Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Donaldson: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 22, the Forest Amendment Act, 2019.

Mr. Speaker: And….

Government House Leader.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair. And in Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, we call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. When that is finished, it will be the Ministry of Education estimates that will be called in that chamber.

And in terms of Section C, in the Birch Room, we will continue debating the estimates for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, and when those finish, we will be calling the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction estimates.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to continue my comments with respect to Bill 22, the Forest Amendment Act, and to continue on with where I was raising concerns yesterday about the bill — the intrusion into the business side of the sector, the lack of clarity and understanding of what constitutes public interest or what will be conditions that will be applied, the stated intent of the minister in the news release and the opening comments.

I appreciate, with the time I have left, to continue on and add some further commentary on the bill. As I pointed out yesterday, as well, this bill will obviously lend itself very much to an intensive process through the committee stage because there is so much that is in the bill that is not defined. We will certainly want to be able to get clarity on what is meant as far as the intent and what process the minister will use for implementation and bringing these provisions into force and into use.

One of the elements in the news release and the process — and it’s right in the opening headline on the news release — was about encouraging diversity within the sector. I just want to review the diversity that is there and how that came into being, because we look at the many types of processes, policies and programs that are in place to provide for that — as, for example, the community forest program, providing those direct benefits to communities.

In 2004, community forests were moved from what was started as pilot projects, and in 2005, they were moved forward into not just pilot projects but formal policy. In 2005, 33 new communities were granted community forests, and today we have 57 community forests in place in the province.

[1:40 p.m.]

The minister will know six invitations in process for such communities as Fort Nelson, Cariboo-Chilcotin, the south Island, two projects in Squamish, Haida Gwaii — invitations that are formally out to those communities to apply for a community forest. The program continues to expand and continues to grow.

We’ve had the woodlot expansion program. Today we have over 870 woodlots in place through a sustained program for individual operators to apply for woodlots. Under those provisions, they can operate up to 800 hectares on the coast, 1,200 hectares in the Interior. With those over 870 woodlot operations, we have over 600,000 hectares in place in the province.

First Nations woodland licences, direct awards of tenure to First Nations. Thirteen direct-award First Nations woodland licences in place, totalling over 482,000 cubic metres and representing 228,000 hectares made available to First Nations by direct award.

We’ve had the B.C. Timber Sales program. Approximately 20 percent of the annual allowable cut, in place through the B.C. Timber Sales program, to meet the obligations and responsibilities of a market pricing system, which is key to the maintenance of our obligations under the softwood lumber agreement and set a market pricing system in place.

How is that all done? That was put in place through a revitalization program which had a takeback of tenure from the industry to facilitate that process and that diversity. But how did that happen? At that time, it happened with the appropriate consultation directly with the industry and with compensation for licensees and those organizations and businesses that were part of that. That’s one of the very, very significant differences between then and now, in that the minister, given the sweeping powers that have been granted to him, can do that, can initiate those processes, but without any provisions of compensation and without any process of consultation.

The whole bill, as we pointed out yesterday, was brought in without any consultation with industry. We pointed out the fact that this was done because they felt that it may have a very significant impact on the business operations of companies, which might influence the market, so they didn’t want to do any consultation, as staff advised us, before introducing the bill. That just points out how very, very significant this bill can be and the powers that have been directly vested in the minister’s office to intrude and override into the business operations of a whole range of companies and businesses within the sector, given the broad definition of who this all applies to.

What’s at risk? What’s at risk is the economic contribution of companies to the communities. The minister knows well the value of the sector: 140,000 direct jobs; one-in-five jobs in many regions of the province; 40 percent of B.C.’s forestry jobs in the Lower Mainland; one-in-ten jobs in the Kootenays; one-in-five jobs in the north coast and the Nechako; 20 percent of the jobs in the northeast sector. So a very, very important contribution that the sector makes, and the changes and the uncertainty that has been generated by the introduction of this bill puts all of that at risk.

[1:45 p.m.]

We’re not convinced that the bill’s interference in business transactions, the granting of the sweeping powers to the minister, will achieve the goals set out in the release about increasing diversity and things like that, particularly when there’s the stated upfront intention to diminish perceived concentration in the industry.

What we have here is really just something that is right out of the NDP playbook in terms of intrusion — that government knows best in terms of how business transactions should take place — and a sweeping set of powers that the minister can utilize without any clarity around what tests will be used, what conditions may or may not be applied…. Every transaction has to go through that process.

Given the lack of clarity, what this bill will do will probably, in fact, result in exactly the opposite of what is meant to be achieved, because it’s putting at risk investment. It’s putting at risk sound business decisions required to keep forestry as a key economic driver in forest-dependent communities.

