Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 21, Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

[3:00 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — FOREST AND RANGE
PRACTICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that Bill 21, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019, be read a second time.

The proposed amendments in the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019, will restore public confidence in how B.C.’s forests and ranges are managed. We’re responding to feedback received over the past decade about the need to do things differently in the woods and on the range.

Once in effect, these amendments will be the first major amendments to the act and regulations since they came into effect in 2004. That’s 15 years where there were supposed to be reviews and potential amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act that were never done.

Much has changed in those 15 years. The efforts of our government on reconciliation are a good example of what’s happened in the last 20 months, but there have been successive court cases that have reinforced the First Nations interests in the forest. Also, there have been many changes on the landscape in the last 15 years around catastrophic natural events, whether it’s been the pine beetle infestation in the Interior, whether it’s been wildfires around the province.

These are all events and situations that needed to be considered in any review or amendments under the Forest and Range Practices Act, and it was never done. It was meant to be done. It was never done, and I’m happy that we’re introducing these amendments as a first step today.

There are over 55 million hectares of Crown forest land in B.C., over 140 forest stewardship plans and over 1,475 range use plans. The changes that we’re proposing in this amendment will create more frequent and reliable opportunities for public input, improve information-sharing and forestry planning, strengthen government’s ability to manage forest activity by restoring some specific powers to government, expand the definition of “wildlife” in the act to help protect at-risk species and improve and streamline range use planning.

More opportunities for public review and comment will be created by requiring the replacement of forest stewardship plans every five years and woodlot licence plans every ten years. We know that under the current act, forest stewardship plans can be extended, and some of these plans have been extended twice. In other words, a forest stewardship plan has been in place for 15 years without reconsideration. This will make sure that plans have to be resubmitted every five years.

In the event of catastrophic damage, such as wildfire, a licensee will need to update a forest stewardship plan and submit it to government for approval within six months, making these plans more responsive to changes on the land base. We’ve heard feedback from numerous sources on this, whether it’s the Forest Practices Board, Union of B.C. Municipalities, First Nations or concerned citizens, that we have to be more responsive to these kinds of events on the land base when it comes to planning forest activities through things like the forest stewardship plans. These amendments will make sure that happens.

Another new requirement is for forest companies to produce a forest operations map that includes the approximate proposed locations of proposed cutblocks and roads. This map is to be made publicly available and will be subject to review and comment by interested parties, including First Nations, the public and other tenured resource users. A forest operations map must be completed before a licensee can apply for a cutting or road permit.

Again, this is in response to people really wanting to know what’s going on in their own backyards when it comes to the forest resources. Of course, having some information and knowledge about that, about the approximate proposed locations of cutblocks and roads, will definitely lead to people being able to understand what’s going on in their own backyards and potentially lead to less conflict about those plans.

[3:05 p.m.]

The worst thing is when people are uninformed and don’t know where those kinds of activities will occur on the land base. That’s happening because we haven’t had a review or amendments to the Forest Practices Act since its inception in 2004. The map will help those who are potentially affected to understand where road building and logging will occur.

Another amendment will expand the definition of wildlife in the act to align with the definition under the Wildlife Act and allow for the protection of ecological communities. Currently, only animals are identified.

Changes will also ensure that the Forest and Range Practices Act and regulations regime uses consistent terminology for at-risk species — either endangered, threatened or of special concern. The expanded definition comes into effect April 1, once the bill receives royal assent, and all other amendments will come into effect by regulation.

The ministry will also be able to vary or suspend an operation plan, a forest or a range practice, or a cutting or road permit where it may unjustifiably infringe on an Aboriginal right or title.

The changes being introduced today respond to feedback, as I said already, and insights received over the last decade from First Nations, the Forest Practices Board, the forest industry, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the ministry’s forest and range evaluation program. It will bring back improved oversight by government on a publicly held natural resource, and that’s the forest.

We’re also improving and streamlining the range use planning. The range stewardship plan is being eliminated and range use plans will be managed through an online platform. As well, the term of a range use plan will be aligned with that of the range agreement to improve administrative efficiencies. Currently, range use plans are there for a term of five years, with a possible extension of five years. Range agreements are in the form of a licence for 15 to 25 years or a permit for one to ten years.

Together these amendments will put land first by making sure government is in the driver’s seat when it comes to Crown tenures and other land use decisions. The initial changes to the act will be followed, over the next two years, by more substantive changes, which will be informed by a public consultation later this spring.

For that, I’ll wrap up my comments on second reading. I look forward to hearing comments and the perspectives of all members of this Legislature who choose to partake in second reading debate.

J. Rustad: I’m pleased today to have an opportunity to stand up and respond to Bill 21. After going through a number of days of estimates with the Minister of Forests, it seems like we’re right back at it again, only a little bit different perspective. It’s good. It’s good to have these discussions, and it’s good to be thinking about this.

When I look at the act, and I looked through this…. My initial reaction on the act is one of: “You know, it seems reasonable. It seems like we could support it.” But there are some questions that need to be asked, and I need to be convinced that this act will actually be able to help our industries, whether it’s forestry or whether it is agriculture. There’s a process that we’ll go through, of course, as we go through second reading, but also, in particular, when we get to the committee stage of the bill.

One of the things that the minister was just talking about, I find interesting, in that there would be a requirement upon the industry to update the plans on the land base if there’s a fire in the area. If there’s a fire of significance in the area, they’ll have to go and redo their stewardship plan, and they have to do it within six months.

Well, first of all, that’s very challenging, in that a fire isn’t necessarily out until the fall. It’s tough to get in to do the kind of work that you need to do over the winter. But more importantly, I find it really curious, in that that requirement isn’t on the chief forester, in terms of updating their information for the area. The company has to look at it, but perhaps the government doesn’t. It’d be interesting to know why the minister thinks that, as we get into the committee stage.

When I look at the bill and I think about my community and communities much like the one that I live in and the ones that I represent, forestry is an important part. In over 140 communities across the province, forestry plays a significant role. It supports lands. It supports our families. It supports our communities. Not just forestry but also agriculture and range — they’re very important components. Any changes to these components, to the base factor that makes these industries work, people have an interest in. They want to know.

[3:10 p.m.]

I find it interesting. One of the questions I’ll be having in committee stage with the minister…. There doesn’t seem to have been a lot of consultation or engagement, particularly with the ranchers, when they talked about the changes to the range plans. I’m curious as to why that hasn’t happened. The minister says that there’ll be lots of consultation going forward into phase 2, but I’m wondering why there wasn’t an indication or an engagement that allowed people to be more comfortable with what this was, prior to this bill being introduced in the Legislature.

When you think about our land base and you think about everything that needs to be done, we’re looking for a balance. We have to balance between wildlife, the values that we have out there, the biodiversity on our land base as well as, of course, water, recreation, forestry and agriculture — all of these types of things. For us, of course, living in British Columbia, we live this. We understand the balance, and we understand the needs that need to be put in place.

When I look at the plan, overall…. Like I say, it’s something that I look at and think: “Well maybe it can be supported.” But I find it also curious when the minister says he’s looking for more public input. People have been talking to him about, particularly, the forest stewardship plans and the need to be able to renew these every five years.

I’ve had the honour of representing Nechako Lakes for 14 years now, and it truly is an honour to bring forward the issues that come up in my riding. My riding is very dependent upon forestry; there are many mills throughout the area and activities.

I find it curious that in that 14 years, I’ve never had one person come into my office and ask me about a forest stewardship plan or the need to have opportunity for input. So I actually asked the companies in my area. I said: “When you put your forest stewardship plans out for public input, how much input do you get back? How many comments and questions came back?”

One of the people said to me: “Well, they managed to bring out, you know, their wife and children and a few friends so that they’ve got at least somebody to sign up on the sheets when the public comes in, because nobody else seems to come in and engage on these.”

I’m wondering where this drive is to do this renewal of these plans every five years, as opposed to allowing it to be able to be extended out for periods of time. Like I say, I’m sure there’s a reasonable rationale for it. I’ll be interested in exploring that with the minister as we go into the committee stage.

Range plans and that side…. I talked to some ranchers about this going into the second reading debate, and I asked them what their thoughts were on it. What they said, actually, was interesting. It’s that the range stewardship plans weren’t really being used and that they’re being eliminated, I believe, in this bill, if I have that right.

They weren’t really used, although range plans…. Of course, as the minister said, there are close to 1,500 of these. But the range stewardship plan was a tool that, actually, ministry staff were using to be able to help with ranchers and move through things. So I’m curious as to that particular tool or that flexibility that, in some places, the range managers were able to help ranchers in going through that. I’m curious whether that type of flexibility will still be there or whether those options and components will be gone.

I think one of the things that I look at in this bill — and it’s disturbing — is this continuous pattern that a lot of the questions will be answered through regulations. The intent and the full exposure of this is not transparent. We fought on the LNG bill that came in. We fought for one very good purpose: that there needed to be transparency, that the agreement needed to be out in the public and transparent so that people could see what’s going on. What’s the intent of the ministry? What is it that they’re trying to achieve through this?

By going to more of this work through regulations…. It’s just another example of the government deciding that they don’t want to necessarily reveal this out front and have that fuller engagement. We’re seeing that in spades, of course, with caribou and the caribou management plans which, of course, were a large focus of question period today.

It’s disturbing. It’s very disturbing, because we want to be able to have that transparency. People on the land base, people that depend on our land base, whether it’s for agriculture or forestry, need to see that transparency and understand what it is that the ministry and this government are trying to achieve.

The other thing that I’m concerned about is when you look at these requirements for renewal on these plans every five years or every six months…. If there’s a fire in the area…. Madam Speaker, as you’re probably well aware, over the last two years, there have been very, very significant fires across the province, not just in large-scale fires but the number of fires across the province.

[3:15 p.m.]

If we’re going to have companies having to go in and update their plans every six months, this is a tremendous amount of cost that comes onto the companies and a burden — time for engagement and the whole process. We’re already looking at an industry right now that’s struggling. Lumber prices are $340 U.S. or below. Many companies have come to me and said that their break-even is close to $400 now because of all the additional costs and uncertainty that have been layered on by this government, as well as high stum­page and the softwood lumber challenges.

This layer of uncertainty, this layer of additional cost, is going to have an impact. It will make things tougher for companies to be able to operate. Now, I think we all want transparency, and we all want an opportunity for input and process. But when you look at the fact that there has been very little engagement or process when opportunities are there, but we’re adding yet more requirements and more engagement and more process…. All that is, is adding red tape and cost, making things less competitive. It’s not actually achieving, I think, what the minister wants to try to achieve.

I’m just wondering, like I say: where is this being driven from? What is the purpose that the ministry is trying to get to? I think the minister agrees that forestry is a vital component. It’s important, I know, for the communities that he has, that he represents in his riding, as it is for many of us here in this Legislature.

As we go through the committee stage on this bill, I think there certainly will be some interesting questions and discussions as we go through. Ultimately, that will lead to whether or not our side of the Legislature supports the changes that the ministry is planning to do in this bill.

As I mention when I talk about flexibility for ranchers and the process that they go through, you know, many ranchers…. I don’t know, Madam Speaker, if you had that opportunity…. I know the minister has probably had that opportunity. But many people who work on the land base work long days. They have, I guess, a challenge with doing paperwork, going through the process, going through these types of engagements, and that’s a concern. Are we adding more burden on to these people who are trying to raise the food that we eat or are trying to scratch a living out on the land base and are also so important for communities like mine, like Vanderhoof, and so many others that have that as an important component?

Like I say, I’m just wondering if the minister is concerned about adding some layers of potential paperwork and other components that need to be done by these ranchers and sort of what the reasoning is and the thinking behind wanting to do that. Concerns that ranchers have been raising with me, with having to engage personally with First Nations on things like being able to do a dugout for watering or wells or these types of things…. This is just adding to their angst in terms of: what is it that we’re expecting ranchers to do to be able to continue on with utilizing range and utilizing our land base?

You look at this, and you look at all of these components that are being added up. It’s the reason for asking: why is so much of this going to be done through regulation?

When I looked at the visual quality objectives…. I was working in the industry in the 1990s when visual quality objectives were first brought in. We sort of looked at it. It all made sense, and it was all nice because we thought of the world as a static world. The landscape is dynamic. It changes. We have seen that dramatic change across the landscape now because of mountain pine beetle.

Many of those areas that are visual quality objectives are dead. Trees are falling down, they’re fire hazards, and they’re close to communities. They need to be able to go in and to do something in those areas. Will this be able to provide the flexibility that is needed to do that so that communities can protect their communities against the potential of wildfires, so that we can get young and healthy forest growing back in these areas that have such restrictions on them in terms of the ability to be able to harvest and to go in and to be able to replant?

I’m just wondering: are the changes in this act designed to be able to help with that problem, or are they actually going to hinder with that problem?

Similarly, when I look at the issue of invasive plants and the requirements in terms of going out and doing assessments and the work that may need to be done, talking to ranchers…. I mean, for invasive plants, there’s so much spread of weeds that come from migratory birds, that come from people out recreating on ATVs and other things that are taking seeds along with them unknowingly. This happens on the land base.

[3:20 p.m.]

Will we end up downloading costs now to ranchers having to manage these sorts of things on the range when it might not even be their issue? It might be something that is brought on from outside. So it does end up being a downloading from the government onto ranchers, onto people who are operating on the land base.

Once again, I believe that as this particular component goes through, it’s going to be driven more in regulations afterwards. So it’s a big question mark: how will all these things work? Certainly, if it’s going to be a downloading of costs and a burden onto ranchers that are price-takers — they struggle to be able to carry on with what they’re doing — I can’t support that.

Clearly, we want to see a healthy landscape. If there are weeds, weed issues, we want to be able to go through and make sure that the work is being done. I think that both sides of this House would like to see that. I guess the question is: will this end up being downloading, or will this be a partnership and resources that government will bring to bear in terms of their role in managing the landscape?

After all, 95 percent of the landscape in this province is Crown-owned, and the Crown should have a responsibility in terms of stepping up to the plate and being able to make sure those are looked after properly.

Once again, like I say, there are many details to come in terms of how this process will go. I have these fears about what is going to come through regulation and the process. Hopefully, we’ll get a sense of that through the committee stage. Hopefully, it won’t have to go to a process that ends up like the mountain caribou, with people starting to protest and coming out with concerns because the plan is already done.

Hopefully, there will be that opportunity for the engagement and process, and we’ll get a good sense of that as we go in and through this. In the end, Victoria-driven regulations imposed down on these without the engagement, without the study and work and considerations for the people and the communities is not a good approach. It’s a bad approach. It’s the wrong approach.

You need to be able to work with the people. You need to be able to make sure that the farmers and ranchers, the forestry professionals, the people in communities have an opportunity to engage so that we can have healthy ideas that help to support what we all want to see, which is not just a healthy forest for all the biodiversity issues we have but healthy communities and healthy families.

With that, I look forward to raising these concerns during committee stage as well as hearing what other members contribute to this debate.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 21, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act.

British Columbia has long been known as the province of hewers of wood and drawers of water. We’ve all seen the famous turn-of-the-century photographs of gigantic trees being logged. For generations, forestry has supported thousands of families in the province, just as for thousands of years our forests have, in turn, nourished the environment that we all depend on.

Our forests are no longer what they once were. Mills have closed. Jobs have been lost. And our forests are not being managed sustainably. Every year more and more of them go up in flames or succumb to pests. Every year forests that have been logged without proper review jeopardize community watersheds, endanger species, harm the local ecosystems and dump more carbon into our atmosphere.

The state of affairs has gone on for far too long, and the legislation before us today is overdue. As legislators, we have a duty to protect the public interest, not just for today but for generations to come. And it is with that in mind that I speak to this act today.

