Chilliwack have multiple business lines. They’ll raise chickens, but they’ll also do real estate. They’ll build houses. They’ll do some other kind of work. It’s relatively easy, because there’s lots of demand for all kinds of things in the highly populated area of the Fraser Valley. The commute is very short. There are all sorts of natural advantages that make for prosperous farming.

Now, finally, I’m getting to my point about this bill. When you go up north, you have none of these advantages. You may be in a remote location. Because of the growing season, your crop options are very limited. You’re at the mercy of harsh weather — hail in the summer. You might have floods in the spring, early frost in the fall. You might have early snow.

[4:20 p.m.]

You can’t get your crop off until the spring, and then maybe rodents have eaten a lot of it. Maybe it’s poor-quality grain, because it’s been sitting there all winter. There’s lots of risk. It’s just a riskier environment to farm up north.

You’re far from any population centre, from transportation links. You may be at the mercy of the railway. The railway can be notoriously unreliable. There have been many complaints from farmers about the rail access over the years.

You may have to have a very large farm to have large economies of scale to make it pay. That requires big equipment, which is very costly.

There are costs like interest charges for payments on land. There’s diesel and repairs. Fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide costs are all high. All the inputs are high. There are a host of issues that northern farmers have to deal with that southern ones do not.

There’s another major disadvantage, and that is social in nature. You may not have a family doctor within 100 kilometres of where you live. What happens if you have a chronic illness? What happens if you have a medical emergency? Your rural school may have closed. The town nearby is emptying out. The store has closed. Your friends are moving away. And your kids look at your lifestyle. You’re working really hard. They say: “Mom and Dad, you’re working way too hard, but you’re not making any money.”

Are you going to go to the leisure centre and work out in the evening or go for a swim in the Olympic-size swimming pool, like we can do in Chilliwack? No, you’re not. You might have to go and swim in the dugout out back.

There’s social isolation on the farm. That’s why the age of the average farmer today is 55 years old. Young people do not want to take over if there is no opportunity. That’s what we’re about as B.C. Liberals. We’re about creating opportunity for all of B.C., not just the Lower Mainland, not just Vancouver Island, where it’s much easier to make a go of it in agriculture. From top to bottom in B.C., we want to create opportunity.

That’s the reason that we created two zones for the agricultural land reserve. We kept strong restrictions for agriculture in the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan and the Island, where most of the food is produced and where demand for land is high and all the advantages of farming are naturally present. That will not change under this bill.

My constituency was in zone 1 before. It was in zone 1 under the B.C. Liberals, and it will continue to be in zone 1 under this bill. But we recognized the difference in the reality in B.C.’s north and decided that it wasn’t good enough to support the ALR while watching farms and farm families and farmers and farm communities slowly die. That’s not right. We have to do what it takes to make them thrive.

We saw that change was needed, so we created a second zone for the ALR in which we allowed for more flexibility. That flexibility will allow a farmer maybe to put a repair shop on his property or haul water on the side or do some work for the LNG industry, things that would help make the farm viable.

These people are not going to stop farming. Farmers love what they do. They’re going to stay on the farm. They’re looking for opportunity, a way to stay on the farm. They’re going to keep on farming but on a stronger financial footing because they can do some other business as well.

It was hoped that by providing new economic opportunities, we would reverse that trend of farming in B.C.’s north — that people would say: “Hey, I have this other area of expertise. I can make it work in my farm.” Farms could grow and thrive, and farm communities would become more vibrant, and people would move in there. Farm families would remain on the land for future generations. That was the plan of the B.C. Liberals, and it was a good plan.

The NDP are going to suffocate all that. They’re going to place exactly the same restrictions on agricultural land in the Peace River area as they do in the Fraser Valley, where the situation is totally different, just for a talking point, to please voters in the big city down south. They’re going to brag that they’re protecting farmland, while watching the actual farms wither away due to lack of opportunity.

But doing this, the NDP are really going to harm agriculture in the rest of B.C. They’re not going to help it. We won’t see growth in production and exports and technology, and so on. Instead, we’re going to see more of what’s been happening for a generation here in B.C.

For this reason alone, I’m going to be voting against this bill, because I think it stifles opportunity in B.C.’s north. We have to govern for all farmers in B.C., not only for the best places to grow food on the Island and the Lower Mainland and in the Okanagan.

I want to go on to talk about a different issue. I want to talk about a broader ALR. This bill may throw things out of kilter even more, with a sweeping change in defining agricultural land that it plans to set in place.

[4:25 p.m.]

If this bill passes, it appears that agricultural land will no longer consist of the land that has been established historically as part of the agricultural land reserve. Instead, this act will define the agricultural land reserve as “the total of all agricultural land in British Columbia.” What does that mean? We have no idea. We can only use our imagination. It appears that arable, farmable land will suddenly be placed in the ALR. Does this apply to Crown land? We don’t know. Does it apply to private land that is now farmed? We don’t know. Does it apply to private land that is not farmed now but could be used for farming? We have no idea.

Does it mean that if a person with a piece of property not in the ALR, who wants to put a business on the land and is planning to do so, could suddenly be prohibited from starting that business because it’s suddenly swept into the ALR? In that case, people who have valuable land would have their land value plummet, because it can only be put to one use, and perhaps it’s not the best use. It may not be very good for farming for a variety of reasons. I can only imagine the lawsuits against the government in that case.

I take a lesson from history here. In 1972, when the ALR was first created, it was done basically on the back of a napkin. There were, overnight, huge swaths of land placed into the ALR. Basically, public servants went over a map of B.C. with a highlighter and coloured large sections in. There was little attention paid to the quality of soil or the needs of communities or existing farms or other considerations such as that.