All this comes at a time when the sector is facing very, very significant challenges. I know the minister knows of those challenges, but it is impacting our sector’s competitiveness in a sector that competes in a very globally competitive market.

When you look at all of the policy processes that are now being layered on to the industry, with professional reliance, with FRPA amendments, which are increasing the prescriptive process and regulation in forest management — the TSA review processes in both the coast and the Interior, a very uncertain and badly managed caribou recovery process, which was a result of a real lack of consultation — it has the real potential for economic impact and a loss of jobs in the sector.

There’s the continuing litigation and impacts of the lack of resolution of the softwood lumber dispute. Now, the minister mentioned this morning that they took immediate steps to address the softwood lumber issue, with the Premier visiting Washington right away. I guess the point that could be made is: how did that go? Clearly, he didn’t go down there and solve it. He picked up a good cheque, but it didn’t solve the issue.

We took a lot of steps to address the issues all around softwood lumber, but as the minister will know and as the members opposite will know, this is a very, very complex file, with an intransigent U.S. lumber coalition that is not intent on negotiating and has moved into the litigation process.

So the assertions this morning that no trips were made and nothing was done on our part, in terms of solving this, are completely incorrect. We did make many trips to Ottawa. I went with a delegation to Washington with Canadian Premiers and met with many of the same people that the Premier met with.

We had a designate in place to lead the negotiations. We made lots of effort, but despite all those efforts, we see the continuing lack of resolution of that file, which is going to continue to create uncertainty for the industry, and cost, as it moves through the litigation process.

Declining fibre supply and increased log-delivery costs are making our province one of the highest places to operate, highest log-delivery costs. Then there are the taxes that have been layered on and that the industry is facing.

[1:50 p.m.]

The employers health tax on businesses. The speculation tax impacts on construction. The gas taxes. All of those taxes are increasing the cost of operation. All this leads to a very real uncertainty, which is going to impact investment decisions, impact business decisions in the sector. It’s really put a chill on investment, and it’s going to create that huge continued uncertainty in the sector.

There’s no clarity on what conditions will be used, no clarity on what tests. With an industry facing challenges, and with an industry facing decisions that are going to have to be made around adjusting to declining fibre supplies and other challenges that they’ll have to meet, this uncertainty is going to really impact those business decisions.

The fact that government has stepped in and said: “We know best. We’ll set the conditions….” If the conditions don’t suit what we think, then there’s the ability to put further conditions on it. If you need to do the adjustments and the rationalization, that may be a sound business decision to take, but we’ll have that overriding question mark over those decisions as this bill gets implemented.

With the concerns that we’ve raised — the concerns with the lack of clarity, the lack of definition — the chill that this is putting in place, the fact that if conditions are required under the direction of the minister to achieve a not-yet-defined interest that may be there, no indications that any compensation would be provided….

At this point, I cannot support the bill in its current form. More clarity will have to come through the committee stage. As I said, this is an approach which is right out of the NDP playbook to re-engineer the tenure system within the forest sector without a process of engagement with the sector on something so critical to their future and on business decisions that will need to be made in the months and years ahead.

At this point, I will not be able to support the bill. I look forward to further comments from members of the House and to the committee stage of the bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide some comments today.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to stand today to speak to Bill 22, the Forest Amendment Act.

Forests are indeed a part of British Columbia’s identity. For thousands of years, Indigenous peoples have been relying on the trees, whether it is the pine and aspen of the Interior or the cedar and Douglas fir on the coast. For Indigenous people, the forests have immense cultural and spiritual value, and I would say that for all of us, spending time in a forest, particularly an intact forest, is a healing experience.

As essential components of ecosystems, the forests filter water, and they keep it clean. They support the streams and rivers that salmon use to spawn, and they provide homes for the myriad of species we have in this province.

Across the province, our forests support hundreds of jobs, families and communities. In my riding, Live Edge builds tables out of windfall trees, using every part of the tree in their beautiful creations. In Penticton, the company Structurelam builds engineered wood products that contribute to more carbon-friendly buildings. In central B.C., mills sustain entire towns. In Port Renfrew, the community relies upon ecotourism, as they are home to one of the last groves of ancient coastal old growth. The region is now known as the tall tree capital of Canada.

To say that forests are important in our province would be an understatement. But for a very long time, we have been selling out to large corporations rather than protecting the forests for the people who truly rely on them.

[1:55 p.m.]

Under the forest policy of the former government, several large companies were able to take hold of most of the market. Small-scale businesses and operators have struggled to access the fibre they need, because it’s not in the interests of these large corporations to sell in small amounts.