I’d like to begin by revisiting the Haddock report on professional reliance, which emerged in response to the systemic mismanagement of public resources. The review, published last summer, outlined in great detail the challenges that we face and provided 121 recommendations on how we can address them.

A significant portion of this review was dedicated solely to the forestry sector. Mark Haddock found that the Forest and Range Practices Act “is a somewhat unique approach to professional reliance…. Government’s reliance on forest tenure holders is much higher than in other natural resource legislation.” In other words, although the other natural resource sectors were already placing too much reliance on proponents to uphold the public interest, this was especially prominent in forestry.

[3:25 p.m.]

Mark Haddock found that this reliance was based on four key factors. The information submitted to the government about decisions on the land base was limited. There were also limitations on the discretionary authority of decision-makers when approving plans and making orders. So the people charged in government with protecting the public interest were meant to do so with limited information and with limited available tools.

The requirement for approvals for cutblocks and forest roads has been eliminated. Finally, the practice of tenure holders retaining and relying upon the opinions of a professional service was greater than in other sectors.

Mark Haddock summarized these factors with a statement from the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals. “Government should retain the authority to determine how resources are utilized and give clear, timely direction to professionals and resource users.”

It is clear that the status quo in B.C. forests was putting the public interest at immense risk by minimizing oversight and allowing companies to essentially self-police. The environmental, cultural and economic values that British Columbians care about have been compromised.

I do want to respond to the member for Nechako Lakes, who said that he’s questioning the need for increased input and that he has noticed very little input when opportunities have been provided. I’ve actually experienced the opposite. I’ve heard numerous stories from concerned communities across the province that they have gone on a walk one day to find tags on trees. They have found out too little, too late about what is going on in their community.

In Ymir, for example, logging decisions in the community have put their watershed into jeopardy. The decision to log had not taken into account how valuable the forest is to their very small drinking water watershed, and it hadn’t given them the heads-up. I understand they are in consultation now. However, they still fret deeply for the well-being of their drinking watershed and the future of their community. In the Kootenays, residents displaced by last year’s flooding wonder if logging in the region contributed to the severity of the waters that took their homes.

I had a conversation yesterday with Karen, who lives in Youbou. She’s deeply concerned about the proposed logging on the slopes above the town, worried about the impacts to drinking water, the impacts to water storage. Cowichan Lake is now sitting at 28 percent of its regular levels, and we’re in April, not August.

The questions that communities have, that people have, about decisions being made on our land base are actually numerous. I hear about them all the time.

It isn’t helping the bottom line of foresters either. Mills are closing as logs are exported in raw form. It would appear the system is benefiting very few. That’s why the amendment act on the table today is an important step in the right direction. By creating more frequent opportunities for public input, communities will be able to review and comment on forestry plans.

This review and comment period will reoccur each time a forest stewardship plan or woodlot licence is replaced, and that must happen every five to ten years respectively. In this way, if anything significant changes on the land base — for instance, if a watershed becomes critically endangered — those impacted could let government and licensees know.

Licensees will also be required to share a forest operations map containing approximate locations of proposed developments such as cutblocks and roads. These maps will also be subject to review and comment, and review and comment must be completed before the licensee can apply for permits to cut or build. No longer can logging roads be begun or cutblocks harvested without anybody knowing.

The change in language that includes protection for ecological communities marks a shift towards a more holistic way of evaluating the ecosystems in question. It is not enough to look at one species in a vacuum. Everything is interrelated, and that is a fundamental piece that our decision-making process has been lacking.

Of course, we’ll see in time if this legislation has been effective. If we are allowing public engagement with natural resource decisions, we need assurance that the feedback given to proponents and to government will actually be taken into account. It’s the difference between meaningful consultation and a rubber stamp.

If a community says, “No way. This will take away our clean water,” then something needs to be done to address that. That remains my most fundamental concern with this piece of legislation. Public review and comment must be meaningful.

There’s a lot more to be done before we can rest easy and know that our resources are being managed with the best interests of British Columbians — present and, most importantly, future — at heart.

[3:30 p.m.]

On Vancouver Island, for example, 90 percent of the productive old-growth forests have been logged, and we’ve heard from the ministry that they have no intention of stopping. People are relying on those forests for everything from cultural significance to tourism to carbon sequestration and ecosystem services. We need to recognize and calculate those values. Old growth is far more valuable standing than it is exported as raw logs.

We’ve headed into another fire season. It’s already begun. I’m worried. I dread another dry summer shrouded in smoke, yet that’s what we’re expecting. On a hike just a few weeks ago off the Malahat in coastal rainforest, the forest was so dry that branches snapped off in my hands. Underneath my feet, the ground literally crackled.

My colleagues and I recognize the significance of the legislation before us today. We’re supportive of the shift towards transparency and oversight in our forests. But in many ways, we also know that this government often fails to consider long-term impacts. I’ve quoted Greta Thunberg many times, but her words come to mind again: “You only talk about moving forward with the same bad ideas that got us into this mess, even when the only sensible thing to do is pull the emergency brake.”

This legislation is good. It’s improving forest management in B.C. But it’s a far cry from emergency action that we so desperately need. We are in an emergency. Summers are hotter and drier. Droughts are more severe. Impacts from climate change are growing more extreme, and our forests in B.C. are net emitters of carbon.

What we need is a new vision for our forests in B.C. — a vision that creates sustainable, healthy ecosystems and sustainable, healthy communities, a vision that ensures long-term employment, not just in harvesting and milling but in innovative, value-added products that will help to create an economy that serves B.C. communities.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise to make a few comments, as well, on the bill that’s before us — Bill 21, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act. I will echo the comments of my colleague from Nechako Lakes in providing the comments here.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

As was pointed out and as was pointed out in the minister’s release in bringing the amendments forward, our forests and our rangelands really are the heart of British Columbia’s rural economy, one of the foundational sectors and economic contributors in our rural economy, along with other sectors like agriculture, which I know we’re going to be talking about at length, probably, in the not too distant future. These lands, both forest lands and ranch lands, support families, support communities — 140 forest-dependent communities, 140,000 jobs.

It’s important to note that of our vast province — 95 million hectares in total area — forested land is 55 million hectares of that, and our timber-harvesting land base is 22 million hectares. The annual harvest from that timber-harvesting land base is about 200,000 hectares. About 1 percent annually is harvested. That was noted in the minister’s press release and background information in bringing forward the amendments.

An important point that was also in the release was the fact that over 50 million, approximately 52 million, hectares in British Columbia are certified to one of three international forest management standards, independent standards. That’s more than any other jurisdiction in the world, apart from Canada as a whole. So as a whole, our forest management regime has been put to those standards and operates with a long-term, sustainable approach.

[3:35 p.m.]

That’s the context of the amendments that are being brought forward. As my colleague said, there are certainly elements of the bill in front of us today that we support.

One of the key processes here will be the committee stage, because so much of what is being brought forward is in the legislative side of it. So much of it is left to regulation — and implementation and appropriate consultation in developing those regulations.

I can recall, as I’ve said previously, being the minister on the other side of the equation on these issues and being roundly criticized by the members opposite for leaving so much in regulation and not having the transparency and the processes into the legislation on everything we brought forward — particularly on many of the forest statutes amendment acts and forest legislation that we brought forward, having that criticism. Now we see, in this bill, many, many elements that are being left for regulation.

You look at the areas in here that are left to the regulatory steps. Amendments in the plan, in prescribed circumstances, will be set out in regulation: regulations concerning forest operation maps that determine form and content; working times by regulation; visual quality moving to requirement and regulation, rather than the current process around setting out objectives to be achieved; regulation around determining and defining the ecological communities and how they’ll be employed; regulations for the details, as was mentioned by my colleague, on the invasive plant component of this — the prevention requirements, the mitigation. All of those elements are left to regulation.

That will be the key area that has to be pursued in the committee stage. One of the concerns that I know we will want to pursue in the committee stage is: just how much additional regulation, how much additional cost, how much additional requirements — in terms of cost, time and processes — do these amendments result in and that industry will have to work with and comply with? That will be the key part of this.

We, and I, certainly support the need for ensuring that there are the processes for public input into the stewardship plans and those processes. The desire to increase the public involvement and consultation in those processes, I think, is an approach that can be supported. It certainly responds to many of the recommendations from the Forest Practices Board previously.

Just to recognize the Forest Practices Board. If you look through all of their audits and work and investigations and everything that they’ve done, which is extensive, in the greatest percentage of all of the investigations, even those that come through the complaints process, it’s found that the companies, the licensees, the B.C. Timber Sales, the woodlots, the community forests are operating in compliance and with good forestry practices and good stewardship practices.

We have to acknowledge that. But that doesn’t mean that there can’t be improvements in the engagement process, improvements in ensuring the public input is there, because that is part of ensuring the understanding of what the industry is doing, what it means in terms of economic benefits for those communities.

[3:40 p.m.]

We will need to look at how we assess the regulatory im­pact of the amendments that are in this legislation. Also, we need to recognize, as we do that, that as the release pointed out, this is only step 1 of where further amendments and changes maybe come.

This is, as was pointed out, a preliminary set of amendments. So we know that there will be more steps taken, more steps in responding to recommendations that have come forward in the processes. We have to make sure that we will be comfortable with how these initial steps play out, recognizing that down the road, there will be further adjustments and further changes.

The desire to increase public involvement and consultation I think is the right step. Some of the changes in terms of the range use plans, aligning with range agreements, cross-ministry coordination and arrangements there…. I get the sense, in reading the legislation currently, that much of that is administrative in nature in terms of administrative efficiencies. But we will need to make sure that that intent, as it might appear there, actually does achieve those efficiencies while maintaining that flexibility of operations for our ranchers and our cattlemen.

That’ll be the key process. The real challenge is to make sure that this isn’t an additional red-tape burden on the industry. The industry remembers all too well the forest practices code, the mountains and the stacks of regulatory processes and forms that they had to go through under that forest practices code. So we’ll be ensuring, through the committee stage process, that this is not the beginning of the return to that kind of situation.

As the industry faces challenges in the processes that are underway for coastal revitalization and Interior revitalization — addressing the declining timber supply, increasing costs, the lack of a softwood lumber agreement…. It’s making sure that the industry, through all of this — both in the forest sector and in the cattle sector, which will be a key part of this as well — can remain competitive.

They are competing in a globally competitive market, so we need to make sure that this is not adding a process and layering of costs on the industry and that it’s not bringing a prescriptive “Victoria knows best” approach and bringing it down onto those operations and those families that depend on both forestry and ranching out in those rural economies.

The other key, and the concerns I’ve heard from the sector on it, is having an appropriate level of consultation in developing the regulations and the implementation of this, given some of what they’re seeing in terms of consultation processes currently underway — the example of what we just spent a significant amount of time in question period today on, in terms the caribou recovery process, coming in and bringing in those consultation processes too late in the process.

When we were working through the plans and the elements that were being pursued, we had everybody at the table working on those — everybody in the community, all the stakeholders, First Nations at the table.

[3:45 p.m.]

We will need to make sure that the regulations, and that significant list of regulation areas that I listed, are done in a way that is consultative and engaging with industry in the process, and with cattlemen.

I did talk to the Cattlemen’s Association. They recognize the administrative efficiency changes here, but they also did flag, certainly, the concerns around wanting to make sure that there was an ongoing, appropriate level of consultation through the range branch and the range staff within the minister’s staff, and organization through the range branch.

Again, as pointed out by my colleague, we will look to address much of the concerns or the implications of these changes as we go through committee stage, to make sure it achieves that objective of ensuring ongoing sustainable forest management — which, as I pointed out, the industry is known for and takes very seriously and responsibly — balanced against what are the increased processes and burdens these changes may bring, and to make sure that what is put in place helps and enhances the industry, helps create that awareness and ability to operate on the timber harvesting land base throughout the province, and not something that impacts their competitiveness and adds a significant cost to their operations.

I’m sure, as the minister knows, he is hearing from the industry of all the challenges and the increasing costs in many areas — the regulation, the taxation side of it — all up against a very, very globally competitive market, with prices that are currently causing challenges within the sector.

With those comments, I appreciate the opportunity to provide those few comments of perspective and will look forward to carrying on and listening to the committee stage on the bill. I think when you look at amendments like this, it really is the committee stage where you get to the heart of what it is intended to do and how that’s going to be implemented and developed and how the industry will be able to see their operations fit into the changes.

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to hearing further perspectives and further consideration of this bill as it moves into the next stage.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very pleased to be able to add just a few comments about this bill, the amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

The member opposite, the member for Kelowna-Mission, as a former minister, would have known and heard me stand up many times, when I was in opposition, to rail against the previous government’s approaches to forestry. What this bill does and what our government is doing really does redress some of the problems that were created over the last number of years.

Representing a forest-dependent community in the north Island…. It really is a forest-dependent community. We saw mills close over the years when we were in opposition and the opposition was in government. We saw huge changes to the way forestry was done.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think one of the most exciting things about this, which is an essential part of the coast forest sector revitalization that was announced back at the truck loggers convention in January by the Premier, is that it brings back the real sense of public ownership and public oversight for our Crown lands.

I represent a constituency that has…. Most of the forest lands are Crown lands. There’s a small area around Campbell River which is private forest lands, largely run by TimberWest. Much of the rest is public lands, and the company that has the licence there is Western Forest Products. They have been working for many years in a way which has not been regarded by communities as responsible. There has been a sense that the communities have not had what they need. They’ve not had either the oversight or the access to the resource.

This legislation will start to make changes to that. It will start to make sure that that oversight by the community, the public oversight, is back and that people can examine what is happening. Whether it is a road, a full cutblock or the five-year plan, that people can actually see what’s happening.

I’ve had many people in my constituency over the last number of years, people who run tourism operations, who are extraordinarily concerned about the lack of consultation when logging companies are moving in. People who work in the bush are seeing what has been happening and are concerned about that, but had no way to express those concerns. This will really make major changes to that. It will really, I think, restore the public trust in how our forests are managed.

I know that the opposition is worried about micromanaging and piles and piles of texts. When I was first running for my job as the representative of the north island, I heard: “This was great. This was bad.” There were piles and piles of texts, and I hear the opposition saying this. But the real part of this legislation is to make sure that the land is the land and our resource, the public resource, the resource that should benefit everyone.

By putting the land first…. It’s to make sure that the government is the one that is there when it comes to Crown tenures and land use decisions. And the government not working alone. We are a government that is committed to reconciliation, so it’s a government working with Indigenous communities, working with First Nations.

Again, I have a number of Indigenous communities in the constituency who all also want to have that ability to have access to the resource, whether it’s for economic development, whether it’s for culture, for history. But the First Nations, having been the people traditionally living on the coast, surrounded by the forest and having that as a resource, are acutely aware of the needs and the overuse and the oversight.

One of the examples I always use is one of the TFLs held by Western Forest Products in the Nimpkish Valley around Woss. It’s TFL 37. You look at the map of TFL 37, and it is almost the exact overlap with the traditional territory of the ’Namgis First Nation. The First Nations absolutely have to be part of this, as we move forward, to make sure that when we are making decisions for our forests and for the resource, there is that input and that involvement and that partnership.

The member opposite talked about what’s going to be happening later. Essentially, this is phase 1. It’s a long process. The forests have been there a long while. We hope they’re going to be there a lot longer. It is a resource that we all depend upon, and we need to make sure that we do this thoughtfully and constructively.

[3:55 p.m.]

It’s going to take time to get it going. It is complex. There is a framework that does impact lots of groups. I mentioned Indigenous groups. There are lots and lots of businesses. As I say, my constituency, while it doesn’t have the mills anymore, still has got a huge number of businesses absolutely dependent on the forest sector and a huge number of people — well, not as large as it used to be but a number of people — still absolutely dependent on the forest sector.