As a result, we have spent the last 50 years before the Agricultural Land Commission making adjustments, refinements, to the ALR. For example, a piece of land that was in the ALR may have been all gravel and unsuitable for farming. So then the farmer had to go through the time-consuming and expensive process of trying to get it out so he could make some kind of living off that land. The ALR has employed dozens of consultants and has consumed whole lives and livings.

I’m thinking of one man in Chilliwack. I remember he spent a good deal of his adult life struggling and failing to get land out of the ALR and was finally unsuccessful. It was an enormous life disappointment and a huge financial struggle for him because of that. All of this could start over again in a much larger way.

This cannot be good for B.C. If we are going to try and turn B.C. into some kind of agrarian paradise by government fiat, just by a stroke of a pen, we’re going to constrain choices. We’re going to constrain opportunity for B.C. I don’t support this. Of course, I don’t really know what this means, but I don’t think I can support this as it stands, because it lacks definition. We have no idea what the real intentions of the government are here. But we as opposition will be here to watch when the regulations come out and make sure that they don’t constrain opportunity and choice for British Columbians.

I want to go on to talk about monster homes, because this is an issue in my riding. In my years in Chilliwack, I’ve seen a great deal of change. I first arrived in Chilliwack in 1983. When I first arrived there, there were 25,000 people living in Chilliwack. The town was a bit run down. Tractors would be seen regularly driving on the streets. It was a very rural community.

Today it is hugely different. It has a big town look and feel. The city has 100,000 people in it now, and the environs are even bigger. It’s growing fast. There’s a much more professional look, much more urban feel to the city as older buildings are replaced with new buildings. Empty spaces are filled in with homes and businesses. There are now all the amenities of a larger city, and all of the problems, too, like traffic jams and homelessness and crime. But one of the changes I’ve witnessed over the years is the shrinkage of agricultural land. That can be for several reasons.

I think of what is called the Esau piece. It was a parcel of land by the Trans-Canada Highway, sort of right in the middle of the city, on which corn was grown for as long as I can remember. Well, we put some food processors on that land. We got it out of the ALR because it was related to agricultural production, and they do a great business there. But to access those food processors, we put a road right through the middle of that property. It bisected that land.

Next we hived off some more acres for the Molson brewery that’s going on. Everybody welcomes the brewery. It’s going to use local hops to brew beer there. It’s agriculture related. But now the Esau piece is half gone. Now what do you do with the rest of it? It’s bounded by very busy roads and businesses on two sides, and that’s just the way it works.

[4:30 p.m.]

Perhaps a piece of land is stranded by a subdivision built nearby on land that’s not in the ALR. Who’s going to drive a big piece of equipment on busy city roads for several kilometres to plow that small piece of land and keep it? So we see smaller plots of land that are untended on the outskirts of town, land that is not contiguous to other agricultural land and, therefore, not viable to farm.

It could be that some larger companies are buying land on speculation. They’re hoping that some day it can come out of the ALR, so they just leave it fallow, and they won’t bother to farm it at all.

The city is expanding, so maybe more scrutiny is paid to land that is now in the ALR. The soil is now tested. Perhaps a case can be made for it to be taken out because it’s of low value. Arguments would be made now that would not have been made before, when there was more land available and less demand on that land.

Now the land is rising in value. It’s needed as the city grows, so the land is taken out. It could be that a retired farmer still owns land. Maybe much of his land has been given to his children, so he has subdivided that land. But he doesn’t want to farm what’s left anymore, so that land is just sat on.

Sometimes there are land swaps, in which a piece in the ALR will be swapped for a piece not in the ALR, with the approval of the commission. There are lots of reasons why land within the ALR is not actually farmed.

It’s true that homes in the ALR are getting bigger and more beautiful. Not only are foreign buyers doing this but local ones as well. Our farmers work hard. They’re extremely industrious. They are good farmers. They’re tremendous entrepreneurs. They work hard, and they save, and they want to replace the house on the home plate, and why wouldn’t they do that? You can see bigger and more beautiful homes going up all over the place.

There are also houses that might be built on, say, ten hectares of land. A larger piece may have been purchased, but they take ten acres to build a huge house on it. Maybe they rent out the rest to a local producer. These huge, enormous houses are built on ALR land, and there’s no intention to do anything with that land. They just put it into grass, they keep mowing it, and it becomes a beautiful estate near to the city, with a great view of Mount Cheam.

They have all the advantage of the price of agricultural land, which is much lower than residential land not in the ALR. I’m thinking, in my mind, of a couple of houses right now — monster houses that have just been completed that are both in that situation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The trouble is that just because land is in the ALR doesn’t mean that it has to be farmed. In fact, only 60 percent of the ALR is being farmed right now. So it disturbs me when I see monster houses like that built on ALR land.

I have always been a supporter of the ALR, simply because I think that if the ALR didn’t exist, much of the Fraser Valley now being cultivated would be in housing. It would be a concrete jungle, or it would be acreages.

I must confess that I love agriculture in the valley. It’s still a main economic contributor to our area and a huge part of the culture of Chilliwack. I love the beauty of the countryside that the land reserve offers, and it bothers me to see huge houses being built that have nothing to do with farming, without any intention to farm. It’s a contributing factor to stranded land and less farming being done on the land. It’s creeping urbanization.

I understand that it’s a really difficult issue, because the demand for more housing is so strong. As a way to counteract this, this bill would supersede municipal bylaws concerning the size of homes and arbitrarily limit the size of houses to 500 square metres in total floor area.

I don’t really mind a limit on house size, although every time you do that, I think, it’s an arbitrary thing. Why 500 square metres and not 475 or 525? There’s no reason given. It’s just sort of a back-of-the-envelope thing. I would rather have, and some farmers have suggested this to me…. I would rather have what is called the home plate defined in provincial legislation. This is an area of land on which you could build a home, say, as a percentage of the total. That’s arbitrary, as well, but perhaps less so.