Corporate actors have disposed of and transferred tenure agreements without government oversight, allowing regional monopolies to develop and eliminating healthy competition. Government has not been given the tools to monitor what exactly is happening on the land base, a land base that belongs to the people of British Columbia, present and future, and that is unacceptable. B.C.’s forests are a public resource, and they should be serving the public interest. That’s why my colleagues and I are focused on restoring the public’s trust and why we are pleased to support the Forest Amendment Act before us today.

This legislation has three key impacts on the forestry sector in our province, affecting tenure transfers, changes in control and information-gathering, which I will discuss more in detail in a moment. All of these changes work to support a healthy and diverse forest industry while protecting the public interest.

Prior to this legislation, companies could transfer their forest tenures without applying for approval. The minister would be notified of the transfers, but only after the change had occurred. In other words, there was no capacity for oversight to ensure that the transfers did not have negative impacts.

Companies used this to build up monopolies, accumulating all the tenures in a given region and excluding other actors. According to the legislation before us, companies who wish to transfer their tenures now apply to the ministry to do so. In considering an application, the minister must take into account the impact that the transfer could have on the marketing of fibre in B.C. and on the public interest. If the transfer were to result in a single owner or a person related to that owner retaining a proportion of tenures that is detrimental to competition in the marketing of fibre, the minister must refuse it.

This means that the public can rely on a diverse forestry industry regardless of where they are located. For small operators, particularly for value-added industries, this will ideally mean that they find it easier to purchase the fibre they need. In turn, the regulatory environment will be better structured to support a diversity of value-added products.

For a myriad of reasons, including our history of environmental mismanagement, climate change and the softwood lumber agreement, our forestry industry is currently facing many challenges. People are worried about their jobs. Just last week Canfor announced a temporary shutdown of its lumber mills in B.C., impacting thousands of employees.

Reforms like these ones in the Forest Amendment Act will help to improve the resilience of the sector by building a more diversified forestry industry. That being said, it is essential that these reforms go hand in hand with a fundamental shift in environmental and ecological considerations. We need to log sustainably. That means we cannot log valuable old-growth hot spots or areas where species are at risk.

No community in B.C. should have to be worried about their drinking water quality because of current or proposed logging in their drinking watersheds, yet this is a reality from one edge of this province to the other. From Ymir, in the Kootenays, to Youbou, in Cowichan, I hear from citizens who wonder if their drinking water will be impacted by logging in their drinking watersheds. In Union Bay, I’ve just heard from a resident and many others who are concerned about proposed logging around Langley Lake.

At a time when climate change impacts are growing more frequent and more intense, we have to start thinking seriously about water security for ten, 25, 50, 100 years down the road. We need to consider the broad ecological impacts of our actions on water and air quality, on soil stability and species diversity. Otherwise, any industry regulatory changes will be in vain.

The Forest Amendment Act goes on to stipulate that if there is a change in control in a corporation that holds an agreement, the minister must be notified. This means that if a company changes its name, amalgamates or comes under the control of a new operator, the ministry will be notified. The minister is then required to review the impacts of these changes.

In this review, the minister must again take into account the impacts of the marketing of fibre in B.C. on the public interest. Again, this provides more tools to prevent regional monopolies and to ensure that the public is able to trust that the activities happening in their public forests are working in their best interests. Under certain circumstances, if the minister finds that the change in control violates one of these considerations, the minister is empowered to take administrative actions, such as suspending harvesting rights.

[2:00 p.m.]

Through these activities, the minister is further authorized to gather information from the corporations involved. It’s important that government knows what companies are harvesting the public resources that belong to everybody in B.C. It’s important that we know who owns the companies and whether or not the public is getting the value they deserve from the resources that belong to all of us. As it stands, the information we have is far from sufficient in ensuring proper oversight. In order to make evidence-based decisions, we need to have access to the evidence.

Think back to the crises in public trust that have developed over the past several years in our province. This is the same story we heard at Mount Polley and Shawnigan. It’s the same story we’re still hearing in terms of coastal old growth. British Columbians across the province have seen time and time again that government is unable or unwilling, or sometimes both, to manage the public resources responsibly.

That responsibility cannot simply be rooted in selling raw resources at the lowest price with little compliance and oversight. That is not a viable, sustainable economic model, nor does it protect our public resources for future generations.

I return again to the statement I made earlier. I’m glad to see the regulatory reforms in the Forest Amendment Act are finally occurring. Those who depend on our forests for their livelihood deserve a diverse and resilient forestry industry. Small actors need to be able to participate. Government needs to have the necessary information and powers to get involved when the public interest is put at risk.

I think back to my trip into north and central B.C. in 2017, where I met with the mayor and councillors of Fort St. James. They talked about the trucks rolling out, filled with logs, starting at four, 4:30 in the morning every day. They said: “We are the bread basket of British Columbia, yet all of the fibre leaves our community. We are not getting any value from this. This isn’t right. It’s coming from our community, and everything leaves.”