There is going to be engagement. There is going to be more discussion and communication as this evolves. It is really going to be, as I say, a partnership that does allow for us, as the people of B.C., to really regain that sense of ownership of our public lands and to make sure that we are the stewards of our public lands.

I heard the member for Cowichan Valley talk about that real need of looking to the future. This is one of the things this does. In revitalizing the coast forest sector, we have to look in the long term. When we’re dealing with forestry, it is a long-term commitment. We have a quick rotation for some trees, some aspects of the forest, but effectively, we have to manage our forests and manage this resource for the people of B.C. not just now, not just so we get the present benefit. I think that the previous government was looking primarily at the present benefit and not at that long-term resource.

We’ve got to have that long-term resource and long-term investment for the future of our communities, our industry and, essentially, our environment. I think that now, when we’re looking at everything, we have to have that lens as well. I mean the climate lens, the lens of greenhouse gas emissions, the commitment to many generations hence. So when we are revitalizing the forest sector, it’s not just revitalizing it for the industry, but it’s revitalizing it so we have that long, long-term commitment.

There are a number of changes that this will bring in. It means that licensees have to replace their stewardship plans every five years. Woodlot owners — there are many woodlot owners in my constituency; in fact, many of my neighbours are woodlot owners — have to replace their woodlot licence plans every ten years.

The major forest licence holders, non-replaceable licence holders, community forests and B.C. Timber Sales will all be involved in this. We’ll all look for their input, as well as the smaller ones, those who have the licence to cut. They don’t have stewardship plans, but their interests will also be respected.

I don’t want to take too much time on this. Rather, just to say, this is something that is long overdue. As I started my remarks, I spent 12 years railing against what was happening in the sector. I see this as a good step, a first step — and we know it’s the first step — to revitalizing the sector, giving people the confidence of oversight in the forest, in our land base, and giving my constituents that hope that there is really going to be a change in the way that our forests are managed and our lands are looked after.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I’ll take my place. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this very, very important bill.

C. Oakes: It truly is my pleasure to rise today and have the opportunity to speak to this bill — Bill 21, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act.

Perhaps, before I start my comments, I would like to make a comment on some of the words expressed by the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. One of the significant challenges that we look…. It’s always easy to go backwards and to provide finger-pointing on what has been achieved or not achieved.

[4:00 p.m.]

I have raised in this House…. I think this is a good opportunity for me to continue to bring it forward, and it does align with what Bill 21 looks at, the incredible challenges I see with the spruce bark beetle in our region, as a good example. I had the opportunity to travel through the Pine Pass and to particularly look at the Parsnip trench. The spruce bark beetle infestation continues to grow and has more than doubled in size since 2015.

Due to wildfires, we certainly have had challenges going to do the aerial overview surveys. But I have had discussion with professional foresters, and there are an estimated — granted, this is before the most updated — 40 million to 50 million cubic metres of mature timber supply impacted by the epidemic. It has a shelf life of three to four years, notwithstanding the significant economic loss. But having lived through the fire catastrophe in stands dead from the mountain pine beetle epidemic, we need to be taking serious action now.

We are faced with the same challenges in the Cariboo with the Douglas fir beetle. We should be prioritizing harvest in economically viable damaged timber stands with a reduced shift over harvest of green stands in our communities. Families and small businesses all depend on a long-term management plan. Hopefully, this amendment helps us move forward as we start to look at these processes.

We need to shift away and look at, certainly, focusing on ecological resiliency. There needs to be a better coordination between government and licensees at the landscape level. I’m hopeful that this bill that is brought forward provides us the opportunity to look at how we improve range use plans in better alignment with range agreements, as well as across ministries on the forestry side.

We’ve had really interesting presentations and work that has been done in our community as a response to these significant wildfires and floods that we’ve experienced over the last two years in the Cariboo. There have been some very important people that have come forward and provided some recommendations and suggestions of what we need to look at. Dr. Paul Hessburg is a specialist in the United States. He has certainly helped the United States look at what their forest practices are and how we need to look at ecological resilience. He has been working with community members on how we can certainly address resiliency to future catastrophes.

Many members will talk about climate action and what it means for this House and for future generations. We’re living it. We are ground zero of climate change in action in our communities. One of the challenges that we certainly live through is the types and the nature of decisions that this government will be making on how we address ecological resilience and move forward. The Minister of Transportation talked about public ownership and stewards of public lands and having that long-term resource investment, and we certainly agree with that. I think those are important conversations to have.

I got into this job…. Many people ask me: “Why did you, MLA for Cariboo North, decide to put your name forward into this role?” Quite frankly, it was because of the pine beetle and the challenges that I saw in our communities. I was really frustrated at the time by government decisions — the same government that is actually in power today — that were made on Tweedsmuir Park and decisions that were made that have had considerable impact that we are living through, with wildfires and because of the devastation that epidemics have in our communities.

With that, I appreciate the opportunity just to make some opening comments on where I’m coming from. I think each of us comes to this House as well…. I gave you a brief synopsis of why I found myself in this role as an MLA. I think each of us comes to this Legislature with really unique experiences and values that are formed through our families and our community experiences.

I certainly appreciate the words that the members for Nechako Lakes and Kelowna-Mission have raised around concerns that have been brought forward from woodlots and from industry about the increased regulation costs and the changes that potentially could come forward. As the former passionate Minister of Red Tape Reduction, I always keep a keen eye on what the regulatory account looks like on pieces of legislation that are brought forward in this House. I think it’s critically important that we….

[4:05 p.m.]

One of the challenges or concerns that I see in some of the legislation coming forward is that we have this tendency to move away from putting things transparently out through legislation and doing a lot of the work on regulation. I think that does provide challenges, and it creates uncertainty on the land, certainly in our rural-based and resource-based communities. They need certainty. They need the ability to do long-term planning.

We’re competitive. We have worked for a long, long time to ensure that we could compete competitively in the global market. We have trade missions that the government is taking to make sure that we remain competitive with our neighbours and across the globe. It’s important that we maintain competitive values. When we increase costs through regulations and we increase costs with increased challenges that businesses need to look at, I think we need to recognize that that takes away from their competitive ability.

I’d like to shift a little bit now to more of the rangeland elements of the amendment act. I’ve shared, in this House, that my family moved to the Cariboo in the 1930s, and they started to ranch. It has formulated my values. It has formulated my opinions and my experiences. Like so many of us that have been raised through ranching, I think I’m incredibly proud of those roots.

I stand in this House always with the thought of the incredible amount of effort that was made by my family. Sometimes it’s difficult to put into a picture what those early pioneers and ranchers really looked like. I recently did some research to, perhaps, put into a little different perspective what ranching really looked like in the 1930s in the Cariboo.

Many of you may, if you are a lover of good Canadian publications…. There are some tremendous authors that come from my area. They are Pan Phillips and Richmond Hobson. They talked about what it meant to be cowboys and packers and to move from Wyoming to come and try and ranch in this great frontier of grasslands in the Cariboo. There are some great stories: Nothing Too Good for a Cowboy, The Rancher Takes a Wife. There is a third in the trilogy, which I have just forgotten.

They really tell a compelling story about what their experiences were when they moved. They had a dream to own a cattle ranch, and they made their way in the uncharted territory of British Columbia, into the Interior, in conditions as challenging as any encountered by the western frontier pioneers of 100 years earlier. The three men and their equipment-laden horses conquered the miles over narrow passages and mountain summits, hewed their first cabin from virgin timber and attempted to carve out a space for themselves in the unforgiving landscape.

We read these novels or these stories, and we really forget that these were individuals that worked tirelessly to build our country and to leave it better for us. I think, in this Legislature, we should never forget the pioneers and the work that they have done on our behalf.

I am hopeful that this bill marks a measure of support across ministries about the need to better support the agricultural sector and ranchers. I do believe that there is an opportunity for us to improve range use plans and better alignment with range agreements.

I recognize that the effects of the pest infestation and climate impact changes, specifically in the Interior, will require us to look at things differently. We have sat in this House, and often we do finger-pointing, and we say: “Well, you didn’t do this, or we didn’t do that.” Nobody has experienced what the members in this House have experienced, with the challenges that we’ve had with fires and floods.

[4:10 p.m.]

It is new. It is something that we all need to tackle. They are challenges that we all need to look at together. Reviewing legislation, I think, is a piece of that.

With that, I will say that I have a constituent, and I want him to know that…. I’ve had this file, actually, since I’ve been elected.

Some of the most difficult files that we have are people in our community that we’ve known for a very long time, and they’re often files that we have difficulty moving through the system. We all like to feel that, as MLAs, we have this incredible power to support our constituents and make sure that we can find answers and solutions for them. Quite frankly, often there are files that come forward that are common sense, and it shouldn’t be so difficult.

I want to read a little bit about one of the gentlemen in my riding. I want him to know that I have huge respect for the work that he’s been doing.

“I am writing to you regarding your proposed changes. Over the past 71 years, I’ve witnessed the slow, systemic killing of us, the small farmers of B.C., by legislating away our rights of self-determination, mainly by the powers invested in the Ministry of Forests and Lands.

“It is my strong feeling that the Ministry of Forests and Lands involved in agricultural decision-making is a grave conflict of interest. Their negative, forceful compliance and enforcement policies are ruining a once vibrant and productive agricultural industry.

“I’m a third-generation cattle rancher in the Quesnel area and now have been taken to court twice and charged with infractions such as digging a drainage ditch 85 feet long on Crown land to get rid of the Ministry of Forests’ extreme spring flooding destruction of my private hay meadow because of their policy around watersheds surrounding my ranch and such as replacing the two very rotten and old quad bridges to maintain my ranch fencing.

“I’ve been charged and paid fines for this, but the Ministry of Forests continues to clearcut the surrounding watershed, leaving clearcut areas no longer watersheds, thus causing it, many years into the future, to become a massive destructive force, destroying my flat meadowlands, riparian areas, willows, hayfields and washing down silt, gravel, logging debris, rocks and undermined trees on my private land. My trapline in this area is now lost.”

Again, to put it into context, this is an area that has been affected by the wildfires.

He goes on to talk about the significant challenges that he has had with the interplay that often happens between the ministry on the agricultural side and the Ministry of Forests.

“Ministry of Forests authorizing policy…. My culverts and one bridge are washed out by extreme spring flooding, which is obviously happening again because of wildfires. When asked for financial help to replace the bridge and culverts, I’m told that there’s no money in the budget to help. Now a habitat biologist tells me that I must replace one of the rusted and collapsing culverts, which is costing $30,000 — and hiring a maze of professionals, at my cost, such as industry has to do.

“As extreme spring snow melt flooding is just starting, I fear that my only bridge to access approximately 75 percent of my hay meadow will be washed out because of the policies used by Forests. Two entire watersheds of the creek flow through my private farmland.”

These are the types of constituents that I hear from, and it is a difficult one. I am hopeful that this legislation does help us find a path forward on working to support our agricultural workers, our rangeland folks that work on Crown land.

[4:15 p.m.]

I want to be confident that this minister will…. This gentleman has sent letters in, and I want to ensure that his voice is heard in this process. I felt it was important for me to raise this here in the House because I want our ranchers to be successful. I want to see the next generation have the same opportunities that I’ve had. I want that next generation of young people to experience the life that I experienced growing up on a farm.

The member from Cowichan tells a story about a British Columbia. Well, the British Columbia story that I tell is about agriculture. It is about ranching. It is about those grasslands. It’s about what drew so many people from so many parts of North America to come to the Cariboo and to set up their ranches and their farms. I share that. In our area, I think we have the most amount of third-generation families per capita in Canada, and I think it is a testament to the hard work that our pioneers and our families did.

I will also raise concerns that I have brought forward in the past. I appreciate that range use plans will be able to be managed through an on-line portal going forward. We’re moving, as a government, in many respects, to ensure everything is on-line and we do everything electronically. We must remember that most of the people impacted on the rangeland don’t have access to any type of connectivity. It is a generation that requires that we still make sure that we have the ability to go to FrontCounter or other organizations to make sure that that approval process can be found in a less bureaucratic fashion.

We need to look at how we can help support range use plan holders to amend their plans, as long as the holder of the plan determines that the amendment will not be contrary to the act. We need better clarity. We need transparency. We need to make sure that the producers out there in our society do not find themselves in a situation where we’ve included so much red tape and so much regulation and so many challenges that they just decide to walk away.

The average demographic that we have in our communities that are farmers or in ranching is an older demographic, and again, we need to find a way to look at that next generation. When we look at affordability and we look at first-time homebuyers, I think that there needs to be opportunities for us to look at how we can help first-time farmers. How do we help support that first-time family that may want to purchase a farm? What are those kind of supports, as a government, that we could look at?

When we look at the challenges of any of the producers that exist out there, we are seeing increased regulations. I’m sure you will have heard from the Cattlemen’s Association.

Hopefully, this amendment of this act will also permit us to look at the challenges that we experienced during the past wildfire seasons in the last two years. I do want to compliment the government for the work that they did with the cattlemen to ensure that, where wildfires happened, there was the ability to work closely with emergency management B.C. to, in some areas, allow ranchers to go and check on their livestock. I think that was an important accommodation. It was a needed accommodation — for us to look at how we can support that.

The message that I’ve certainly heard in my communities, as we have constituent weeks…. A challenge that we had in 2018 for the wildfires was that the only livestock that was recognized was cattle. For many of our ranchers, we, of course, have other livestock that have not been recognized, and people have not been able to access permits during wildfire season to have access to their livestock.

We also need to look at…. We discussed Crown land and the decisions that we are making on Crown land. It is important that we are strong stewards of Crown land. But we also have to recognize that the work that we are doing on Crown land, where there is impact that could potentially happen on private land, such as I raised earlier, there needs to be compensation for that. We need to recognize that there are significant challenges that ranchers face, and we, in this House, need to stand up for them.

[4:20 p.m.]

I think it’s important that we look at…. On the wildlife side, I think that we all need to recognize — again, having come through wildfire seasons — what ecological resilience looks like. I think wildlife management is a piece of that. If this amendment of this bill supports us in getting faster responses to the land base, I think that’s critically important.

We’re still looking at important restoration of riparian areas following fires. If we put the onus on industry, woodlots, ranchers and farmers, I say we also need to put the onus on government. Government needs to make sure that if we are requiring the private sector to be doing a significant amount of work…. My expectation is that government equally does the same amount of work, if not more, because they have the considerable resources to respond to that.

With that, I think I’ve had the opportunity to share my thoughts on this bill. I’m supportive of this bill. I’m hopeful of this bill. I look forward to asking questions during committee stage. I want to ensure that the voices that I’ve raised today get acknowledged and get listened to and, hopefully, are reflected within the regulatory process of this bill.

At all costs, let’s hope that this bill does not affect the competitive advantage that we’ve worked incredibly hard in British Columbia to ensure that we have, because our rural-based communities right now are facing significant challenges. They’re hurting, and they are counting on this minister to make sure that we maintain our competitive nature.

R. Leonard: I rise today in support of Bill 21, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act. I’m very pleased that we’re looking at three major changes that will reassert the Crown’s management over public lands. I think that’s incredibly important, that we are going to be dealing with forests in a more open and transparent way so that we can be more supportive of reconciliation and have First Nations more involved and, also, that we’re going to be increasing the public’s trust.

We have a social contract over the public land, and we need to be doing whatever we can to move forward in that. I have a lot of interest in my community over forest land management. Of course, in my community, it’s private land, although the Island does have its share of Crown land as well. This is one step towards it. I want to assure the public that the ministry is looking at the whole range of things, but today we’re dealing with Crown land.