You could allow a person to build whatever size of house they wanted on that home plate. It would essentially mean that a person would have to build upward if they wanted a bigger place, but it would allow them to build the size of place they wanted.

However, I’m not going to quibble about this part. I think my constituents would generally support the idea of limiting the growth of so-called monster homes and estates on agricultural land.

I want to move on to talk about soil and fill removal. I want to address the restrictions in this bill on removing soil and fill. Taken in and of itself, the concept is sound. We don’t want to lose soil, and we don’t want to simply have construction fill brought in to replace good soil on agricultural land.

[4:35 p.m.]

I have a bit of a story here. I have a farmer who told me that he was drilling for water once, and they found water at about 329 feet. That’s on the floor of the valley. The driller said: “Would you let me go further? I want to see where bedrock is. I won’t charge you for it.” So the farmer said: “Sure. Go ahead.”

The driller found bedrock at 600 feet. That means that there’s 600 feet of soil in the Fraser Valley. That’s an enormous amount of soil, and we don’t want to lose that soil.

But the word “soil” is undefined in the legislation. Does it mean contaminated soil? Usually we think of construction waste, poor soil or contaminated soil dumped on prime agricultural land because it’s cheap to do that. No one wants that. But the law doesn’t specify it. Maybe that would be specified in the regulations. It just says: “the removal of soil from, or the placement of fill on, agricultural land.”

I think of nurseries that we have on the valley floor — thousands of plants in the ground. They dig them out of the ground. They sell them with the soil attached. It’s called soil mining. One nursery owner told me that he would buy 700 loads of soil each year to replace soil that was removed along with trees and shrubs and plants that he sold. Would this law apply to that soil? It’s unclear.

I think of emergency situations like flooding. If a farmer had to build a dike in a hurry, would he or she have to apply for a permit and go through the bureaucracy of the ALC in order to put this in place? The law here says that a farmer can’t take action until 60 days after the permit is applied for. His farm could be under water by that time. There are many questions to be answered that, hopefully, would be filled in by regulation.

So to conclude, taken together, the official opposition is troubled by this bill, particularly by combining all areas of the province in one zone. It depends on how it’s administered, but to me, it places the protection of land above the protection of agriculture, which is bad for our future, bad for farming and bad, therefore, for our province.

The threat of a new bureaucratic imposition looms over agriculture in B.C. Soil removal permits all over, new agricultural land admitted arbitrarily to the ALR…. This could be a bureaucratic crackdown, and I fear that agriculture would not thrive under these circumstances. The ALR would be like a weed that chokes the wheat and hampers the growth of productivity, of farmers, of farm families and of farm communities in B.C. For this reason, I’ll be voting against the bill.

C. Oakes: It truly is a privilege today to rise to speak to Bill 52, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. I am a strong advocate for the agricultural sector, as are so many of my colleagues here in this House. It is a sector that has supported my family for generations.

The history of my family in the agricultural sector dates back to when my family immigrated to Minnesota and Nebraska in the early 1800s and joined the wagon trains up to the prairies, settling in Falun, Alberta. Devastated by poor crop conditions in the 1920s, like so many on the prairies, my family moved to Vancouver for a few years.

The story of my family that has been passed on, of living in Vancouver, was one of incredible struggles in the early 1930s, with the Depression looming and significant challenges of finding work. And the challenge of changing lifestyle from living on a farm to moving to the city was significantly difficult. An opportunity came forward in 1933 at a time when railroad homestead grants were being offered during the Depression. My family was provided a great opportunity of accessing one of these grants. We were provided 160 acres, a cow and a tent.

I was raised with incredible stories that have left a profound impact on my life about the good fortune our family had of finding our way to the Cariboo and, more specifically, finding our way to Moose Heights.

[4:40 p.m.]

My great-grandmother, Ida Oakes, would reminisce that the Cariboo was truly the land of abundance. That first year my great-grandmother canned a hundred quarts of wild strawberries. I don’t know if any of you have ever had the experience of picking wild strawberries. They are incredibly tiny, and the terrain is often very difficult.

I reflect on those first years. I’ve said in this House before that my great-grandparents moved to the Cariboo at the same age that I am now. I can only imagine the work and diligence — from building horse barns, hay barns, a granary and everything that my family has the privilege of today, as our family still operates on the original homestead — the tremendous effort, the tremendous work, the incredible pride that my family has had for generations of living in the Cariboo on our family farm.

Over four generations, our family farm has provided my family with an incredible opportunity and lifestyle. My parents were part of a small group that originally brought the feeder breeder program to our region. Meetings were held at our kitchen table, like in so many other communities, where I certainly learned, firsthand, much about the challenges of the sector, as well as the opportunities that producers can face.

While I spent much of my time as a young person with my nose in a book, I must admit that I was not the best farmhand. Often my family had to try and find jobs for me to do, which most often was the gate girl, where I think…. Sometimes I reflect on that strength — when you are responsible for eyeing down a several-thousand-pound bull and trying to get him into a certain pen. Often it’s a little bit like question period, I will admit. I think while I certainly did not recognize the skills that I gained growing up on a farm, I can certainly reflect that I can bring them here to this House.

My parents worked hard and continue to work hard on the farm. When my friends would have holidays in the summer, that was the busiest time for us. Holidays for us were spent in our community, on the farm, with our families and friends. I grew up in Moose Heights, where many generations of our families and cousins all were in the same area. The farming community has provided a solid foundation for our families, for our communities and, above all, for our province.

I provide some details of my family history to provide and highlight both the strengths and the challenges of this sector. The agricultural sector is complex. It is ever changing. It requires hard work and perseverance. It is as varied and different across the province as are the communities that formed around this critical sector.

Bringing in legislation requires a balanced approach. It also requires that any changes made in legislation — or, more critically, the regulation — are thoughtful and well-thought-through. It is this thought that is the kind of balance that this side of the House sought in the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission reforms we introduced in 2014.