In order for these reforms to be truly effective, ensuring that our forests are healthy and thriving for centuries to come, we need to take action now to protect the ecological values of those ecosystems. Our forests clean the water and air of our province. They support species, many of which are endangered, and they have immense cultural values to Indigenous peoples.

We need a long-term vision for what we want our natural resource sector to look like. We need to consider the impacts of our actions. Port Renfrew is a perfect example. Logging of endangered, non-renewable coastal old growth is threatening their thriving ecotourism industry. Those forests are far more valuable in the ground than they are harvested and exported.

The challenges that the forest sector is facing are not solely rooted in international trade agreements or economic fluctuations. If we are to truly protect the public interest, we must protect not just the short-term profits of today but the long-term viability of tomorrow and recognize the services beyond fibre that forests provide to all of us, particularly water.

I support the legislation before us today, but I remain deeply concerned about the lack of consideration for ecological values. A sustainable second-growth forest industry is possible in British Columbia, but we need to have the political courage to pursue it.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure for me to rise in this House to represent the constituents of Kelowna West and the surrounding communities, where many of the families and people that work in the forest industry are definitely going to be impacted by what’s proposed here in the Forest Amendment Act.

I think that the idea that it’s…. I mean, it’s labelled as the Forest Amendment Act, but underlying all of this is really tenure expropriation without compensation. I think that that’s where…. Philosophically, I understand that the government wants to have more control. But the reality is that in the real terms of business, companies that have been here for generations are being attacked in the sense that, through acquisition or purchase or whatever, they’ve acquired tenure for all the right reasons.

A lot of times…. I mean, I know that we hear many different numbers that are thrown out here about mills that have closed, workers that have changed through technology.

[2:05 p.m.]

I do support the fact that as a government, we need to incentify higher and better use of the fibres that we have here in the province. I’ve been a big supporter of some of the efforts to do that, but I don’t think that this bill really has anything to do with that.

This is all really about bringing more of what we have in the rules…. It’s an industry that’s been here. It’s on the walls downstairs, and outside of the rotunda, you can see it. It’s part of what built British Columbia.

Are we doing it as well as we could? I think that we’re always open to improvement. As the member from Cowichan just mentioned, the fact is that we do want to be concerned about the issues — things that we could do better. She talks about the absorption of water and all these types of things.

We can point fingers and do all the things that we can talk about. I could talk about mountain pine beetle. We know where it started. The situation is…. Maybe the minister is waving at me to recognize the fact that he knows exactly where it started. The reality is mountain pine beetle…. I think, initially, that the assessment, being in a park, where it started, was that we wouldn’t log. We wouldn’t do the things…. In retrospect, we would probably do things differently. I think in retrospect….

I know from having served on a mid-term timber supply committee here with both the government and members of the B.C. Liberal Party…. We went out across the province, and we learnt a lot. We learnt about the war of the woods, something that…. Back in the ’80s, the fact is that everybody was against the idea of clearcutting without any regard to protected areas or visual-quality corridors and things like that. We should be doing things differently.

You know what? The forest companies clearly told us they don’t want to go back to that. They want to do things in a responsible manner, and they have been. The fact that this bill here in front of us talks about the fact…. As if every forest company has done something to wrong the citizens of British Columbia through their actions.

I’ve been in the forest, and I look at the good work that the foresters do, the tree planters. I’m sure there are a number of people here in the Legislature that have had their turn at the hard work of being out in the hills tree planting.

How the requirements are set out. Are the rules all perfect or right? I think there’s always room for improvement. I know that after looking at the devastating impact of mountain pine beetle…. We’ve seen examples. The committee saw examples of where area-based management, as a management process, was better than the volume-based situation, which many of the tenures are managed under.

To be honest, I know that that’s not universally embraced. However, I think when it comes to crises like mountain pine beetle…. Dunkley Lumber, just south of Prince George, is a good example of companies that are extremely concerned and responsible and did what they thought was the right thing: harvest the mountain pine beetle wood quickly and keep at it until such time as the good standing green timber is protected.

I know that in my riding…. I happen to have grown up with a family that has been in the…. They started their own…. It was called Gorman’s box and lumber. It’s Gorman Bros. now. But anyways, box and lumber. Ross and John, who started that in the mid-’50s, were building apple boxes. They struggled as fruit farmers, and they decided that they would build the boxes out of shooks and ends, etc. They ended up being very successful.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could we pause for a moment, adjourn the debate for a moment?

B. Stewart: Yes.

G. Begg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Begg: In the House today, I wish to acknowledge the presence of a friend and a newly elected member of Surrey city council, Steven Pettigrew. May the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I seek leave to make an introduction as well, since we’re in a break here. Thank you to the member.