I want to say one thing in particular. It was raised in a couple of different ways today. Regarding climate change, we have, as has been stated by the member opposite, a lot of issues around beetles and various pestilence, as well as flooding and wildfires, impacting our land. It impacts our ability to actually practise our forestry and practise our use in terms of agricultural use of our public lands.

We have this wonderful opportunity now to be a little more responsive by taking these management plans and saying, “You’re not going to just roll it over every five years and think that we’re in the status quo,” because we are in a time of change, and we have to adapt to that. So seeing those plans being revisited every five years is an opportunity not only to adapt to the change in climate. It’s also now an opportunity to open it up to more public involvement.

[4:25 p.m.]

One of the concerns and criticisms that I hear regularly is that it’s like a black hole, that people don’t know what’s happening up in the forests. This is an opportunity now for more early notice of what’s going on, maps so that people know where roads are, what the cutblocks look like. It’s an opportunity for the public to have input, and it’s particularly an opportunity for First Nations to insert themselves in this process.

It was interesting to hear about third-generation foresters and ranchers. That is a part of our historical landscape, but also a part of our historical landscape is First Nations use of the land. K’ómoks First Nation has made a point, on numerous occasions since I’ve been elected, to remind us that we are looking at a First Nation which did practise forestry in the past. It’s part of their history, and they want it to be part of their future. In the spirit of reconciliation, we have this opportunity to move forward in a stronger way.

I don’t want to say a whole lot. I just wanted to make one final comment, and it was made by the chief forester when I was lucky enough to have a briefing on this bill. It’s that forestry management isn’t like mining. It’s not just about space; it’s about time and space. We can’t manage it as if it’s a static resource.

Knowing that we’re dealing with multiple species, with changing landscapes and different challenges, this is a great opportunity for us to move forward and create a regime that’s going to gain public confidence and that we can continue to be a province that has a vibrant forestry and range use, as well as protecting our environment and having a future for future generations.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand and express my support on behalf of my constituency, and I look forward to hearing other speakers.

D. Routley: It gives me real pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. Having lived for the past two decades watching the diminishment of the forest industry that I think British Columbians need to be proud of, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of a bill that will restore public interest as the guiding principle of what the government does in terms of managing the forests of British Columbia.

In my own history, I’ve gone from logging as a chokerman to planting trees for years. Some of the trees I planted are now within about 15 years of being harvested, which is kind of a jarring reality. I’ve worked as a laborer in construction, and I’ve worked in the lumber retail industry. I hesitate to say I’ve handled wood all my life, but I have.

What I’ve seen is the collapse of public faith in an industry that is entirely renewable and is entirely manageable in the public interest. But it was a certain cash cow for a previous government. I heard the former Minister of Red Tape Reduction, the member for Cariboo North, talk about her role in reducing red tape. I won’t directly attribute this piece to her, but I met my sweetheart, my partner, at a coroner’s inquest.

How often do you hear that sentence? I met my partner while I attended the inquest into the death of a faller named Ted Gramlich. That faller had gone into the woods having spent his entire career knowing that there were helicopter ambulances ready to assist him and his colleagues. But after the deregulation of the forest industry, unfortunately, the safety chain that allowed him to be confident of that evacuation was broken.

[4:30 p.m.]

Unfortunately for him, he had a terrible accident in the woods where a tree he was cutting kicked back and crushed his chest. He and his partner spent hours huddled on the slope of a mountain on Vancouver Island while Ted died, because they couldn’t get evacuation by a helicopter.

Why? Why were they up there at a time when they couldn’t receive evacuation? They were up there because it was clear and sunny where they were. But where the helicopter was, it was foggy. Previously, before deregulation, they would have received the message that the helicopter was unavailable and would not have worked.

Now, it was extraordinary to hear a coroner of British Columbia attribute, as a contributory cause to the death of Ted Gramlich, this word: deregulation. Well, companies would like to dispose of regulations that are meaningless or that are troublesome or burdensome to their operations. We support that. But what the other side did was rip the guts out of the regulatory framework that protected workers in British Columbia, that protected the environment in British Columbia. That was the record.

So while the former Minister of Red Tape Reduction called for there to be no finger-pointing, I’m sorry. I can’t accommodate that request because I will point a finger at the previous government, which took steps that undermined the public interest at every turn.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

That’s just a horrible example, a specific example, of the outcomes of that. It was certainly not an intended consequence but an unintended consequence of a program that was ideologically obsessed and that ignored all warnings of temperance. It was fuelled by a 77 to 2 distortion of this Legislature, where the previous government felt they could do anything to the rights of British Columbians, particularly the workers of British Columbia.

It begs the question: who should our resources work for? Who should our forests, our mining and all the industries of British Columbia work for? My contention is that they should work for the people of B.C. at all times. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case. We have seen the establishment of what is essentially a gangster’s paradise with money laundering in this province, as a government that was tasked with being responsible for managing these issues looked the other way and ignored what was happening, to its own benefit and to the benefit of the few, while the rest of us have paid.

They created a capitalist fantasy in British Columbia where, suddenly, because tree farm licences were made tradeable and the companies no longer had to invest capital in mills to have control over trees, the resources of British Columbia became like pawns or chips or bills in a Monopoly game. They facilitated the concentration that has robbed communities and First Nations in the province of a voice in forestry in British Columbia.

Deregulation was not so much a blunt approach to destroying a body of regulation, but it was, in fact, surgical. The body remained, muscle and bone intact, but certain tendons were severed so the body couldn’t action its arms and legs. The public interest in British Columbia could not be defended by its own government because of the steps that the previous government took in deregulation.

I’m proud of the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development for the steps that he has taken and the courage that he has shown in trying to re-establish public interest as the guiding principle of what people do in British Columbia, in our economy, in our society and in government. I’m proud of the fact that he’s taking those steps to repair those tendons so that we, as a government, can raise that arm, action that leg and make choices that are in the public interest, in the public favour, again.

[4:35 p.m.]

That has been lost, along with 30,000 forestry jobs, under the watch of the previous government, along with more than 100 mill closures. The government, previously, would hide behind the 2008 fiscal crisis as an excuse for that loss, but those 30,000 jobs were lost during the biggest postwar housing boom in American history, before the 2008 crisis. They were lost because of deregulation. They were lost because the public interest was abandoned by the previous government in favour of satisfying its donors and its supporters and those narrow few who benefited from their policies.

But everyone in British Columbia whom I know paid. The workers in the forest industry paid. The tradesmen in the forestry industry, who lost jobs in mills, paid, as they left their communities and went into the oil patch to work in order to seek financial refuge from the deregulation program of the previous government. This was a huge dislocation. Everything from the coach of a minor sports team to the volunteer in a school were lost in rural communities because of the policies of the previous government.

I’ve watched, along with my constituents, as thousands upon thousands of truckloads of raw logs have left this province unprocessed. When we came to power, one of the most frustrating aspects was the fact that these tendons had been severed, so that even the regulation and rules that survived that assault were unactionable. So I commend the minister for his courage in re-establishing the public interest and reasserting that as the basic premise of what we do, particularly with forestry — the only resource industry that is 100 percent renewable.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, before you took the Chair, I spent years planting trees. Some of those trees are about 15 years from being harvested. Yeah, that’s the reality, and those thousands, millions of trees are the future of this province, the ongoing, regenerating future of this province. It’s not as though other resource industries regenerate themselves. We don’t plant more oil and gas, but we regenerate trees.

We’ve had a long history of conflict in this province when it comes to forestry. Previous NDP governments resolved the conflicts with settlements of over 12 percent of the province being set aside as parkland. We took steps to restore the faith of First Nations in public policy around forests. As far as I could see, all of that was obliterated in a program that was ideologically obsessed and driven in order to satisfy the few at the expense of the many.

The future for forestry is more young people finding work, like I did, planting trees — more silviculture, more investment, more care, more value taken from every tree we take. We are trying to do that in promoting mass wood products for construction industry projects — all sorts of attempts to develop new markets and new products that will extract greater volume from every tree we take. That is in the public interest.

Making tree farm licences flippable like monopoly chips, like little houses on a board game, was not in the public interest. Deregulating the industry to expose workers to dangerous conditions was not in the public interest. The efforts of the current minister are in the public interest. That’s why I’m standing to support this bill, because it has a greater vision for British Columbia.

[4:40 p.m.]

Last year there were roughly $13 billion of forest products traded from British Columbia and less than a billion in gas — $13 billion. That’s in spite of the fact that there are far too many raw logs leaving this province without being processed, in spite of the loss of all of those mills.

What I’m supporting today is simple. It’s a restoration of a core principle through the legislative agenda and the public policy agenda of this province in its biggest industry, and that is the principle of putting the public interest first.

I commend the minister. I thank him on behalf of my constituents. I look forward to a brighter future for a renewable, fantastic industry that will be responsible to the needs of British Columbians, care-take our environment, and provide prosperity across this province, from big cities to small communities.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, when the minister rises, that shall close debate on Bill 21.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll provide a couple of summary comments before moving that we refer to committee stage. I want to thank the members who spoke from all sides of the House and provided some excellent comments that I’ll take into consideration.

The member for Kelowna-Mission, who was a former Forest Minister, had read through the material provided in the news release. I want to refer to that news release in connection to some comments by the member for Nechako Lakes and the member for Cariboo North.

The member for Nechako Lakes was questioning whether there’s been consultation around the changes to the range use plans and range agreements. Kevin Boon, general manager of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, said: “Aligning and streamlining the range use plan with the terms of the range agreement promises to make administration simpler and clearer for both our members and range staff, which, in turn, should allow for a more efficient process for range management.” I agree with the member for Cariboo North that we want ranchers to be successful, and the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association is in support of the amendments in this bill.

As far as the comments from the member for Nechako Lakes about his contention that there was little public interest in forest stewardship plans, again, from the news release, comments by Brian Frenkel, second vice-president to the Union of B.C. Municipalities and a councillor with the district of Vanderhoof in the member’s own constituency: “Local governments have advocated for a number of years for increased consultation on forestry activities happening in their backyards. We’re pleased that the proposed amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act provide those opportunities.” That is obvious interest from the public in being more involved in what’s going on in their own backyard.

There were some comments about red tape. Well, providing a forest operations map in this bill…. I don’t see how that can be construed as red tape when it’s really an educational opportunity for companies, for smoother acceptance of their operations and, therefore, potentially less delay.

With that, I say that these are long-overdue amendments. The reviews have been ignored since 2004. This is an effort to increase public trust and restore some government oversight of a publicly held resource, and that’s our forests. I look forward to the committee stage.

With that, I move that Bill 21, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019, be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that Bill 21 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I call second reading of Bill 15.

BILL 15 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

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

Before discussing the amendments in this bill, I would like to touch on why these changes are so important to protect farmland and to support farmers in British Columbia. One of the Minister of Agriculture’s mandate letter commitments was to revitalize the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission.

This commitment is important to me, as we have a lot to be proud of in British Columbia. We have one of the most diverse agricultural sectors in Canada, with 17,500 farms producing over 200 agricultural products. This is a sector that produces $14.2 billion annually, and it drives prosperity in communities across the province.

Protecting farmland goes hand in hand with supporting farmers. Farmers need access to affordable and productive agricultural land to be successful, to provide us with the food we can count on for our tables and to create good jobs for people in their communities.

Affordable farmland also supports our processing sector, which is the second-largest manufacturing sector and one of the fastest-growing sectors in our province. We are one of the only places in the world that has a provincial land reserve dedicated to farming and ranching.

Over 40 years ago, the government of the day had the foresight to identify our province’s most valuable and viable agricultural land and to protect it within the agricultural land reserve. The reserve is critically important because of how little farmland there is in British Columbia.

In B.C., only a very small part of the land base is suitable for farming. Only 5 percent in B.C. is arable, and of that, less than 1 percent is rated class 1. It’s able to support intensive cultivation of a wide range of vegetables, cereal crops, forages, berry fruits and specialty crops.

When the ALR was created in 1973, the province was losing thousands of hectares of farmland every year. In the Fraser Valley alone, 3,000 acres a year of prime farmland were being lost annually.

Protecting the ALR is critical so that farmers and ranchers can thrive today and into the future. We must think about future generations of British Columbians and take steps today to ensure that they have food security and access to fresh, locally grown food.

The instability caused by climate change makes the protection of the ALR even more important. The amendments proposed in Bill 15 draw on the work of the B.C. Minister of Agriculture’s advisory committee for revitalizing the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission.

In January 2018, this committee undertook a prov­ince­wide engagement process so British Columbians’ voices would be heard in our efforts to revitalize the ALR. This committee led a comprehensive engagement process, travelling to nine communities to meet with local governments, the agriculture sector and other key stakeholders and received about 2,600 written and on-line submissions.

The engagement showed overwhelmingly that British Columbians and key agricultural stakeholders value the ALR and care about preserving it for agricultural use now and for future generations.

The first phase of amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act was brought into this House through Bill 52 in the fall, and they came into law a few weeks ago, on February 22. It addresses many issues that were contributing to an erosion of our precious land base.

The amendments included:

Implementing a maximum house size of 500 metres squared in the agricultural land reserve to curb the proli­feration of mega-homes and land speculation but still ensure that growing farming families that need a larger house to support their farming operations have a path forward at the Agricultural Land Commission, with local government support, in order to build a larger home.

Grandfathering in landowners with all authorizations in place when the bill came into force February 22, 2019, if substantial construction is underway by November 5, 2019.

Requiring ALC approval of an additional residence on a parcel in the ALR to limit non-farm use and development.

[4:50 p.m.]

Introducing clear rules to prevent construction and demolition waste and other harmful materials from being dumped onto the productive ALR soil as fill, with clear oversight by the ALC.

Reuniting the ALR as one cohesive zone, making it clear that all ALR land has equal protection, and strengthening the ALC’s compliance and enforcement powers, including adding new offences for illegal dumping, with substantial penalties.

The second phase of amendments, the ones introduced in Bill 15, build on the comprehensive and significant changes accomplished through Bill 52. The amendments in this bill make five key changes.

The first is to strengthen the independence of the commission by replacing the current ALC governance model, of an executive committee and six regional panels, with one commission with regional representation by requiring membership from all six administrative regions.

The second change will provide the chair of the commission with more flexibility to organize its members into a decision-making panel on applications by topic, technical expertise or by administrative region.

Thirdly, this bill creates a new decision-making criteria that prioritizes the protection and enhancement of the size, integrity and continuity of the land base when the commission is considering exercising any power or performing a duty under the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

Fourthly, we’re adding more compliance and enforcement capacity and tools, including a new offence for landowners who do not produce records to the Agricultural Land Commission when ordered.

Finally, the new bill will require that exclusion applications be submitted to the commission by local government, First Nations governments or the province.

I want to clarify here that this legislation does not change the definition of “persons.” Furthermore, it in no way suggests that farmers are not persons. Of course, farmers are people. Moreover, the change in question is not directed at farmers at all. Farmers farm land. The change in question is to the process by which landowners can seek to remove land from the ALR, to remove land from the protected land base of farmland. This bill changes the process by which a private landowner can pursue the removal of his or her land from the ALR.

I work every day to help keep our farmers farming, and this bill will do that. It is premised on the simple fact that farmland is for farming. My role is to help farmers farm. The change in question changes the process. If a private landowner wants to permanently pull land out of the protections of the agricultural land reserve, it must, if this bill is passed, be done as part of a thoughtful community planning process. Applications for any changes to the ALR have always been submitted to local government as the first step in the application process. This change will contribute to greater stability and security of the land base that farmers rely on to farm.