[4:45 p.m.]

I can share with this House that a significant amount of time and energy and discussion went into those processes. We created a two-zone approach because we knew that the realities of farming in the Cariboo, the Interior, the north, the Kootenays, to urban settings are very different than the realities across the province.

As we all know, there are significant, different soil conditions in British Columbia. The water varies, as does the weather. I share this story that in my riding we are lucky in some years if we have two months where we do not see snow. So for the men and women who work in the agricultural sector, who farm, it is challenging. It is difficult. It is complex.

If we do not look at ways to provide agricultural diversification, open up value-added opportunities and look to the changing demographic challenges and opportunities, I fear that by the very nature of what we are trying to protect in legislation, we will in fact cause considerable challenge for the farmers themselves to meet the new changes and challenges of our society.

Having lived through two years of wildfires, I’ve witnessed firsthand the tremendous impact it has had on the agricultural sector. What I can also share proudly with this House is how critically important the agricultural sector is when we look at a long-term plan around wildfire-interface community protection plans. Where we had strong agricultural rangelands or properties that were protected by ranchers and farmers, that significantly helped us address the wildfires.

Our community of Quesnel has been working hard with the agricultural working group to look at opportunities to become an agricultural centre of excellence. I think it’s critically important that all of us, when we look at incredible challenges in our lives, look to ways of where we can turn challenges and create opportunities.

With such new bold ideas as agritourism, Moose Meadows Farm in Quesnel has been doing that, and Bouchie Lake has been doing that for many years. We have successful birch syrup operations. We also have sweet treats that do different types of value-added products. Whether you’re looking at incorporating raspberries into a fantastic barbecue sauce…. The list goes on and on.

Our farmers market I am so incredibly proud of, and they have worked diligently and hard for many generations to grow that. I am proud that my family has also been a part of market gardens with Mufford Valley market gardens. As well, the gardeners had market gardens. When you look at food security and you look at the heart and soul that these members have brought to our communities, I want to ensure that on every item of regulation that we look at, it is about strengthening and growing opportunities, not limiting them for our communities.

Rather than look at a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating farmland, I think we need to reflect on the reality, with this bill, maybe taking a step back. In fact, this bill is a clear indication that this government is looking at the land itself, perhaps not the benefits that the land can bring to the ingenuity and efforts of our farmers. This bill throws out of balance, a sweeping change in defining agricultural land…. I know that when we get to committee stage, we will have the opportunity to look at definitions and to look at what the potential regulations may look like. I look forward to that opportunity, because I think it’s important.

[4:50 p.m.]

If this bill passes, agricultural land will no longer consist of the land that has been established as part of the agricultural land reserve. Instead, all agricultural land will be in the ALR. We will have the opportunity to explore and to clarify that further. It represents a broad expansion — one that I think it is critically important, as we go through committee, that we reflect, review and have lots of dialogue and discussion on.

There are two other concerns that we will be exploring in committee stage. I certainly have heard from my community members concerns on the regulation front. While this legislation being brought forward today provides a brief snapshot of what we can look at, it is often, as we know, regulation that can set up the most significant challenges.

We need to ensure that the overlap and the work that was done around the Water Regulation Act strike a balance. We were proud as a government to update, after 40 years, the Water Regulation Act. I can share with the minister that the amount of consultation, the amount of work that went into it, was critically important. I recognize that the NDP government is going back out for consultation, and it is my hope that the needs of farmers and the needs of the agricultural community are reflected in what the government may look at.

I know that in the Cariboo, we often have challenges with water in our area. Concerns have been raised around the requirements around who will be responsible for dams. In regulation, how will we address dugouts? Under regulation, will all dugouts have to be registered? Often, with very good crop management techniques, one moves from pasture to pasture as a producer. I’ve heard some concerns about, with thousands of acres, how those new regulations will be managed and the onerous requirements placed on the producer.

I also would like to raise something that…. As I have talked about, in the 1930s, homestead severance opportunities…. Like so many members in this House, we come from, many of us, multi-generations of farmers. When you travel through the Cariboo, when you travel through Moose Heights, you will often see our families, who have multi-generations on properties.

I grew up with my great-grandparents, my grandparents, my aunt and uncles, and then, if I go down more kilometres, it’s my grandmother’s sister and then it’s all of their family. So for thousands of acres, we are connected with families. I think that is what is unique and so interesting about the agricultural sector. Maybe there are opportunities as we explore legislation and, later, regulation, for how, perhaps, we can open that up again.

In the last year, I’ve had several constituents come forward. With an aging demographic, our average rancher or farmer in our area is in their 70s. So we have an older demographic in the Cariboo. They want to stay on the farm. They want to find an opportunity to sever a small piece, and then have the opportunity for their kids to take over the farm. This is a complicated piece that we need to strike a balance on, because the reality often is, when the children take over some of the ranches, if there’s a divorce or a separation…. Often generational farms get divided in a divorce settlement.

[4:55 p.m.]

That is something, I think, an opportunity, within the regulations that we can look at.

I’m also concerned…. Again, we will have to explore this through the committee stage. But in briefing yesterday with the minister’s staff, the shift from regional panels or removal of regional panels is concerning. I raise this because as complex and unique and different as every part of British Columbia is, I think it is critically important that these regional panels reflect the communities, that they reflect the type of agriculture that is being managed in the area. I think that is something I have heard from my constituents, a concern going forward.

The second thing is regarding the limits of the size of housing on agricultural land. We support the concept, but we do need to get clarity around the size of developments limited. Right now it is based on a total area of the building rather than the actual footprint. What we need to explore in committee is…. It doesn’t make sense if the goal is to protect the land. It is the footprint on the land, and not the area of a multi-storey building, that needs to be restricted.