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Members, for that. I appreciate it very much.

I’d like to introduce three members of the constituency of Stikine, two of them from Hazelton and now in Smithers. Ed Olson and Megan Olson are here in the gallery. Also, Anne Donaldson, my wife, from Hazelton, is in the gallery. Would the members please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Stewart: I guess the minister wasn’t really imitating what mountain pine beetle were doing, with the waving. Anyways, I know that it had a tremendously detrimental effect on British Columbia forests, especially in the Interior.

Anyways, I go back to Ross and John Gorman, who started a mill, out of necessity — a small value-added manufacturer out of a shed, cutting local trees, and turning it into something. Now, as many know — I’m sure the minister is aware of this — they’re one of the very high value-added companies that are in the region. They continue to be privately owned. They’ve invested heavily, not only in the forest management and efficiency and trying to make certain that log waste and utilization are considered. Really, in most people’s minds, they are the gold standard in terms of what they could be like.

Gormans has gone on to invest in Downie Timber, in Revelstoke — for which I know that based on some of the things we’re discussing here, access to timber could be severely impacted. That is a problem for Downie Timber. They require cedar for that particular mill, and then they have their plant at Canoe. They employ about 1,200 workers — usually, when things are good, three shifts a day. So it’s a very active and an important element of our community, all the forest-dependent families that are in that community and many other services.

Same with Tolko. They have one of the original sawmill plants in the Okanagan Valley, S.M. Simpson, which started right downtown, where it’s kind of located on the waterfront in Kelowna. I’ve had many tours there. I can tell you that access to local timber is absolutely essential to keep the almost 200 workers that are there producing what they’ve been producing for generations, since over 100 years. The reality is that they take forestry management very seriously.

I do think that one of things that we…. What Bill 22 contemplates is that the forest companies have not been doing their job in managing the forests, or not doing it in a manner that is responsible and taking care of the workers and the families, etc. I know families that are employed, and they would dispute that. They would come to the defence of those two companies that I just mentioned because of the fact that they have long-standing relationships, and they depend on the coexistence.

There’s no question that it’s more difficult in terms of the forestry companies being able to make ends meet. I speak about the Gorman Bros. and the Gorman family. In their particular situation — a very high value-added producer that makes one-inch dimension lumber, with a Gorman chamfer or rounded edges — they’re particularly deployed in a lot of markets around the world. But certainly, in terms of the U.S. market, they’re faced with this 20 percent duty because of softwood lumber.

I think if there’s anything that could be done…. I mean, I know that in this House we’ve had discussions about the softwood lumber agreement and why we haven’t resolved it. We know it’s a federal priority, but it affects British Columbia as one of the largest producing forest regions in all of Canada, and we cannot take a back seat.

I haven’t heard that the minister or the Premier has been meeting with every other province on strategies about how we can do it. Of course we can leave it to the federal government. That’s why we have the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement — right? — because of the fact that we want to reopen trade agreements. We want to make certain we have certainty.

That’s part of what really is flawed in Bill 22. It gives the minister and the ministry sweeping powers to be able to introduce, regulate, control. These are private businesses. Maybe that isn’t understood, but private businesses…. There are competitive forces out there.

[2:15 p.m.]

If we have all the information that Interfor knows, and Canfor knowing the same, or L&M or some of the other mills that are in the province…. The reality is that it is competitive by nature, and that’s the way that it works. The situation is that this bill goes on to authorize significant authority to the minister, and not necessarily defined. He has the ability to essentially analyze or scrutinize every transaction that has to do with forest tenure. That includes whether companies’ ownership changes, but the situation is that I don’t think that that part of enhancing and building a strong forest sector is what we should be looking at.

I think that the member from Cowichan Valley talked about wanting to protect and revitalize. We want that. We spent a fortune on trying to find solutions to the problem that mountain pine beetles caused. The situation is that there is always room to improve. There’s no question about that.

I think the other thing that is alluded to in here is…. It’s suggested that during our tenure as government, we didn’t introduce things like community forests. Of course we did. We introduced community forests across the province. We helped First Nations with community forest woodlots. I visited First Nations, and I know that. Take Mackenzie for instance. The First Nation in that area is instrumental in getting the woodlot and getting the mills there back in operation after 2008, when the market completely collapsed. Five sawmills, four pulp mills virtually shut down — no chance. Mayor Stephanie Killam — when I met with her back in 2009, she was desperate to have diversity in terms of what else they could do in the community.

We cannot afford to be sending constant messages that there is uncertainty, that “we don’t trust you,” that “we don’t like what you’re doing, that “we want to scrutinize,” that we “want to control everything.” That is what’s wrong with this bill. This bill is all about a span of control that goes in. It’s pervasive in all sorts of things, whether it’s labour relations, whether it’s the agricultural land act. We’re seeing this consistently here.