Applications for exclusion should be integrated into that long-term land use planning lens. In this context, there remains the opportunity for landowners to continue to work with their local government. By strengthening the ALR and the ALC, these changes will also address the speculation of farmland.

Speculation is not new, but it’s an active concern when it comes to keeping farmland affordable for farmers. Holding land for exclusion, extensive unauthorized and non-farm activity in parts of the ALR have led to the expectation among some that the ALR is available for non-agricultural purposes and development.

One way to remove the speculative nature of the ALR, while continuing to plan for communities, is to focus on land use planning with local and regional governments to work with the ALC. Removing speculation from the equation helps to keep agricultural land priced accordingly and provides the freedom for current and future generations to keep farming.

Together, these five changes will help give the Agricultural Land Commission the tools they need to support their work to protect farmland and to support farmers. Our government is committed to supporting B.C.’s incredible agriculture sector so it can continue to grow and prosper, and provide our ranchers and farmers with good jobs in communities across the province.

[4:55 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Well, much to say and limited time to say it.

I’m going to begin, perhaps to the surprise of the minister and her colleagues, by thanking her, the Premier and the government. It will be, in these remarks, the first and also, I fear, the last time I’ll thank them in debate, but I will thank them, because they have reminded me, through the introduction of Bill 15, of the fundamentally important role this assembly plays in highlighting and attempting to curtail the excesses and abuses of government.

That is what we have before us. It is, in my view, an ill-conceived, misguided, malignant, offensive piece of legislation that attacks, demonizes and dehumanizes tens of thousands of farmers in British Columbia. They are people who proudly call themselves farmers, who work the land that they and their families purchased and own. I’ll say that again. They work the land that they and their families purchased and own.

I am opposed to Bill 15. We are opposed to Bill 15. We will do everything within our power to prevent its passage in its present form. We will do everything within our power to ensure that the discrimination — discrimination contained within the pages of Bill 15, the discrimination that, sadly, has become the hallmark of this Premier and this NDP government — is prevented from embedding itself like a cancer in our laws here in British Columbia.

There are a variety of ways to analyze legislation. Here is one: to ask one’s self what the government is attempting to do, and then, secondarily, how they are going about doing it. What the government is doing here — and we just heard a very brief synopsis of it — in my view, is wrong. I disagree with it. It’s not the first time the government and I have disagreed. How they are doing it is reprehensible. Reprehensible.

I will talk about both. I fear I will talk about both at some length. I will focus on provisions of Bill 15 that attack the fundamental rights of farmers who own their land. I’ll come to that and spend some time on it.

I’m going to also talk briefly about some of the other things that are, I think, worthy of comment and that I’m certain will receive comment from some of my colleagues during the lengthy debate ahead. I’m not sure to what extent we’ll hear from members of the opposition. I hope we do. I am anxious to hear…. Members of the government, I should say, because I am anxious to hear how the minister’s colleagues would purport to defend what has been brought before the House.

The minister, a few moments ago, talked about one aspect of what is in the bill: the elimination of the six regional panels. I’m not surprised. To be fair, I think the minister has signalled this for some time. Anything that even hints at decentralization is something that I think the present government is hostile to and is offended by. I will say this, because I think other members of the House — other members, my colleagues — will have something to say about the notion of centralizing the decision-making process in the way that the minister and the government, the Premier, purport to in this bill.

[5:00 p.m.]

Surely it is apparent to any reasonable person that the circumstances confronting a farmer in the Peace River are very different than the circumstances confronting a farmer in the Lower Mainland, in the Okanagan or on the Island. The idea that the ALC must absolutely be centralized into one panel…. The minister says: “Oh, there’ll be some regional representation.” But the hostility that the Premier, the minister, her colleagues and the government have to the idea of a more regionalized system, a more regionalized approach is, quite frankly, fascinating and difficult to understand.

I don’t know if the minister has ever driven that road that I know some of my colleagues have driven regularly, from Fort St. John up to Fort Nelson, and seen the stretches of very unique agricultural land. It is agricultural land. But to suggest that in every instance and in every way the considerations that should be at play for decisions relating to that land are precisely, exactly the same as what should be at play elsewhere is bizarre. It’s bizarre.

Now, were that to be the only change, I would say: “Well, I’m not surprised. I’m disappointed. I think it’s misguided and ill-thought-out.” But the government, the Premier and the minister are doing something else in this bill. Language is important. It’s certainly important in this chamber. It’s certainly important in legal documents like bills and statutes. We’ll come to that in a few minutes when I talk about the most insidious aspect of this legislation.

What Bill 15 purports to do is alter the mandate of the ALC. I’ve noticed that government doesn’t want to use that language. Let’s just be clear on what the mandate is presently in the Agricultural Land Commission Act, under section 6: “The following are the purposes of the commission.” So (a) is to preserve agricultural land; (b) to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; (c) 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 policies.

The commission has been operating on that basis. Has it been effective? Has it been under assault? Has it been compromised? Has it somehow failed?

So 4.6 million hectares in the ALR. I was in school right around the transition, so I know for some people the metric can be a bit challenging. It’s 11,399,240 acres in the ALR. I suppose I would have to concede to the government, to the Premier and to the minister that if the commission was under assault, if they were besieged by applications and the scenario the member described that occurred at the beginning of the 1970s were at play, it might be necessary to look at the mandate, to look at the test that the commission was bringing.

When we do that initial analysis, what do we find? Well, let’s take the most recent year, 2018. Let’s take the area — and this is arbitrary on my part — where presumably the pressure is the greatest. At least that’s the impression the minister, the Premier and the government want to leave. Let’s take the south coast, Lower Mainland. Were there thousands of applications? No. Were there hundreds of applications? No. There were 14 applications.

[5:05 p.m.]

As we go through this, I’m going to talk about those applications in detail. I’m going to talk about those applications in detail because what the government, the minister and the Premier are trying to do is to prevent those applications from ever being initiated in the future.

The minister is shaking her head, and she’ll have plenty of opportunity during the course of this discussion and debate over the days ahead to rebut anything that she hears me say today. Fourteen applications: five approved, nine rejected, 15 hectares.

Whatever one might want to say about the merits of either the applications or the decisions, one is obliged to ask: why the change in mandate? What’s the problem? What is the problem that the Premier, the minister and her colleagues have identified that needs to be fixed? Because, if you go across the province — I talked about the Lower Mainland region — the total number of applications in B.C. for exclusions in calendar year 2018 was 39: 12 approved, 25 refused, 23 for residential caveats, 16 non-residential. Because the minister wants to change the mandate. She wants to change the mandate for the ALC.

Let’s look at a few of those non-residential applications. One approval — this one was approved — was for the McLeese Lake volunteer fire department — an insidious, dastardly attack on the ALR.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Speculators, one and all.

One of the refusals…. I must confess that I did not have time to determine whether there is a linkage, so I’m relying on the material from the ALC. One refusal was for the Horgan school district 62 middle school application, application 56804. I have no idea who that refers to. I don’t think it’s the Premier, but that one was rejected.

There were two applications from Spallumcheen, applications 57038 and 56638, for a new sewage treatment plant. I hope the minister is aware of the difficulties they’re having in that part of British Columbia around water contamination.

The minister may say: “Well, you’re being selective.” Actually, I’m not being selective. There’s not much to select from. Yet she persists in weaving this tale of speculation running rampant, in the absence of any data that confirms that, in the absence of any information and facts that confirm that.

I’m going to have more to say about that a little bit later on. The minister wants to introduce a new mandate. That’s what the amendment in section 5 of the bill talks about — the commission.

In addition to what is a pretty blanket and pretty all-encompassing declaration of the priority to be given to agriculture, to preserve agricultural land and to encourage farming on agricultural land, the minister wants to add this. Henceforth, if her amendments pass, the ALC “must give priority to protecting and enhancing all of the following” — all of the following — “in exercising its powers…the size, integrity and continuity of the land base of the agricultural land reserve.”

What does that mean? The minister shrugs her shoulders. Well, I hope she knows. I hope she knows.

Interjections.

[5:10 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, restrain your comments or move to your chair.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member.

M. de Jong: I can assure the member and her colleague they are going to have all the time in the world to defend the indefensible. And they’ll need more time than that to defend the indefensible.

The “size, integrity and continuity of the land base of the agricultural land reserve” — apparently, that is going to take precedence. The size of the ALC, not the merits of an application. And we’re going to come to the part about who can make an application and who can’t. It’s not the merits of the application. Priority must be given to the size, integrity and continuity of the land base.

Well, that’s very interesting, because I grew up and was raised at a time when the merits of an application should have some bearing on the outcome. But we’ll have lots of chances to discuss and explore with the minister what precisely that means.

You know what I noticed? To be fair, this has not existed previously, and for that, I have some regret. But for all of the talk about caring about agriculture and now an attempt to alter the mandate, no mention of farmers, no mention of the actual farmers. That, I’m afraid, has been a recurring theme over the years.

Now, again, to be equally fair, the previous government tried to make some allowance for the challenges facing farmers in different parts of British Columbia, and this government has set about eliminating that. This government has set about eliminating them from any consideration, and they have set about doing that by rendering them non-persons.

I am going to test, and we are going to test, time and time and time again this minister’s assertion about that very question. But we’ll come to that in a few minutes. We’ll come to the most insidious part of this legislation in a few minutes.

The minister has touted and highlighted some new compliance and enforcement powers. We will be very interested to hear the rationale for the need to create new compliance and enforcement powers, what the rationale is for that. We are, I can tell the minister and the Premier and her colleagues now, increasingly hearing from farmers who feel harassed.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Apparently, one of the members from Surrey finds that funny. You know what’s not funny? It’s not funny when you’re a family that’s been trying to build a farm operation and the ALR SWAT team shows up, threatening to shut you down because you have dared to host family days on your farm.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: The minister finds this funny. The minister finds this funny that there are farm families out there who now call us to say: “Do you realize that we had three cars show up from the enforcement division of the ALC challenging us?” It’s not the DEA; it’s the DAE. It’s the department of agricultural enforcement. And it’s happening.

I don’t know what’s more disturbing, the fact that it’s actually happening or the fact that the farmers themselves are fearful to come forward. The member for Langley and I met with one of them. The member for Delta South met with one of those farmers. They described in detail what took place, and it was chilling. It was chilling to hear what is taking place.

[5:15 p.m.]

Now, the minister says the Agricultural Land Commission needs more enforcement authority. I don’t know what her plans are for expanding the enforcement wing. She’ll tell us. She’ll have a chance to tell us as we go through the bill.

It’s interesting to put this in some kind of context, because we have an Attorney General who has spent two years shamelessly and irresponsibly politicizing law enforcement issues around the question of money laundering. Apparently, he discovered this week that there’s no one actually investigating money laundering in British Columbia. A personal failure, he said.

There actually is an investigative team. At least, there was when the now Attorney General got the job — the Joint Illegal Gaming Investigation Team. That’s the investigation team that was established by the previous government, I guess the one the Attorney General says doesn’t do anything. I don’t know.

Here’s an idea. When the government’s DAE SWAT team has finished rounding up all of those criminals organizing corn mazes and Halloween pumpkin patches, maybe they can second some of their enforcement folks over to the Attorney General so he can get on with the job he was hired to do.

I note that the member for Powell River seems to have a great deal to say. He will have that opportunity. Again, we will be very interested to hear him defend some of the more insidious components of this legislation.

This is a nice segue into what, actually, is the most offensive provision of this offensive bill — that is, stripping away a right that farmers and owners of farmland have had since the creation of the ALR.

Let’s take a moment and go back in time. I know members opposite get misty-eyed. They get misty-eyed thinking about 1972 and the election of the first NDP government. To be fair, it was a memorable occasion. I think it was only a few years ago that the Premier of that day, Dave Barrett, passed away. He was a character, to be sure, and it was an activist government, to be sure. I’ll get to that in a moment.

I was nine years old when the government changed in 1972. I remember the election. I remember the Premier was Bennett and then Barrett, and I thought you had to have a name that started with “b” to be the Premier in British Columbia. That is before the name Clark became fashionable to be Premier.

That was 1972. We’ll talk a little bit about some of the founding principles of the ALR.

Look, I know that members opposite are proud. It’s part of the political heritage of the party they represent. It might be the only time in this exchange that I get to say I agree with the member for Powell River. I think most people are proud. At least, they have been to this point.

So it’s 1972. There’s a change in government. I’m nine years old. But there was something more important in my life. At least, I thought it was more important. My family bought a small farm. My dad had grown up on a farm in Holland. He came to Canada, and he worked on a farm. Then he got some training and became a licensed electrician, but he wanted to get back to the land.

[5:20 p.m.]

It was hard, it was tough, but we bought that place out in Matsqui Prairie. I grew up there. I worked on our farm. I worked on the neighbours’ farms. It was dairy country in those days. It’s still a lot of…. The member for Delta North used to patrol around there as a salesman of milking equipment. There are a little more berry operations now, and poultry operations.

I saw the people that worked there, and I saw how they worked. I saw the farmers who were up at 4 a.m. every day.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, isn’t that fascinating? The member said: “What are you doing up at 4 a.m.?” I guess he doesn’t realize people have to milk those cows. But I’m happy to know that he brings that kind of expertise to this conversation. What are you doing up at 4 a.m. on a dairy farm? Who knew. I hope the Agriculture Minister wasn’t taking advice from Powell River.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: You see, one of my colleagues has made the point in jest, but it is not actually a laughing matter.

Farms are not factories, and they do not lend themselves to the same industrial mindset, I’m afraid to say, that some members opposite think should automatically apply. They are certainly workplaces, because people work hard. But the work is dependent on the seasons. The work is dependent on the weather. The work is dependent on the unpredictability of all of those things and the unpredictability of animals themselves. If that is a challenge for members opposite to grapple and come to grips with, then we probably have a better understanding of why this type of legislation is being presented.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: The whole notion of a family working on a farm is so foreign to members of the government benches that they can’t conceive of it. They simply cannot conceive of it. But that’s okay. I think that the member should keep talking and reveal his lack of appreciation for what farmers are confronted by. He wouldn’t know that when the power goes out, as it frequently does in these places, if you’ve got a poultry farm, you better get out there, if it’s 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. or 4 a.m., because the birds all die.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just identify as designated speaker.

M. de Jong: I’m the designated speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’re just getting going.

I learned a lot. I learned a lot about working with those people, as I say, working on our little farm and then the larger farms around us. Then, when I was 27, I was lucky enough that I was able to buy that farm from my parents. We still live there. I still live there.

Although, I should say in passing — and the member made reference to some of her other legislative efforts — that the government is doing its level best to make it difficult for farm families to stay on the land. She and the Premier are making it exceedingly difficult. That’s another story.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I don’t think the member is listening. I just finished telling him I still live there. Why did I leave the farm? Is he having difficulty with this whole concept of the attachment to the land?

I was talking about 1972, and I was talking about the creation of the ALR. While we were getting settled on our farm on Matsqui Prairie, in the little farm there, the new NDP government of the day was unveiling its plans to establish the ALR. To be sure, it was not without controversy. But I will say this: it wasn’t controversial in my home, and it wasn’t controversial in our household or amongst our neighbours.

[5:25 p.m.]

Where I live, Matsqui Prairie, may not be fertile ground for NDP votes, but it is the most productive farmland in Canada, and people that live there know it. The idea of creating a pan-provincial zoning protection to preserve that farmland and protect it from non-agricultural development made sense, and it makes sense. No one objects to that.

The NDP government of the day did something else to ease the concerns of farmers, especially those who owned more marginal farmland. They enshrined within the original legislation the right of a landowner to independently initiate an application to the ALC. Section 9(2).