I go back to my family’s experience. On our farm, it’s from many generations. We have different homes on the property from the ’30s. I know that in many agricultural communities, it’s multi-generations of families that live in one home. If we are looking at multi-storey, I think that is something that we need to explore more in the committee stage.

I think it’s important that families have the opportunities to have grandparents live with them or that perhaps they have aunts and uncles, if that is your family makeup. Having personally benefited growing up with a family very close to me, I think it’s important.

The work is difficult. I certainly can recall during calving season, you are up…. It’s a 24-7 operation. Every member of the family is required to take a shift. So I think for the sector to be viable, we certainly need to look at how you retain and provide opportunities for families to partake in that.

Secondly, the restrictions on removing soil and fill. Again, the concept is sound. We do not want to lose soil, and I thank the minister for bringing this forward. I think we do need to look at certain circumstances, and we can explore in committee situations like flooding or situations that we have gone through around wildfire interface management.

I think we are in interesting times where what we have known to do on the land base in many of our areas is going to change. It is going to change in the sense that as wildfire seasons, as flooding, as the Auditor General talks about the changing nature of our environment…. It needs to be reflected in government legislation.

A farmer may need to use fill or soils on a moment’s notice to save their livelihoods and even their lives against rising waters. If there is no time for an application and approval process in these situations…. Those are concerns that, hopefully, we can find solutions for.

[5:00 p.m.]

In closing, I believe that we all want to ensure a thriving agricultural sector in British Columbia. I want to thank the minister for her passion and her commitment.

I think we need to look at providing opportunity for the next generation and how we support and grow our future farmers, our future producers. I think times are certainly changing. When you look at the importance of food security, I think that is a challenge that we all need to tackle. My concern on this, again, is that if you overregulate or you provide too many roadblocks or barriers, it can sometimes be counterintuitive to the actual growth and opportunities that we all hope to have.

In closing, I hope the next generation — the millennials, the young people in our communities, our children — has every opportunity that I had. I feel so proud to have had the opportunity to have grown up in the agricultural sector. And I hope, as a body, as a Legislature, that we provide sound legislation and sound regulation that, in fact, supports the growth and supports opportunities and, above all, ensures that we continue to have a strong and vibrant agricultural sector with opportunities for all.

S. Gibson: What a pleasure it is to once again rise in this House and speak about an issue that I have a particular affection for, and that’s agriculture. You will know, coming from the Abbotsford-Mission area, that we’ve got a lot of agriculture out our way and a lot of variety. If you drive out Highway 1, if you’re heading upcountry, you’ll pass through my constituency, and you’ll admire the intensity of farming, whether it’s in Hatzic, Matsqui Prairie, Sumas Prairie.

Agriculture is really just a few kilometres east of Vancouver. When people are in Vancouver…. It’s interesting. Sometimes my wife and I will go into Vancouver for dinner. We’ll be in a restaurant, and we’ll talk about Abbotsford, and the folks will say: “Oh, yeah, that’s out the valley there somewhere, isn’t it?” Never having even taken the time to go out to the valley and experience the agriculture that we have.

Before I fully start into that discourse, I think it’s good to remind everyone in the room…. Many of you, many MLAs — through you, hon. Speaker — come from urban ridings. They’re paved over. Probably they were farmed maybe 50, 60, 70 years ago, but they’re all paved over now. So people are looking out to the valley, the Okanagan and the rural areas of Vancouver Island for their provision of foods.

I want to say, in support of the general philosophy of the minister…. I want to acknowledge the passion that the minister does bring to this file. I do appreciate it, and I know it’s appreciated by many farmers.

My wife and I have relatives in California. We think of California as being the breadbasket of North America. It is, indeed, outside the growing season that we have here in B.C., which is much, much briefer, much shorter. But it’s interesting. They live kind of between L.A. and San Diego. Some of you know the Corona area. But Orange County, just north of that…. It’s named Orange County, but it’s all paved over. Orange County is paved over.

When I was a young man, a university student, a bunch of us would often go down to California for those trips that people take, and there was still quite a bit of farming in Orange County. You can’t find much now anymore. And that’s probably the most fertile land. It’s easily irrigated. It’s incredible soil right by the ocean. It can grow stuff year-round there, but it’s paved over. Tragic. A lack of stewardship.

We don’t want to do that here in our province. We want to make sure that we are protecting the land base.

[5:05 p.m.]

As a matter of fact, only 5 percent of British Columbia has arable farmland — just 5 percent. Unfortunately, a lot of it is close to urban areas, such as the eastern Fraser Valley, where I live; or the Saanich Peninsula, where the minister lives; or Kelowna, which faces incredible population pressures. So it’s true. We’ve got to pay particular attention to protecting the fragile resource of our farmland.

One of the benefits that we have in Abbotsford-Mission is great soil, a lot of class 1 and 2 soils, and easily irrigated. There’s water nearby — there’s a lot of the water resource close by — and close to markets as well. The further you get from the greater Vancouver area, it’s tougher, because you’ve got to have the trucking to get the products to market.

In the Fraser Valley and in Delta, a lot of the produce is sold across the border. Large greenhouses, in both my community and, particularly, the hon. member here representing Delta South — a tremendous greenhouse resource, and indeed in Langley and Surrey, as well, and some coming to Chilliwack.

I think it’s interesting to talk for a moment about the great resource that we have in our province. We sometimes forget, and we think: “Well, doesn’t everybody have blueberries?” No, they don’t. In fact, blueberries are number one. If you’ve ever driven through Pitt Meadows, you’ll see a huge resource.

In my riding, I’ve got one. A good friend of mine has a farm and a processing facility. He has 500 acres of blueberry farms in my riding and also in the riding of the hon. member for Abbotsford West as well. He processes right on site. He started with really nothing 40 years ago, and now he’s one of the largest blueberry growers and processors, and shipping all over the world.