It’s great to be talking about consultation. But the consultation…. I know that my colleagues from the Peace River were asking and asking when the caribou recovery consultation was. “Give us an update.” It went on for months and months — no updates, no meetings. We’re still coming back. I think that the situation is that now we’re faced into…. We’re working…. Agreements have been signed with First Nations and the federal government to essentially have a prescribed solution about protecting areas.

I think that probably it’s pretty well known. I think, probably, that the minister is well aware that predator management is a big part of the problem. I heard, recently, the statistic about Tweedsmuir Park. There’s a caribou herd in there, and it’s been protected. No land base changes or challenges in there, and the caribou have still been declining. We’ve got to look at what it is. What does a pack of wolves need to continue its existence on a day-to-day basis? How many moose, how many caribou? I think that this whole business about consultation is just lip service to what we’re really trying to get to.

In this particular case, I don’t believe that COFI or the mills that are going to be impacted by these new regulations have had a fair ability to present a reasonable alternative. I think that the forest companies, although they’re tough-minded…. I think they can sit down and be fair and reasonable and work with what the minister is trying to achieve without sweeping powers that will be essentially taking their ability to perform their jobs with certainty.

That uncertainty — I keep going back to this. In business, it’s about certainty. We only have to go back to 2000, when the housing market was so red-hot in the mid-2000s. Then all of a sudden, you started to have the collapse in the fall of 2008 with Fannie Mae and Lehman Bros. and all the other companies that were impacted. Of course, there’s an immediate contraction, and the uncertainty was completely devastating. It caused catastrophic financial stress across the country.

[2:20 p.m.]

We don’t want any of that type of uncertainty to filter into an economy. You don’t realize how fragile it is, but I’m hearing that there are layoffs that are being used to rotate. Part of that is around either fibre supply or access to fibre. The forest companies know that that’s an issue.

But the tenure isn’t what got us here, why they have shortages now. They have to reposition themselves, but they have to have certainty. These companies, they’ve got…. The softwood lumber agreement. Anybody knows in a business that 20 percent off what you’re receiving on lower prices is going to have an impact on jobs back here. Let alone the fact that we’re now trying to tell them that what they really own….

The mill is just a plant and equipment. You can disassemble it. You can sell it off. It’s scrap metal. The real value is in the forest access. So what we need to do is work with forest companies to do that, not introduce legislation that takes all of the power away from companies to make independent or consultative decisions with the Ministry of Forests.

I think it goes without saying that because of the uncertainty that’s being presented in Bill 22, it is unlikely that I can support this in its current format. I look forward to committee….

Interjection.

B. Stewart: I’m happy to work with the minister to help fine-tune it. Maybe a name change will do it. But anyway, I kid about that. I look forward to committee stage on Bill 22.

J. Rustad: I’d like to say it’s a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 22, the Forest Amendment Act. But quite frankly, I’ve been in this Legislature now for…. I’ve had the honour of representing the people of Nechako Lakes for 14 years, and this is probably one of the most egregious bills that I’ve seen come into this Legislature.

I don’t say that lightly, because I think the goal that the minister is talking about is something that I could support. I think the idea of being able to have some diversification within a supply area, being able to support communities and being able to support First Nations with volume is something we can all agree on.

But this tool that is used is simply an effort to utilize a way to have expropriation of volume. Any time there’s a deal, any time there’s something going on, a change of control, expropriate volume without compensation. The minister won’t expropriate it himself, or the government won’t itself. What they’ll do is say that you can’t do the deal unless you do something to meet public interest.

What does that mean? Public interest. What exactly does that mean? How does it know when a company has met this lofty goal? Well, you don’t know, because it’s determined by the minister as to whether or not it’s met the goal. It’s determined by the minister as to whether or not wood should go to a First Nation or to a community or be returned to the government for redistribution, without compensation.

I have a bit of a unique experience in this Legislature, in my history — my own personal history as well as my family history. I grew up in the forest industry. My dad moved here to British Columbia in the late ’40s, and the first thing he did was go do some logging on the Island. He went up the coast, up the Island and got into a little logging camp there.

Back then, in those days, you basically couldn’t log unless you could have a rail line. So the first thing that had to happen is to put a little rail line up into the woods. Then you got in there, and you’re falling everything by hand, hauling it out, trying to get it on these railcars and bringing it down from there. It was tough work. It was really tough work.

But before that, I want to talk about just how we got here with our tenure system. This is really what gets to the core of Bill 22. It’s tenure. We like to think of B.C. in terms of when Europeans came here. Of course, prior to Europeans, First Nations used timber, used wood for a variety of purposes for potentially 14,000 years.