By the way, it was introduced…. I don’t know. For all of their professed expertise in it, I don’t know if anyone on the other side knows what day the original ALR legislation was introduced. It was introduced on February 22, 1973. For many farm families, February 22 has acquired an element of infamy because of something else this government has done. But we’ll have time to discuss that later.

Forty-six years after that original legislation was introduced, many farm families would have their dreams dashed when the Premier and the minister and the government enacted a different set of ALR regulations. Again, the minister smiles and shakes her head. She clearly has not met with the people who have been in my office in tears, having worked for decades. But I’m going to come back to that. It is significant that the minister and her colleagues smile, laugh and dismiss the tragedy that has befallen many of these families.

Let’s go back to February 22, 1973. The bill is introduced, and there is section 9(2). This is a quote from the original bill: “Subject to subsection(5), an owner of land aggrieved by a designation by the commission of his land as part of the agricultural land reserve under section 8 may apply to the commission in the manner prescribed by the regulations to have his land excluded from the agricultural land reserve.”

A version of that language and that section has remained in the ALR through changes in government from that day forward. Now, I suppose it’s worth asking why the NDP government of the day enshrined the right of a landowner to initiate an application for exclusion to the ALC.

I think there are a couple of reasons, and I’m speculating. I obviously wasn’t there. But I think there was a realization, from what I have read, on the part of the government of the day that they probably didn’t get it right. It’s hard to draw lines on a map. When I say “didn’t get it right,” I don’t mean that as a criticism. It is hard to draw lines on a map on geography the size of British Columbia. I think there was a realization on the part of the government of the day that in drawing those arbitrary lines, there were probably going to be some unintended consequences.

The Premier and the minister and the government apparently have come to the conclusion today that all of those unintended consequences have been resolved, because they are purporting to eliminate the right of an individual landowner, farmer to directly initiate an application. If I’m right, if that was part of the rationale for maintaining this section in 1972, clearly the government today believes that that’s no longer a consideration or a requirement. I think there was a second reason. I think there was an element of political pragmatism. I think there was a lot of opposition expressed from some quarters.

[5:30 p.m.]

I think the minister and the government of the day wanted to be able to point to this as evidence that an individual landowner was still in a position to initiate a reconsideration of the zoning designation, and I think it was the right thing to do.

Maybe I’m being overly generous here, but I like to think that in that first NDP government of 1972 to 1975, there was also some regard for the basic rights of a landowner — basic rights of a landowner that actually date back all the way to Magna Carta, 1215.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The rights that evolve within our society and our country reveal themselves in constitutional documents. They reveal themselves in some of the founding documents that guide the creation of those constitutional documents. I don’t often get to quote or refer to foundational documents like Magna Carta, but they stand for the proposition that there is to be due process. They stand for the proposition that there is to be due process for individuals — not for government, for individuals. Individuals are entitled to due process.

I like to think that by including section 9(2) in the original version of the Agricultural Land Commission Act the government of the day, led by Mr. Barrett, was cognizant of that fact and wanted to show respect.

Look, I’m going to say this, and I think that members opposite will hear this from many of my colleagues. I accept the right of governments to zone for the protection of farmland. In fact, I support it. I accept the right of government to create a quasi-judicial body, the ALC, to independently administer that zoned reserve. I accept the right of government to set the process and the criteria by which decisions regarding that land reserve are to be made. They should be a fair process, but I accept the right of the government to do that.

I also say it is the right of every landowner, every farmer subject to the jurisdiction of that quasi-judicial body, to have direct access to that body, and that is what the Premier and the minister are purporting to eliminate.

I see the minister shaking her head again. Look, the other thing I give her credit for is, in her first reading remarks, she was pretty clear. She didn’t try to hide the fact that “we don’t want individuals applying to the ALR.” You don’t want individuals applying to the ALR, only governments. And that is the essence of section 19 in the bill before us.

As I was looking back on some of those founding discussions of the ALR, I wondered what the sponsoring minister had to say when the original act was introduced, so I went to the Hansard.

Now, for the second time, members opposite can take a second bow. Hansard didn’t exist before the Barrett government. That, too, was a creation of that government. I think today there are members of cabinet who might rue the day the first NDP government created Hansard, but there you go.

I was able….

Interjection.

M. de Jong: That’s right, and we doubled the length.

Here’s what the sponsoring minister said on April 16, 1973 — 46 years ago next week. Here is what the sponsoring minister of the original agricultural land reserve act had to say. It’s a quote.

[5:35 p.m.]

“It was a conscious decision at this point that it should be the owner himself who is making the application rather than an applicant, who might have other reasons for making the application and might conceivably even do it without the owner’s knowledge. So it was a conscious deci­sion that it should be ‘owner’ rather than ‘applicant’ in that particular case.” Not an accidental choice of language, according to the founding father of the ALR; a deliberate choice that the government of the day came to at the time the bill was introduced.

Who was that minister, by the way? Actually, I wonder if anyone across the way knows. I know they’re very proud, justifiably so, of the ALR. I wonder if any of them actually know who the minister was that introduced and guided the first ALR bill through this assembly, this very assembly.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I heard the member for Nanaimo say Mr. Steves. She is incorrect, but there is a Nanaimo connection.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Ah, yes. You don’t hear the name very much. No, you don’t hear the name very much, especially from members opposite. For all their professed pride in the ALR, why not? Well, embarrassment. Who was that minister, the founding father? David Daniel Stupich.

We now know that at the same time the original ALR legislation was making its way through the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Stupich was running the NDP’s fundraising arm, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. We also know that millions of dollars in gaming proceeds were fraudulently withheld from charities…

Deputy Speaker: Member, relevance, please.

M. de Jong: …and laundered elsewhere.

Deputy Speaker: Member, keep the relevancy, please.

M. de Jong: We’re talking about the introduction of the ALR legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Absolutely, but relevant to the bill.

M. de Jong: Why do I bring it up, Mr. Speaker? Certainly not to malign a former MLA and minister who passed away in 2006 — after, by the way, serving his sentence — but to remind members and the public that there is only one party in this House that has been directly implicated, through its fundraising apparatus, in the fraudulent misappropriation of gaming moneys and the laundering of those moneys for unlawful purposes, and it is the NDP.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, keep it relevant to the bill, please.

M. de Jong: Thank you. I can think of nothing more relevant than speaking of the minister and the founding father of the legislation that the minister purports to….

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Oh, and there is a sensitivity. The Attorney General loves to look back, though it appears from recent reports that he might want to spend a little more time paying attention to his present responsibilities. But he only likes to look back so far. Could it be that he is a little too embarrassed to look back a little further? Could it be that when he looks back beyond those 16 years, he needs to acknowledge the fact that when it comes to fraudulently laundering gaming moneys, his party created the original blueprint?

Deputy Speaker: Member, is there any difficulty understanding the directions coming from the Chair? Please continue.

M. de Jong: But I digress.

Deputy Speaker: We all digress, but please don’t try to be cute. Let’s be serious, and let’s keep it relevant. Proceed.

M. de Jong: I appreciate the admonishment, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, relevance ends 17 years ago. Everything that happened in the last 17 years is relevant, and anything that happened before that is not. But I take your guidance.

[5:40 p.m.]

The government says that I am exaggerating the significance of the changes, and the change, the particular one, contained within this bill. Local governments, they say, have always been involved in the applications for exclusion. It is a fact that by policy, the ALR has required expressions of support from local governments.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the member for Abbotsford West has the floor.

Please continue.

M. de Jong: It is true that, by policy, the ALR has required expressions of support. The law, however, merely requires a motion, and we can go to subsection 30(4) of the existing act. Subsection 30(4): “An application under this section, except an application from a first nation government, may not proceed unless authorized by a resolution of local government if, on the date the application is made….” The application then sets out the conditions that are necessary.

The law doesn’t actually require an expression of support. It requires a motion that the matter has been considered by local government, and it actually sets out circumstances in which that motion is not required.

Here is the difference, the difference that I expect the Premier and the minister will not want to acknowledge and their colleagues will not want to acknowledge. Under the present statutory regime, local governments do not initiate the application. That is a right of the landowner. There are obligations that go with initiating that application, but the right to initiate consideration for a change is vested with the person who owns the land.

What a novel concept. What a novel concept, dating back to 1215, that people who own land should at least have the right to initiate an application for consideration for change — the difference between direct and indirect access, the right to initiate versus the right to lobby local governments. Let’s not be under any illusion. The regime that the Premier and the minister and the government want to create is one that would have farmers having to go to local governments begging them to initiate an application on their behalf.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The minister can call it whatever she wants. She hasn’t created a single guarantee, a single safeguard that the local government will actually act on behalf of the landowner. So people who are getting up at 4:00 a.m., as novel a concept as that apparently is for some members of the government benches, are now going to have to go to the local government and try to attract the attention…. And don’t worry. I’m going to show the minister, in a few minutes, examples of applications that never would have seen the light of day, because local governments don’t have the time and, in many cases, don’t have the interest or the resources to bring those applications.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Or the expertise.

The minister throws her hands in the air and says: “What are you talking about?” It’s her bill. It’s her language. She chose it.

Where is the statutory safeguard for the landowner, if this is the route the minister wants to go with the Premier, that says that right to ask — not a guarantee of a particular result but that right to ask — is preserved and that there is a mechanism for ensuring that the request will be brought forward? It doesn’t exist.

The minister, again, just a few moments ago when she introduced the bill, talked about speculation. “We’ve got to stop this speculation.” This speculation that is apparently running rampant and threatening our agricultural land base. It’s necessary to prevent that. The change is necessary, she said in first reading, to limit speculation on farmland, except, to my knowledge — and I have been keeping track of her public commentary and the Premier’s public commentary on this — there has been no evidence presented. No evidence. None whatsoever.

[5:45 p.m.]

I went through, a few moments ago, the data for 2018, of that 4.7 million hectares of land, the 39 applications and the — what was it? — 29 hectares, 15 in the Lower Mainland. I thought, again to be fair, maybe what I should do is go to some of the actual applications — they are archived, they are public, and they are available — because they’re instructive.

I know that the painting that the government, the Premier and the minister have tried to create is this notion that people are buying land and rushing off to the ALR to have it excluded — that every farmer is a speculator in waiting who can’t wait to seize the moment to have their land excluded from the ALR. Yet the facts tell a very different story. There were applications, and we should examine some of them, because they either address and support the initiative the Premier and the minister have brought, or they refute it. I think it’s the latter, but I’ll let others be the judge.

Here’s one from 2016, and they’re public. It’s ALC file 54694. The minister can check if she thinks that I’m making stuff up or that I’m somehow taking things out of context.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, I’ll read it back into the record: Agricultural Land Commission file 54694. It was an application for exclusion. It came from the landowner — I won’t read the landowner’s name into the record — on Denman Island. The application was made pursuant to subsection 30(1) of the ALCA: “An owner of land may apply to the commission to have their land excluded from the agricultural land reserve.”

You see, on Denman Island, there was, to quote the ALC, “a well-documented need for seniors affordable housing,” and there was a parcel of land, 1.6 hectares, in the area. The ALC had this to say:

“There are currently no other available locations for affordable housing within walking distance of the village that are not in the agricultural land reserve.”

They then looked at the soil.

“Approximately half of the soils on the subject property are not suited to arable agriculture due mainly to stoniness, and the remaining soils have moderate restrictions for agriculture, due to a low water-holding capacity.

“Denman Island,” it says, “faces a pressing need for affordable and appropriate housing for its senior population. The total number of seniors on the island is expanding rapidly, and the age of individual seniors is growing. This trend is expected to continue for three or more decades.

“Most of Denman’s seniors say they want to continue to live on the island, but they face numerous barriers to doing so. There are no dedicated seniors or subsidized housing units. There are few rental accommodations, and those that exist are inappropriate for people with mobility or health issues. There are limited options for downsizing to a more manageable home or yard for aging in place as older people’s needs change.

“The subject property is one of very few properties, and possibly the only property, which is undeveloped and within reasonable walking distance of the village core and the services it offers, and which possesses the area necessary for the on-site waste treatment that would be required.”

It goes on to lay out the other reasons why the property was well suited and concludes: “For the reasons given above, the island panel” — it was a regional panel — “approves the proposal to exclude 1.6 hectares for the establishment of affordable seniors housing for Denman Island residents.”

What’s interesting about this are two things. If the amendments the government has brought to the House today are allowed to pass, this applicant wouldn’t have the right to bring the application. This applicant wouldn’t have the right to ask to establish seniors housing on Denman Island. I venture to guess, based on my analysis of the change in mandate, even if she did have — which she won’t — under the new mandate, the ALC wouldn’t be permitted to grant it.

[5:50 p.m.]

If the minister has her way, the next Denman Island seniors housing application that comes along gets thumbs down. It ain’t going to happen, because the person with the interest in bringing the application will be statute-barred from doing so. One application.

Another application in 2016. This one was interesting. The Ascot Jockey Club. I think the minister knows where that is. It’s down the road from where she lives in North Saanich — a whole bunch of parcels of land, the old racetrack. They brought in an application to consolidate them, stick in some additional land from Saanich and take out a small portion of land for a commercial enterprise. It ended up being, as the ALC itself acknowledged, kind of a win-win. A win-win for the preservation and promotion of agriculture.

The amendments the minister has brought to the House today in this bill — if they’re passed, it wouldn’t happen. The Ascot Jockey Club can’t bring the application. Why? It’s because they’re just the owner of the property, and they won’t have the right to do so.

Here’s another one. By the way, this is all about that rampant speculation that we keep hearing about from the government and the minister. Another one from 2016. This is file 54363. So it’s a one-hectare area. Application made under 30(1): “An owner of land may apply to the commission to have their land excluded from the agricultural land reserve.”

Here’s what the ALC had to say about this. They looked at the soil samples. They got a report, as is frequently the case in these situations. The assessment of the land, of agricultural capacity…. Here’s what they said: “The CNF report finds that approximately 0.18 hectare” — 18 percent of the property — “is improvable to class 3.” It’s not class 3, but 18 percent is improvable to class 3. The remaining 0.59 hectares, 82 percent of the property, is class 5 to 7, or anthropic.

It describes what those are. Interesting. Class 7 is defined by the ALC as the following: “Land has no” — not some — “capability for soil-bound agriculture.” These people applied to have it excluded. At its site visit, the panel noted that there is only a small portion of flat land on the property and that the rest of the property is sloped with rock outcropping. For the reasons given above, the panel approves the proposal to exclude the property. Now here’s the thing.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The member says: “Wow.” It is wow, because under the rules and the law that the member and the minister and the Premier want to introduce, this property owner wouldn’t be permitted to bring that application. For the minister and Premier to say: “They just have to get the city to do it on their behalf….” What incentive does the city have to bring an application like this? The incentive exists for the person who owns the property. They live there.

If your attitude on these things is “government knows best,” which apparently is what guides members opposite, then I guess you’re not offended. I’m offended. I’m actually offended.

What else have we got? What else have we got in that basket of speculation, that overflowing cauldron of speculation from the seven applications that were made?

This is file 54361. Again it looks like a husband and wife that made the application. Two hectares. Applied under the same provision. Again 95 percent of the land they were applying was class 7. “Land has no capability for soil-bound agriculture.”

[5:55 p.m.]

Surely the message at this point is that 46 years on, there are still adjustments that need to be made. Who is best suited to initiate those applications? It’s the people that own the land, who worked hard, who bought the land. At its site visit, the panel noted there is only a small portion of flat land on the property, and they granted the application.

Later on in these proceedings, I’m going to talk about some of the other applications. My favourite is the one in Langley, by the way. The one in Langley, from the same year, 2016, results from when a highway overpass is built on a 48-hectare farm, and a sliver of land is cut off from the farm because of a public improvement — disconnected from the farm.