Cranberries, No. 1 in all of Canada. I have very few in my riding. Cranberries are predominantly found in the Richmond area, is my understanding. Raspberries, a tremendous resource, No. 1. Cherries, No. 1. Then we go down from there. But we’re pretty well in the top two or three of all produce in Canada right here in British Columbia.

Not far off Highway 11, if you’re going the highway between Abbotsford and Mission — some of you will know that highway — you’ll see a big greenhouse there. It’s run by a friend of mine. He’s a tremendous farmer. He’s growing red peppers, orange peppers and yellow peppers. I think red peppers are 50 percent. I think orange peppers are 30 percent. Then the yellow peppers are 20 percent.

I was surprised that he ships virtually all his crop of peppers to the eastern U.S. They’re fantastic. He gave me a few to try. A brilliant farmer.

I’m reminded, when I talk to these people — as I mention to you now, as we kind of address the topic of the bill — that these people are business people. They take tremendous risks. He took risks farming. I know when I had my little manufacturing company, I took a lot of risks to build that little company up. These guys probably do it on a much larger scale.

Farming is a risky business. It requires a lot of capacity to handle stress. When I look at the legislation that comes forward that the government is proposing, I always look at it through that lens. Is this going to help farmers do a better job?

One of the things…. I know the member for Delta South has talked about young farmers. How do we get young farmers in? Is this legislation going to help young farmers? I don’t know. I’m not sure about that. The minister doesn’t really address that to any great extent.

When I look around my community, whether it’s in Hatzic or Matsqui Prairie, Deroche, Dewdney and some other parts of my riding, as I’m driving around and visiting people who call me, farmers, I’m struck by the fact that the next generation better carry the torch and better be prepared to take it on.

[5:10 p.m.]

I worry that if we create too many obstacles, too many gates that these people, these young farmers, have to get through, they may do something else. We actually see that to some extent in the valley. Some farmers, dairy farmers, unfortunately — their children are not staying with the business, not always, but it might change the business.

Yes, the hon. member from the Cariboo spoke at some length about food security, and I want to echo her remarks. Food security is critical. Just recently I was reading an article that, with the population growth in the world, economists are troubled that we may not have food for everybody if we grow in the continuing population.

Certainly, we are going to help that here in our province, given the amount of different items. We have, I believe, 200 items, Minister, that we grow here. Some of them are just little boutique items, but nonetheless, they are part of our trade. And we ship many of these across the country and, indeed, across the U.S. border.

A little patriotic moment. I shared a little bit about Orange County. We travelled with some relatives into Arizona. We were in Tucson and went into the Safeway store, and there they were — blueberries from Abbotsford, British Columbia. It felt pretty cool. The guy who was working there was a student from B.C. He said: “Oh, no. These ones out in the front are not very good. I’ll get some better ones for you.” So he went down to the cooler and got us some really nice, fresh British Columbia blueberries.

One of the things that we are doing in the province is we’re doing a lot of good training in the farming community. We have the UBC Dairy Education Centre. We have the Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre. The B.C. Ag Council is also involved in different workshops and seminars to ensure that their members do a better job of farming and to give them the tools they need.

At UFV, where I taught for some years…. I didn’t teach agriculture. I taught in the school of business, but I had students in my classes in the school of agriculture who were taking their certificates or diplomas in agriculture. One thing I can tell you, for the benefit of the group here, is agriculture is getting more credibility and more legitimacy and even more prestige as a good career move. We’re seeing that clearly in the valley.

I want to also talk a little bit about the legislation with regard to the four basics that we’re looking at, the focus. I think we need to be careful when we change the definition of “agricultural land.” I think the motive actually has some value, but we have to be careful, because we’re always going to have to have the infrastructure nearby to support the farmland. If you don’t have that, you’re going to get into some challenges.

The two zones that this government, when we were government, set up — I felt that this had some validity. I know it was controversial at the time. Of course, the fact that the government is introducing this as an item to dispense with the two zones…. I think we understand the rationale. However, I want to be cautious when I make this comment.

The second zone in the predominantly inland areas of our province — the north, the Kootenays, etc. — was designed specifically to allow legitimate farmers on large acreages that have a very narrow growing season to do allied, complementary businesses, sited properly on the corner of the land or on the main road, so they can stay on the land. Remember, these lands predominantly are not food lands, but they are grain lands.

I would caution the government to deal with that one really carefully. Up north in the Peace River country and the more remote areas in the Kootenays, the acceptance was fairly strong for this. So I would caution the minister with regard to that.

As far as the footprints for homes, this is already the case in Delta, Langley, Abbotsford and…

Interjection.

[5:15 p.m.]

S. Gibson: …Kelowna. Thank you, hon. Member.

There are four communities where that’s already the case. I think if this is adopted, certainly we’ll have to look at it, how it’s going to be designated. This will come up more as we talk in committee. The caution there is: what about the height of the building? Can we do it in such a way that it is sited so it still benefits the land?

It is true that if you go into the Bradner and Mount Lehman areas of Abbotsford, where I live — that’s not my riding; that’s the member for Abbotsford West — you will notice some very large homes, frankly, built in rural areas. But I would say, as a defence to some extent, that they are often sited on hills or on land that has some topographical constraints — not always.

There’s a large home that I drive by often when I’m going home. I notice that yes, it’s a large home. It probably compromises some of the farming on that property, but it’s not set right on quality farmland. It’s off to one side.

I’d also like to make the suggestion that how the home is sited, how it can be positioned on the property…. I think I would encourage the minister to give that some sensitivity, please. How it can be sited can have an impact on its pernicious impact on the farming use.

The other thing to point out is that in some of these homes, you’ve got a number of family members. In traditional families, you’ll see maybe the mom and dad and two or three kids. But in some of the homes where you have an ethnic diversity, those homes are occupied by quite a few families. So their impact on the farmland may not be as problematic, because they’re already in a larger home.