But for the purposes of this bill, we’re talking about the last 200 years, which is really when the forest industry as we know it started in British Columbia. Back then, of course, it was just a few people looking for big wood.

[2:25 p.m.]

I can remember a story that was once told to me. One of the first business people, forestry people, that came into the Prince George area looked around and said, “This area is good for nothing but growing Christmas trees,” because the trees at the time weren’t big enough. You couldn’t get at the big wood that was back in the woods, so they ignored it. It wasn’t until later that the forest industry really picked up in the Interior. Ultimately, Prince George became the capital of forestry in Canada because of its large and unique forest industry.

But the tenure system started all the way back in around 1865. One of the reasons why I’m going to go into this bit of history is that I wonder if the minister really knows this history. The minister, in his comments, started off by talking about 2003 and changes in 2003 and everything that’s gone forward since 2003. Well, the world went a long ways and a lot of changes way before that.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: You know what I’m finding interesting is that I’m hearing a few of the members opposite actually chime in here. But you know what I find interesting about this bill? It is one of the most egregious bills that we have seen in this Legislature, and it’s an assault on our forest industry. Yet not a single one of them will stand up and defend it. Not a single one of them, except for a little ten-minute opening by the minister, and I’m sure he’ll make some political statement here at the end. Nobody else is willing to stand up and defend it. So as you’re heckling, just think about that.

Like I say, back in 1865, there was something called the Land Ordinance Act, which was the beginning of our tenure system in the province of British Columbia. From there, it was about 1884 when the province finally decided, “Hey, maybe we should generate some revenue from this wood,” and they created something called the stumpage system. Of course, it went through many, many changes and iterations as the area go-forward.

But the key here was the tenure. Now, you think: why was tenure such a big deal? Why was it of interest? Well, if somebody was going to come and make an investment, they needed access to fibre, so it was a contract. It was a contract that happened between the government, who owns the Crown timber, and a company or an individual. The contract was: “I will give you the right to access this wood, and you will create jobs with it. You’ll make an investment, whether it’s a sawmill or whether it is logging or whatever the case may be. You’ll do something that will gain some value from this timber, and then, of course, pay stumpage to the Crown for that asset.”

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Once again, I hear the Minister of Labour. I know he’s going to want to get in here, because he’s very keen on forestry, yet he won’t stand up and speak to this bill, will he? Not once. Not once the Minister of Labour will. He just likes to chirp in the background, but that’s just fine.

As time went, of course, our forest industry expanded. But it was really held back because of technology. As you go forward, how do you get these logs out of the woods? This goes back to the story from when my dad first moved here in the late ’40s. You had to use rail because, I mean, these are big trees. How do you move them around? You had horses. It was tough for a horse even to take one tree out of the woods. You had to cut it in pieces to take the thing out, often in difficult terrain.

It wasn’t until there was technological advancement that suddenly forestry really started to flourish in our province. I believe it was in 1947 that we actually created something called timber supply areas, as well as tree farm licences. The reason for this is because as industry was now starting to grow in the province in forestry, there needed to be a way to sort of categorize and place where that wood should be coming from to support the various activities that went on.

Once we got into the ’40s and into the early ’50s, there were hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of mills, if not thousands of mills, that dotted the landscape because now, suddenly, we had an ability to cut wood out closer to where the timber supply was. So everybody now was trying to access fibre so they could bring it in and cut it. From there, it would come into further processing. Those hundreds, if not thousands, of mills around the area are ultimately what really took off and built the tenure system and the tenure issue that I think the minister is trying to get at today.

Once again, it’s that contract between the Crown and a company that they can have access to wood to generate jobs and ultimately generate revenue back to the Crown. The Crown eventually got to the place where it was selling these tenures as well, as part of it.

[2:30 p.m.]

It wasn’t just saying: “Please, here is some wood. Go out and do some great things with it.” There became a value associated with this.

As time went on, back in those days, my dad moved from doing logging on the Island. He moved up into the Hope area and did some logging there. Then, finally, he moved up to the Prince George area in the early ’50s and started a little sawmill. He had access to this fibre. He went after getting access to cut little pieces of wood here and there. They’d set up a mill. They’d log here. It was a small, little mill. At some point, people were even floating logs down the Nechako River to try to get to a processing facility.

Ultimately, we ended up with a little sawmill out in Bear Lake, and my family ran that little sawmill for many years. I remember, as a young child, I would sit on my dad’s knees. We were going out to the sawmill, and I would learn how to drive that way. I couldn’t work the pedals — I wasn’t big enough — but that’s how I learned how to drive. It was down these logging roads.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

By that time — this is now in the ’60s — there was already significant consolidation that was happening. All of these hundreds, if not thousands, of little mills that were up all over the place were now being purchased, being consolidated. With technology changing, people could cut more wood. They needed access to more wood. So some players wanted out, some players wanted to grow, and there was this acquisition of tenure that happened.