The farm family is still farming. They’re doing their thing. But society builds an overpass and cuts off a sliver of land. They say: “Well, it’s not connected to our place. We can’t farm it anymore. Here’s where it is, and we’d like to apply to have it removed.” And it’s granted. But under the rules that the minister and the Premier and the government want to introduce, that family would be precluded from initiating an application. That’s wrong. That is wrong.

There is an underlying message here from the government, and that is that people can’t be trusted. I have heard this in some quarters. The minister has given…. I’m not going to quote her, but there has been a variation of this, I think, from her and from people within the government and the ministry. “Land use planning is too important to involve actual landowners. It must be done by governments.”

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, the member from Surrey-whatever shakes her head and says…. That is what the bill does. It wrests from landowners the right to initiate an application and says that the only agencies that can do this — believe me, we’re going to talk about this — are governments, because it’s, according to the government, now a societal decision. Well, I disagree. I disagree.

You know, it’s fascinating….

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The Minister of Citizens’ Services is going to have plenty of time to defend to her very angry constituents what her government is doing. She says: “Who does zoning?” You know who does zoning? Zoning is in response, frequently — not always but frequently — to the request of a landowner, as novel a concept as that might be for the minister.

Someone says to a government: “I own a piece of land, and I’d like to do something different with it. I’d like permission to do it.” They go to government. Apparently members of the NDP government don’t think that is appropriate.

It’s interesting, because we’re talking about agricultural land. If it’s true for agricultural lands, I presume it’s true for urban-based lands. If people who own agricultural land shouldn’t have the right to initiate an application to rezone, because it’s a form of rezoning…. If they shouldn’t have the right as owner to initiate an application to rezone agricul­tural lands, why should someone who lives in the city have the right to initiate an application?

I think that’s where this is going. I think that’s ultimately the plan. I think the government believes, as we just heard a moment ago, that it is government that performs the absolute function of determining when a rezoning application should be made — not just whether it should be granted but when it should be made. If it’s true in the agricultural setting, I presume they think it’s true in the urban setting, because that’s the legal construct they have created. I disagree.

People should always, in my view, have the right to ask. I think that is a right. The minister and the Premier disagree.

Interjection.

[6:00 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Well, I disagree. I disagree with what they’re doing.

I said I was going to talk about what I really find offensive. I disagree with what they want to do, but I find offensive how they are doing it.

The Premier and the minister and the government have decided that the best way to write farmers out of the equation, when it comes to the zoning decisions about the land they own, is to legally designate farmers as non-persons.

Let’s go to the bill. Let’s go to section 19. We’re going to have so much time to review and test the minister’s proposition that what I’m saying is not correct. Here’s what 29(1) says: “A person may apply to the commission to have land excluded from the agricultural land reserve if the person is” — here’s the definition — “(a) the owner of the land” — good so far — “and,” not or, “is (i) the Province…or (ii) a prescribed public body.” You have to be both.

You know, we can end this right now, this part of the conversation. The minister can interrupt me, and she can stand up and say: “Here’s the person that qualifies. Here is the human being that meets that criteria.” But she can’t do it. She can’t do it, because no one meets that criteria. Section 19 doesn’t actually embrace a single human being.

The minister says: “We haven’t redefined farmers as non-persons.” By the way, they’re sending out emails to that effect. They’re saying: “Oh, there’s no change to the Interpretation Act where the term ‘person’ is a defined term.” So I say, as I just did: “Okay, name me one farmer. Name me one farmer, one human being in B.C., in Canada, who is captured by the definition included in section 19 — someone who is a person and a government.” Well, no such person exists.

That is the clever turn of phrase, the clever drafting, that the Premier and the minister have purposely utilized. I say no such person exists. As I was writing that to myself, I thought: “Well, except for Louis XIV — L’état, c’est moi; I am the state.” I guess he qualified on both fronts. Hopefully, the Premier hasn’t acquired Louis XIV syndrome.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: No, we don’t go back over 16 years.

I heard members, and they’re all upset. Why am I so worked up about this? Because I find it deceptive. I, quite frankly, find it obscene. And, sadly, I find it reflective of how discrimination has historically manifested itself in this country, to be really blunt — really blunt.

Discrimination in Canada, at least official discrimination, is generally camouflaged. It’s rarely overt. I’ll give you three examples. They’re frequently referred to in this House.

When I talk about the case of Edwards v. Attorney General of Canada, most people probably roll their eyes and say: “What’s that about?” If I refer to it by its other name, people generally do. It’s the Persons Case. It’s frequently cited. It’s not always completely understood.

[6:05 p.m.]

If I asked, rhetorically here, what it was about, I have a feeling I’d get answers that focused on women being deemed persons and acquiring the right to vote. It wasn’t actually about the right to vote. By the time the Persons Case was decided, women nationally and in every province had acquired the right to vote, except in Quebec.

The Persons Case was about, of all things, the right of a woman to be appointed to the Senate. There was nothing explicit in preventing that from happening. There was no bill. There was no statute. There was no law that said that a woman couldn’t be appointed to the senate.

The BNA Act said this. According to section 24 of the BNA Act, only “qualified persons” could be appointed to the Senate. What was a qualified person? Qualified persons included those of at least 30 years of age, who owned property worth at least $4,000 and who resided in the province of their appointment. But there was also a basic understanding at the time, at least at the time of the BNA Act, that that term did not include women — nothing overt.

It’s camouflaged discrimination, and it took the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to rectify it. The member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, back in October of last year, was one of the members who most recently referred to this. She had some things to say in a statement she made on October 4. She asked this during the course of the statement: “How many of our mothers and grandmothers had to fight for the right to even be seen as a person — to vote, to own property, to hold office…?”

How do you reconcile that statement with a piece of legislation that says to a woman who owns farmland: “You’re no longer a person for the purpose of applying to the ALC”? How do you reconcile those two things? I will be interested to hear members try to address that.

Second example: election acts in B.C. and the right to vote. I think most of us in this chamber have some appreciation for the history, much of it a torturous history, for immigrants, in particular, and Aboriginal people — the historic denial of a basic democratic right. It was rarely explicit. It was generally camouflaged.

You won’t find an early statute that says that Aboriginal people are prohibited from voting. You won’t. You know what you will find? You will find statutes and laws that define persons eligible to vote in a way deliberately designed to exclude Aboriginal people. You had to own land. You had to be able to read or write. These were things set out in the statute. The statute didn’t say: “Those people can’t vote.” The statute said: “Persons can vote, but persons have to qualify on the following basis.” Camouflaged discrimination.

I’ll cite one last example. I think everyone in this House knows the story of the 1914 Komagata Maru — almost 400 passengers, mostly, ironically, landowners, who travelled from Punjab. The story is much better known today thanks to the work of many people to make it better known. Not as well known are the legal instruments that governments used to deny the Punjabi passengers entry. It wasn’t explicit. There was no law that said that people from the Punjab can’t disembark in Vancouver. There was no such law. There were two regulations to keep South Asians out, to keep those Punjabis out. Canadian officials relied on two regulations that were introduced in 1908.

[6:10 p.m.]

One of those regulations: immigration officers could block the entry of anyone who came to Canada other than by a continuous journey from their home country. That was interesting, because passenger agents were under instructions from the governments of India and Canada not to sell people in India through-tickets to Canada. Then there was another regulation that said Canadian immigration officers were empowered to turn away anyone who arrived with less than $200.

Camouflaged discrimination — define “person” in a way that excludes people. That’s what’s happening here, in this case: define person in a way that excludes every single owner of agricultural land in British Columbia. The Premier and the minister, I take it, are pretty dismissive of my and our concerns. Why is that? I guess they don’t want to acknowledge, nor would I, complicity in another example of camouflaged discrimination.

I think there’s a second reason. It’s a trend I see regularly from the left, and that is the end justifies the means. This is about speculation. There’s no evidence about that. Farmers are presumed to be speculators. There is a presumption. Farmers are presumed to be speculators, so let’s not let them initiate applications to the ALR. You know, even the speculation tax had a rebuttable presumption. No such courtesy here. They are presumed to be speculators, so let’s just remove the right to initiate an application.

I was a bit hesitant to refer to this document because it’s penned by a former colleague in this chamber, a former Speaker in fact, Joan Sawicki. I have great respect for her. She was a Speaker when I arrived here 25-plus years ago. She is a great defender of the ALR, and she took exception to some of the things that were written, challenging and criticizing the government for the very language that I am critical of.

She wrote a letter to the editor to the Vancouver Sun, pointing out her support for the bill, Bill 15, and the provisions. She took exception to the reference I and others have made to the designation of farmers as non-persons. Here’s what she said. I was astounded, quite frankly, but I think it is indicative of what we are going to hear and have already heard from the Premier and the minister and members of the NDP. “We need to get on with this next phase of securing farmland and farmers for the future — and not get distracted by nonsense about who is a person.”

Nonsense about who is a person. The member from Surrey laughs. Imagine the reaction from the other side if I had said that “nonsense about who is a person.” The dripping sanctimony — we could have bottled and sold it.

I guess these principles that some people purport to hold dear are not absolute, and the end justifies the means. The end, insofar as there is a shared concern about protecting agricultural land, is a laudable one. But the means are not justified and are insidious, in my view.

[6:15 p.m.]

The government wants to protect farmland. I’ve just said it’s a laudable objective that I think the majority of British Columbians actually do share. They want to create rules and procedures — fair enough. But stripping away absolutely the rights of a landowner to apply for consideration by deeming them a non-person is indefensible. That is indefensible.

Bill 15 is part of a pattern, in my view — a terrible pattern. In less than two short years, the Premier and the government have mastered the dark art of institutionalized discrimination. Where is my evidence of that? Ask a tradesperson who doesn’t belong to the right union, who is barred from working on public infrastructure projects. It’s a remarkably similar modus operandi.

There’s nothing explicit that says that tradesperson can’t work on…. In fact, that’s what we heard from the government benches while we were discussing and debating that very topic. No, nothing explicitly removes the right to work. It just says that the group of people who are qualified are defined as the following, and unless you fit within that definition, you’re not qualified for that project.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I don’t quarrel with the member. It’s the very same approach — camouflaged discrimination, institutionalized discrimination.

We spent several days in this chamber talking about the social services sector. There is nothing explicitly denying low-wage redress to 17,000 mostly women workers; you just have to be a member of the right group. You just have to be a member of the right class of persons, and then you qualify. Now farmers are caught in a definition that excludes every single one of them — women, men, families. Are farmers taking this personally? Well, they are. At least to the extent that you can take something personally when you’re told by the government you’re not a person.

It’s got to stop. It’s got to stop here. The Premier and the government’s deliberate and calculated attack on farm families must end. You cannot say that you support agriculture when you refuse to support, and set out to attack and diminish, the people who own and work on their farms. Farmers are people. They are persons. They have rights, and this opposition will not stand idly by and allow ideological zealotry and institutionalized discrimination to strip those rights away and render them non-persons.

A. Olsen: I am trying to gather myself. I thought that it might go for much, much longer than it did. I’d just like to acknowledge the experience of the previous speaker and the ability to capture the moment, or the 90 moments or however long it was that he spoke to this bill. He did a very thorough job at that.

I don’t know that the member is going to be necessarily surprised that I don’t follow the arguments that he has made. Well, I follow them, but I don’t agree with them. As somebody who grew up in politics, I guess, over the last ten years at the local government level, in a municipality that has a tremendous amount of agricultural land in the agricultural land reserve….

[6:20 p.m.]

In fact, Central Saanich is the municipality that I got my start in. The first election that I won was back in 2008, more than a decade ago. The first issue that I dealt with was around stormwater management and the relationship that that had with agricultural land.

I rise today to speak to Bill 15, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, to discuss, I think, some of the aspects of this bill and to discuss some of the aspects of the industry as I’ve seen it and watched it. I’m not a farmer. I don’t own agricultural land. I think that’s important to be acknowledged. But I certainly do have experience at the governance tables dealing with issues around the Agricultural Land Commission.

I think it’s important to frame this conversation we’re having with respect to agricultural land in the context that I don’t know that there is anything we could do more urgently right now than to ensure that we have the appropriate levels of protection around quality food-producing land.

We got a tour of history, going all the way back to, I believe, the Magna Carta by the previous speaker. I’m not going to go quite so far back but go back to the 1970s and the desperation of that government at the time to protect food-producing land that was being developed very aggressively.

Indeed, that happened in Central Saanich. Many of the lands in Central Saanich that we live in now, the neighbourhoods that we live in now, the neighbourhoods that I used to bike around as a kid, before that, were strawberry fields and before that, were agricultural lands. I think of Tanner Ridge.

Many members, as they’re coming through here, will drive by and drive through, past Martindale Valley on the left and Tanner Ridge up on the right. There are many challenges that exist there now because of highway construction, neighbourhood construction. The low-lying agricultural lands are being inundated with water because of poor drainage. I’m just thinking that the neighbourhoods that we live in now are there being built right on top of agricultural land.

That government back in the 1970s, as the previous member spoke to, were in somewhat of a desperate state to protect land. I remember hearing some of the stories about it. No need to go into any detail on this, but in that desperate state, they did draw big, thick, black lines on maps. And it is true that having the flexibility there to be able to make sure that those lines are correct, having the land use decision-making capacity to be able to ensure that lands that are not necessarily of high production quality can be used appropriately….

I think it’s important, as well, that many of the operations on agricultural land…. Soil quality is an important aspect of it, for sure, if you’re going to be planting things in the ground. But there are lots of other agricultural operations that don’t require direct planting in the ground.

One of the aspects of the challenges that we face in Central Saanich, of course, was the cost of agricultural land, the prohibitive costs of ALR land and agricultural land to the next generation. Coming forward in time to now, I look at it and think: “How is it that we’re going to be able to make sure that the business of farming is viable?” That is, in fact, part of the work. It’s not just land. It’s business. And it is, as was mentioned previously, about people.

One of the aspects of this legislation and the relationship…. There was some criticism of the fact that this bill is talking about increasing enforcement. One of the biggest frustrations that I had as a municipal councillor was noting that, especially in a kind of rurban area that we’re in here, a rural-urban area, Central Saanich became the dump zone for all the development fill that was going on in the more urban areas.

When we were looking to the Agricultural Land Commission for enforcement capacity there, unfortunately, during my early days — and I recognize this is going back before my time here in this place, when there was a different government in place — it was incredibly difficult for the Agricultural Land Commission, with their lack of enforcement capacity.

[6:25 p.m.]

So when I do hear the member kind of wax eloquently about the policing or the enforcement of the agricultural land reserve, I have to think of the prime agricultural land that was covered, completely unnecessarily, because of a total lack of enforcement and an unwillingness to fund the Agricultural Land Commission to the point that it needed, to be able to actually enforce the rules that were already there. Never mind taking a look at the rules to ensure that they were strengthened.

In addition to that, I think of all of the agricultural land that’s been left completely exposed to other interests, like oil and gas, for example. I think of the agricultural land that has high-quality production capacity in this province that now has gas wells drilled into the middle of it, making it completely useless for food production. And I think of the land that was removed from the agricultural land reserve in order to make way for Site C.

It comes with some great difficulty to hear members of the official opposition wax so eloquently about agricultural land, noting that, as a municipal councillor, many of the decisions that were made and that impacted our lives at the local government level, at the planning level, at the community planning level, really, really were not helpful.

As we face some of the biggest challenges that we have now going forward, with climate change and with the fact that our weather patterns are changing, increasing levels of drought, I think that we have to be ever more cognizant of the fact that we can ill afford to lose more quality soils. We can ill afford to lose more quality land for agriculture.