Madam Minister, I’m sure you’ll see that when you come out into the valley. You’ll notice these homes are often owned by members of different ethnic communities, who are great farmers. Boy, they really make good use of the land. But they like to kind of be together.

So changing the definition of farmland…. With regard to the issue about soil placement — yeah, I think that makes sense. There have been issues. I come off Abbotsford council, as you will know, and we had some situations of, to be blunt, dumping — actually, dumping of really obnoxious materials — in farmland. My understanding is that this is speaking particularly to that kind of thing or else removing soil that otherwise would not be used.

Again, we have to be cautious about this, about how that is done. There are going to be situations where maybe there’s a particular event which requires soil to be removed quite expeditiously. So the legislation needs to be sensitive to that.

I have, in my riding, a very large turf farm, and it’s very successful. I’m hoping that this legislation will not apply to turf farms — I don’t see turf farms mentioned — because this is a very successful business. Turf farms are a real asset to the economic climate of our area.

Really, speaking on behalf of the constituents of Abbotsford-Mission, I’m encouraged by the passion of the minister. I think that she definitely shows an interest in agriculture and is supportive of it.

My closing remarks, really, are these. Agriculture and the business people in farming need to be nurtured, got to be encouraged. If they feel that government is trying to control them or provide more regulations that restrict them, there’s going to be a bit of a push-back.

Now, I say this with respect. The traditional paradigm is that this side of the House tends to be a little more pro-business — I think that’s fair to say — than that side of the House, partly because we have so many business people or ex–business people in our caucus and not quite so many on the government side. That’s not a criticism, particularly. It is an observation.

I want to encourage this government to be sensitive. Think about farmers as business people, realize that it’s a tough investment. It’s very tough to get into farming now. With the land costs increasing, accelerating, our young farmers need every incentive they can get.

[5:20 p.m.]

If the minister can take that into consideration with the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, I would certainly appreciate that, and I know my colleagues here on this side of the House would — remembering that farmers need to be encouraged, not discouraged.

Those are my concluding comments. I wanted to thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak today, and I look forward to further discussion also, at the committee stage.

D. Barnett: I rise today to speak to Bill 52, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. Agriculture is and has always been a critical industry in this province but, more than an industry, a way of life for many and the love of the land.

When I was a child, a couple of days ago, my family had 15 acres in Richmond, near Steveston. We grew everything that we had on our table — fruit trees, our beef, poultry, eggs, milk. We had five acres of strawberries, of which we sold most of them, but Mom and Dad both worked away from our land. This was a way of life, and in those days, in some instances, it was part of your survival. There was no waste, no plastics, no freezers. We canned everything, and Mom had a locker in Steveston that she went to once a week to get our beef and our poultry. From time to time, we were fortunate. We had this lovely cocker spaniel that would go out into the field and bring us a pheasant. Then we had a real treat.

That is a bit of history to the land. Fast forward to 1973. In meeting and talking with ranchers in my riding, they tell me the story of how in 1973, they were at a Cattlemen’s meeting in Kamloops when the Agriculture Minister of the day announced the agricultural land reserve and produced the map — no input or consultation. They’re still in shock, some of them.

There’s lots of history and information on the ALR, and I did find a bit of it, which I would like to read some of into the record.

“The agricultural land reserve is a provincial land use zone that recognizes agriculture as the priority use for the approximately 4.6 percent of the land base of British Columbia. Established under the provincial Land Commission Act of 1973, the ALR is one of the earliest examples in North America using regional zoning laws to permanently preserve farmland and promote local food production.

“The ALR is administered by the Agricultural Land Commission…. The purpose of the ALC is to preserve agricultural land, to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest and to encourage local governments, First Nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws…and non-farm use applications under the Agricultural Land Commission Act of 2002 and ALR regulations.

“ALR regulations outright permit many farming activities, such as raising livestock, creating greenhouses, and producing poultry, dairy, horticultural plants, vegetables, grains and tree fruits. ALR regulations allow local governments to restrict but not prohibit other uses such as farm retail sales, storing, packing and processing, agroforestry, timber production, equestrian facilities and compost production.

“ALR regulations also outline permitted non-farm uses that can be prohibited by local governments, such as agritourism accommodation, temporary sawmills, pet kennels and breeding facilities, education and research and road construction with right-of-way.”

[5:25 p.m.]

The ALR is distributed over six administrative regions — and this is so important; these are both Crown and private lands — in the north, 49 percent; in the Interior, 33 percent; in the Kootenays, 8 percent; in the Okanagan, 5 percent; in the south coast, 3 percent; on the Island, 2 percent. Of the agricultural land in the province, this is how the percentages are broken down.

That is astonishing to me because, where I come from, I guess we would classify it that we’re a little bit in the Interior and in the north. The best agriculture land in British Columbia is on Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland, the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan. That’s the best growing land there is in British Columbia.

Where I come from, we have mostly ranchland. We are 3,500 feet above sea level in much of our area. If you’ve tried to grow much above 3,500 feet above sea level, I wish you much success. A lot of areas have no water, and if you have no water, you are growing nothing on these big acreages. When the previous government decided to look at zone 1 and zone 2 to make it more viable for people who lived in marginal areas where the ALR lands was classified, to help them to stay there, it was a good thing.

We have many, many ranchers all throughout British Columbia, particularly in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region, that are aging and that want their young families to come and take over the farms. It’s very difficult, because they see the way of life that their parents have lived all their lives. They see it’s harder and harder to make money living on a cattle ranch. The regulations that have been put forward in the last few years and the new regulations that may be coming — who knows what the regulations are? — can also be a detriment to these ranchers who have worked so hard all their lives.

It’s not just hard because of this; it’s hard because of the fires. The pine beetle and fires have had an effect on the land base. With many of these ranches — 58 of these ranches in the Cariboo-Chilcotin at this point in time — there is uncertainty for them, due to our being in treaty negotiations with the Northern Secwepemc. Everyone would be happy when it’s done, because we’ll have certainty, but at this point in time, they do not know what will happen to their grazing leases and their tenures. That is of huge concern.

Soil classification is something that I have said, and I believe…. I was mayor of the district of 100 Mile House for years, and we always had to deal with the agricultural land commission if we wanted to take a little piece of land out of the ALR in order to expand our boundaries. To me, the soil classification is so important when you’re determining what agricultural land is.

The soil classifications go from 1 to 7, as anybody who is involved in agriculture well knows. It’s very interesting that most of your 5, 6 and 7 classes are outside of Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland, the valley and the Okanagan. That is where your good land is — 1 to 5. To me, we need to take a good look at the whole agricultural land situation once again in the province of British Columbia. We need to really, really take a look.

[5:30 p.m.]

I fully believe in agriculture. As I said, that’s where my family started. I very seldom eat a strawberry, after being seven and eight years old and weeding strawberries every day of my life. I really am not that interested in strawberries anymore. But I understand the land. I understand agriculture. I understand food for families, and I understand the need to somehow encourage and engage young people to stay on the ranch.

Some of my ranchers have guide-outfitters in their families. Dad and grandpa were guide-outfitters and ranchers, and they still are. Now the son would like to become the rancher and the guide-outfitter. Unfortunately, the guide-outfitters, at this point in time, are out of business in many of our regions, so that takes away some of the incentive to help them stay on the farm. As time goes on, and as I’ve said, through fires and through accessibility to many things because of fires on the ranches, it’s getting more and more difficult.

I would say expanding the use of zone 2 for some of these places that are having such difficult times — to give them the ability to do other little things on a piece of land — may be the answer. It may not be the answer, but I believe that if we are going to encourage young people…. Putting more restrictions is going to only discourage.

I have a lot of concern over this bill. We have a Water Sustainability Act that was put in place by the past government, which was needed. But when I read the act and I see the sentence in there, “Water Sustainability Act…,” and that’s all it says, I wonder what else is going to come down on these ranchers, what more restrictions these ranchers are going to face. This concerns me, because I live with these ranchers. I probably talk to these ranchers more than just about any other industry or business in my region, because they have huge, huge concerns.

I am so concerned that this bill is yet another concentration of power at the cabinet table and away from this Legislature. To use some farm-inspired lingo, the government is once again asking British Columbians to buy a pig in a poke — something where we don’t know what is going to happen at the end of the day. What are the regulations going to be? You know, legislation is one thing. But regulation is really and truly what creates the problems, when we get out on the land base.

The minister says that there will be lots of consultation. Well, I find, from time to time, consultation is only with a few select people. I call consultation talking to the people that live on the land and work on the land, not the people who sit in a school somewhere, not people that sit in the Lower Mainland. The real, true people, the heart and the soul of our land are those that live it, that work it and that raise their families there.

When we take a look at some of rural British Columbia, I am very concerned. At the end of the day, with all the new regulations, with all the pieces of the legislation that are out there, I’m concerned about the future of rural British Columbia. I’m concerned about the future of our farmland, of our ranch land. It isn’t a good feeling.

There are two concerns. The housing, the size of the housing — I believe that is a decision of local governments, always has been. All of a sudden, now it’s a responsibility of the provincial government. We have local governments for a reason. They have their job to do, and the Legislature has its job to do.

When I was in local government, we’d get frustrated every time the provincial government would say: “Well, we’re going to downsize something on you. We’re going to do this. We’re going to do that.” Now the provincial government is going to determine the size of a house. That should not be the provincial government’s responsibility.

You know, it’s based on the total area of the building, rather than the footprint. If you’ve 1,000 acres, maybe the local government should be the one taking a look at it, and saying: “What capacity is there for, actually, farming, and what capacity is there for building?”

[5:35 p.m.]

From time to time, we know the cost of housing. We also know that many families now live together in a home because that’s all they can afford when they’re young. Many families these days look after their parents who are elderly. They wish to keep them at home and look after them and make sure they have all the comforts of life. Once again, that is something that local governments should be looking at, not the provincial government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is a big concern to me, of much concern. I would hope that the minister…. I know she’s passionate about agriculture. We all are compassionate about agriculture, because without agriculture, none of us would be here today and our future would not look very bright.

Making it more restrictive, as I see this bill will…. More regulations. I really wish the minister would come with me for a couple days to a couple ranches and just see exactly what kind of restrictions they have now, what kind of regulations they have, what kind of paperwork they have. It is amazing.

I know, from this side of the House, we put a lot of those regulations in place. Quite often I get beat up because of them, but that’s how it is. But we need no more. If anything, we need more autonomy at the level of those who live on the land. We need the agricultural land commissions to be regional, as they were. Local input. Local people know what the land is like. They know whether it’s good growing land or whether it’s a piece of rock with no water.

In my time, I have seen so many pieces of land in the Cariboo-Chilcotin applied for to get out of the agricultural land reserve, and it has not…. And there’s absolutely nothing that you can do with it. You can’t even graze on it — not a thing you can do with it.

So more regulation is not needed. Changes as stringent as there are in this act need to be second-looked at, I would hope, in committee stage.

I’m sure, in committee stage, that there will be lots of questions asked. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say in committee stage and hope that some changes can be made after committee stage and much more input.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I know it’s only 20 to six, but if you wish, I will adjourn the debate, or I will turn it over to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker: The member is adjourning the debate?

D. Barnett: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to reserve your right to speak again?

D. Barnett: Yes.

D. Barnett moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. R. Fleming moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, November 19, at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:39 p.m.