I think it’s important, as well, at this point to point out that there are other values in this. I’ve mentioned them, and I’ve brought them up, as well, elsewhere, but this is part of, I think, understanding and having a relationship to the land that’s more than just one of massive resource extraction. I understand and recognize the fact that resources that we extract, if done prudently and if done in a sustainable manner with resilience in mind…. We certainly can benefit from that. But I also have to balance that with the understanding that if we do it in an unbalanced way, in fact, it hurts us and hurts the resilience in our societies and our communities.

One of the things that really was problematic with the agricultural land reserve in Central Saanich was that some very, very highly productive lands with other natural benefits to them, other natural values to them, were being drained and were being damaged.

One of the things that I’m hoping we can do here is not only recognize that these lands have really important, incredible values for the purpose of agriculture, but there are also other natural values that need to be protected and need to be nurtured.

One of the stories I’ve heard recently on this was a story that was a transcript of my late uncle PENÁĆ, David Elliott Sr. This is what he said:

“Take a look. It’s flat as far as you can see. It used to be a huge swamp, extending to the hill and as far as your school” — Stelly’s School, which is my high school — “flooded in the wintertime like a huge lake. I saw it that way when I was a young man.”

This was in the 1920s.

“It was considered by non-Indians to be a wasteland, unproduc­tive, good for nothing, too wet. To our people, it was not a wasteland. To us, it was a beautiful environment and very productive of so many things our people needed and used.

“The plants provided material for making mats and baskets and house linings, material for medicines, for making rope, twine, nets for SXOLE, our reef-net fishery.

[6:30 p.m.]

“The list goes on, and I cannot mention them all. It came from this very area, which are now all farms. I say the way we used this land, this territory, we got more out of it, more good out of it than all these farms put together. We did not only take those things I already mentioned, but there was also wildlife.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

“Picture this after it floods, which lasts for months until the summer. Then came the ducks, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of ducks. There were also geese and swans and other bird life, including grouse. This was a feeding ground for them all, and this was where we came to get them. Our people ate all these birds. Of course, the deer also came here.

“The Saanich Peninsula was a drought area in the summertime. This was the last place where there was moisture. As the land dried in the summer, then the animals came to feed to this beautiful area where the grass was still lush and green. Grouse also came to feed on the ripening berries. Our people also came here to harvest all those things that I mentioned — the food, the medicine and everything else.

“This was what this place was, beautiful and productive, with fertile soil, and everything grew so big and of good quality. Now the farmer here grows potatoes year after year after year. Why? Because it’s all peat soil. There’s no end to the fertility of that land. This is the swamp, and the farmers saw it as a wasteland, but to us it was beautiful and productive.

“You see this ditch? Further down is a huge, deep ditch, dug in my time, to drain the swamp. I remember when it happened. When they did it, my mother cried openly, unashamed, and said it will be no more good. She was right. It is no more good.

“Only a few people benefit now, whereas before, everybody benefitted, including the birds, the animals, the flowers, the trees and everything else. That was the way the Creator meant it. That is all I have to say right now.”

Those are the words of my late great-uncle PENÁĆ , Dave Elliott Sr.

I want to add a little bit of complexity to this. I want to acknowledge that the type of resource extraction that we have from agricultural production…. The definition of that needs to be inclusive of this type of production. We need to have spaces that we recognize for the storage of water and places for other plants and animals to live, for our medicines to grow.

Back in the 1970s, as former members of this place went around the province and drew big lines on the map, they weren’t perfect. So I do recognize what the member is saying about the need to be able to have that flexibility. Indeed, I’m asking for the minister to also exercise that flexibility.

When I look at the bill, I see that there is an opportunity for the minister to take a look at those aspects of the natural values that I was talking about, that I’ve been talking about, that my great-uncle was talking about. The definitions of farm use and non-farm use. I think we need to be taking a look at those to ensure that the other uses are able to be applied here.

I want to say that I have some strong feelings about our relationship to the land. I have some strong feelings about our relationship to the land use decisions that are being made around sustainable and resilient communities. In some cases, to be very frank, I have some strong feelings about what I think are very poor land use decisions that are being made, very short-term decisions, like this one, to drain a very productive and very important bog that was so productive of so many things, to build homes on top of fertile soil in places that we can grow food.

I have a tremendous amount of worry that we are undermining ourselves and our communities, that we are relying too heavily on transported foods from other regions on the Pacific coast here, that we are relying too heavily on areas that are so deeply impacted by climate change. The lack of water in the Hoover dam is an example.

[6:35 p.m.]

The food that we rely on to fill our grocery stores. When we go there, we have this expectation and a demand in our mind that we should be able to get those foods that we expect to be there in the grocery store, because we don’t produce them here any longer.

The fact that so many of our farms have changed their crops and that we don’t have the diversity in our crops that we used to have in this province. I’m very concerned about that.

I’m very concerned that we don’t value the land like we used to. In fact, if you take a look at where our major cities are, they’ve all been built on these very fertile deltas because our ancestors knew the inherent value of building their homes in places that they could produce food close by.

Our fishing locations in WSÁNEĆ — the SXOLE, as they were called, the reef-net fishing locations. They had to have three basic conditions for it to be a good fishing location. It had to have a good supply of fish — that was the first — but it also had to have a good supply of water, and it had to have a good supply of deer. These were what was going to sustain life while we were out fishing. Without those things, without the ability to provide those things, that was not a good fishing location. It didn’t provide the support for our families.

I think we have become so reliant on food sources from elsewhere that we’re really undermining the resilience in our communities. I’m really quite worried about that. I’m quite worried about the fact that the thinking in here is very short term. It’s very, very short term.

I respect and understand the long-winded, very emotional response by the member who spoke before me. There’s absolutely nothing about the fact that we have communities that are exceptionally vulnerable because they do not have a sustainable food source close by to them. The watersheds that sustain them, the watersheds that I was talking about, the Graham Creek, or ḰENES, as it’s known…. I was talking about it today in question period. The bog that my late great-uncle PENÁĆ was talking about was a little bit further up that watershed. It’s all the same watershed.

I think that the short-term decision-making that happens in this place, the short-term decision-making that happens at municipal council tables, that we need to chase deficits of property taxes with new development, creating only a deficit…. We just kick the can down the road. Those short-term decision-making processes have got us to a situation where, in fact, we are chasing one bad decision with another.

I think that when it comes to agricultural land and it comes to making sure that the processes that we have to protect agricultural land be strong, that we strengthen them and that we stand by the process to strengthen them.

In my experience as a municipal councillor, many, if not all, of those applications for exclusions came to us anyway. In fact, one of the things that I find really problematic about the tone of the debate or the tone of the arguments that have been made with respect to the proposed amendment to the exclusion process is that I remember some decisions that the municipal council decided: “We’re not going to burn any political capital on this. You know what we’re going to do with this? We’re just going to punt it to the Agricultural Land Commission with no recommendation.”

Everybody, elected officials…. The easiest thing for an elected official to do is hand off a tough decision to another different elected official or another decision-maker somewhere else. The most difficult thing for an elected official to do is to take responsibility for those decisions that are made. So we see these situations where those decisions just get punted off to somewhere else.

[6:40 p.m.]

I think what’s happening here with this bill is that…. Basically, you’re saying: “Look. These are important deci­sions about land use. The decisions about land use that are made at the local government level…. They’re making all the decisions about land use. Let’s make sure that they’re making those decisions in a coordinated fashion as much as possible.”

The fact of the matter is that fragmentation has been so beneficial to this level of government. What did we have here? We had a conversation, here in this region, about local governments and about fragmented decision-making. What did the previous government do? That was a decision they punted too. “You know what? We’re just going to let this situation be the way it is. We’re not going to show leadership on that, because it’s beneficial for us that way, just to leave it that way.”

That’s not acceptable, as far as I’m concerned, in this place. Those are our responsibility, and we have to take responsibility for that. I think that when it comes to land use decision-making, we still have a long way to go on that to make sure that our communities have the decision-making at the local level and that the interest of the people…. The fact that communities can still produce food in their own areas and that those decisions are made at a local level I think is very, very valuable.

That’s why I think that what’s been going on here with the immediate…. Member after member jumping in front of the video camera to make the first video they can to cast aspersions on this is really problematic. The reality is that this needs to be a part of a land use decision-making process, and it hasn’t been.

I’ve seen it. Those who’ve been around the decision-making tables know this. They’ve seen it. Anybody who’s been at UBCM, anybody who’s been to the local associations, knows this. They know that it’s easy just to punt it. “Let’s just punt. Let’s just send it off to the ALC with no comments. We won’t even make a recommendation on this. No, we’ll just leave it up to somebody else to make the decision.”

I think that it’s important….

Interjections.

A. Olsen: I’m sure you will.

Anyway, I just want to say that as we go forward here, I’m interested to hear the members of the official opposition follow through on their promises to talk forever about this bill. I’m sure it’s going to be amazing. I just want to say that I feel very strongly about the importance of protecting the integrity of food-producing lands.

I know that others, in the past, have done everything that they can to try to undermine that. They called it all sorts of things. They called it…. I can’t remember what it was. They were doing review after review, back in 2013, as a way to try to undermine the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. They did everything but actually call it that.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: I was very, very familiar with the process that was going on. Thank you to the member from Surrey for pointing that out.

I would just say that I watched the former member for Kootenay East, I think, undermine that, do everything they could to undermine it.

I think that it’s important to note that we have a responsibility to ensure our communities are resilient. We have a responsibility to ensure that there are food-producing lands available to our communities. That’s our job in this place. I fundamentally believe that it needs to be part of a coordinated land use planning process, and that’s where the local governments come in.

With this bill, I look forward to the committee stage. I thank the minister for bringing it forward, and I’ll take my place now.

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I rise today to support Bill 15 at second reading.

Let’s first recap what this bill is about, after the long, long talk from a colleague from Abbotsford West. He tried to give a history lesson but managed to conflate a lot of different issues while he was trying to talk about farmland. This bill is really about keeping our best farmland in production and affordable for farmers. That’s fairly simple.

You know, in case there’s some confusion, I actually grew up on a farm. As an adult now, I know how important it is to protect our farmland.

I’m not the only one who is saying that. Here is Anita Huberman. She is the chair of the Surrey Board of Trade, and this is what she says: “The agricultural land reserve was designed to protect farmland. Only 5 percent of B.C. is in the ALR, and only 1 percent of all B.C. is prime farmland, much of which is close to urban centres.” She goes on to say: “With Surrey well on its way to being the largest city of British Columbia, and one-third of Surrey’s land base being agricultural, it has never been more important to ensure food security for future generations.” That is from the Surrey Board of Trade.

One thing I do know is you cannot support farmers if you are not supporting farmland. Those two things go hand in hand. This legislation is here to revitalize the ALR and ALC. It is there to protect and to preserve; to ensure that farmland is protected and affordable so people in British Columbia can access fresh, locally grown food; to support farmers’ prosperity; and to create jobs for people.

My colleague, who just spoke before me, talked about the importance of climate change and the impact it’s had on our food production. I don’t think we need to be studying too many scientific journals to find out that there has been climate change. It is real. The weather patterns are changing.

This is the time when it is absolutely critical that our focus should be on preserving our farmland, because unless you have food that you can feed to your population…. If you’re dependent on areas of the world where water is a real problem, so is the warming planet, then I think we’re failing our future generations. This is about our children. This is about our grandchildren.

I’ve heard my colleagues on the other side get so excited and try to misinform and mislead the public out there. For 16 long, long, long years, the B.C. Liberals failed — failed to support farmers or the ALC. All they’ve been doing is fearmongering. The amount of misinformation is shameful.

Just a couple of years ago and even today, when I think….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Proceed.

Hon. J. Sims: This particular legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of houses on farms or farmers being able to build a house for intergenerational families if they are farming. You know what? This is not what this is about. This is about fearmongering and trying to mislead people.

As a Canadian citizen of Indian descent, to have to sit in this House and listen to a member from that side of the House talk about a bill to protect farmland and compare it to the Komagata Maru is shameful. It is shameful to compare it to people of my ethnicity and the Aboriginal people getting the right to vote.

[6:50 p.m.]

If we want to talk about misleading and fearmongering, it’s all coming from that side of the House. I am proud to stand in this House and stand here to support farmers, to stand here to support those who want to protect our farmland. And I’m so proud of the work being done by the Minister of Agriculture.

You know, having been a history teacher and having history kind of misrepresented and misconstrued by my colleagues on the other side, and to use maybe one of the blackest parts of our Canadian history, when we kept people who were part of the British Empire at that time from landing in this country…. We fired cannons. We did not give them food to eat. And then today, when you have a government that is committed to protecting the farmland, the future of this province…. Whether you’re a new immigrant or whether you’re Aboriginal, or whether you’ve been here for generations, every one of us understands the importance of food and food security.

This is about something that is as fundamental as the water we drink. This is about food, and it is so, so disingenuous and so playing into hate and playing into racism to relate this. And you know what? I very rarely use the word “racism.” I’m using it today, because sitting in this House, I was so disgusted, so disgusted to hear my colleague from across the way comparing the protection of farmland to the Komagata Maru, for which our federal government has apologized as being a racist act and something that was wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet I have colleagues sitting in this House, on the other side of the House, who would conflate and confuse the protection of keeping land, good, solid land for growing food, to some of the blackest parts of our history.

They went to the right to vote. They went to the right to sit in the Senate. And I was just sitting here thinking: “What else are they going to compare it to?” This was just so, so outrageous. And you know, Madam Speaker? On this side of the House, we are committed to supporting farmers, farming, farmland. That’s what we are committed to, and we’re going to continue to do that.

Farmers who have a need to have a larger house than the one in the previous legislation have a pathway. They have a pathway. And in this legislation…. I’ve heard my colleagues across the way talking about Bill 15 as if this somehow is about homes on farmland. This bill is not about homes or the size of homes on farmland. This bill is about cities and municipalities doing what they have always, always done — that is, making decisions around land use and bylaws. And that’s what we’re going to do.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We’ve streamlined the process. They’re streamlining it, instead of going to one place, then another and then back again. It’s now going to be in the hands of the cities — municipalities that make decisions about land use. And they will be able to argue and put forward a presentation if a piece of land needs to leave the ALR. They will be able to do that. And the farm owner will be able to go and meet with the city and explain their full situation to them, which…. They argued they were not able to convince the ALR because it was so far away.

[6:55 p.m.]

I had such a long speech here, and I am going to get back on to it, because I do think it’s important I get to talk about some of the amazing initiatives that that Minister of Agriculture has taken to support farmers. That’s what this bill is about. It is about the Feed B.C. initiative. I’m so proud of that — that our health authorities, Interior Health, have taken up this challenge. They’re going to be buying local food. They’re going to be making local food and making sure that people who are sick in hospitals are getting good quality food. We will be using local food grown in B.C. No more eggs from China.

There’s the relaunching of the Buy B.C. program, which is another way to support farmers. We launched the new B.C. land-matching program with the Young Agrarians. What a wonderful way to excite young people to get into farming. Because we know how important food security is. It’s not just about land that can be developed to put big houses on for speculation purposes. This is about growing food.

The Agriculture Minister has also supported the tree fruit competitiveness industry. We have packing planters in the process. There are so many exciting things happening in agriculture. I can tell you, I am so, so proud of our Agriculture Minister, and today, I feel so embarrassed for the member of the Legislature who stood in this House and compared saving farmland to the Komagata Maru, one of the darkest periods in Canadian history.

Noting the hour, I do hereby adjourn debate and reserve my right to continue speaking at the next sitting.

Hon. J. Sims moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. Sims moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a. m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.