It’s interesting to note, Mr. Speaker — and welcome to the chair — that all of that happened under appurtenancy. All of this consolidation of wood and components that went on all happened when there was this trying to make this attempt to have wood within a certain area supplying certain activities. As this developed and as this moved forward, what we saw from that consolidation was, once again, the continual advancement of technology.

Eventually, back in the late ’60s, early ’70s, my family exited the sawmilling business. We were acquired, and our tenure was transferred as part of another mill that was growing and moving along. That technology was really quite remarkable. It was probably in the early ’70s, I think, when it was really the peak of employment and activity in the forest sector. Now the pulp mills had come in. There was a tremendous amount of work and activity there. The sawmills were coming together, consolidating through…. Hundreds and hundreds of mills had been lost, but those jobs and that security moved on because the mills were able to be even more competitive.

Technology changed. Instead of moving things by horse and by rail, now you could move things by truck. You could start moving larger volumes by truck. You could start logging and stuff instead of doing everything by hand. Equipment and stuff started going in. We went from a place where from back in the early ’70s, a camp of maybe 150 to 200 people was replaced 20 years later by a camp of maybe 15 to 25 people cutting the same amount of volume. Technology came along — changes, job losses. Once again, we kept seeing this growth of the forest industry and the consolidation come through.

I want to make a little point here, because the minister likes to use numbers. He throws this out there, because they’re the good speaking lines, even though I’ve challenged him to come out and actually give us some evidence. I even asked him the question in estimates to come out with the evidence where he makes the claim that 100 sawmills were closed under the B.C. Liberals. Well, according to the ministry’s own stats, in 1990 there were 131 sawmills in the province, and by 2000, we saw a 20 percent reduction, and there were 113 mills. You’d think if the minister’s numbers were true that there wouldn’t be a sawmill left in the province. Obviously, that isn’t quite accurate.

In 2017, when the NDP took over, there were 69 mills. In 2009, at the bottom of the greatest recession since the Great Depression, there were 72 mills. That just goes to show how consolidation has happened over time. It’s the tenure — what I’m talking about in terms of Bill 22 — that is most critical. In all of this process that has happened over time, there has been this contract between government and companies. You have access to this timber. It’s either being bought or it’s being traded in. Out of that, you create jobs. You create some value from that, and it creates stumpage from that.

[2:35 p.m.]

That’s a contract that, according to Bill 22, will be ripped up. If there’s a transfer now of an asset, the minister could say: “I’m suspending your licence.” The minister could say: “Until you meet the public interest, you no longer have that right.” It is a ripping up of a contract that has been around, in place, for over 140 years in this province. That contract is the ability to have consistent, reliable access to timber for the operation of forestry.

Now, as I started saying at the beginning, I like the goal of being able to have more engagement with communities, more engagement with First Nations. As a matter of fact, what we did back in 2003 is we actually did a takeback from forest companies. We made a conscious decision, much to the forest companies’ chagrin, to buy volume to compensate for that expropriation and make it available. We used it. We created an MPS system, created B.C. Timber Sales.

We also expanded the community forest program significantly and — guess what else — we created First Nation woodland tenures — the ability for First Nations for the first time to have renewable, ongoing tenure, for communities to have expanded, ongoing, renewable tenure, to connect communities and First Nations to our forest industry.

The minister, I think, is happy that those things happened. He wasn’t elected at the time, of course, but I’m sure that he wouldn’t oppose actions like that. If the minister really wanted to have the diversification that he’s talking about wanting, he would have the courage to do the same thing — put the government’s money where its mouth is, do an expropriation and compensation and make the tenure reform that he really wants to talk about. Instead, the whole thing is being done by stealth. It’s being painted in a picture of roses around some sort of goal while hiding the insidiousness of this bill and the attack on our history of what actually built our forest industry in this province.

There are 140 communities across British Columbia that depend on forestry. There are about 140,000 people in both direct, indirect and induced jobs in this province for the forest industry. Surprisingly — some of the people on the opposite side may not realize this — 40 percent of those jobs are actually in the Lower Mainland. Forestry is not just a rural B.C. issue; it goes right across the province. So anything that impacts the health of our forest industry has an impact right across.

There are some other components of history that I want to go into. But I want to start, as well, by putting out a little bit of a quote here. I used this quote during question period today, but I think it’s worth repeating. It is from a conference call that West Fraser had. Mr. Seraphim stated this: “There are projects that we’ve been thinking about over the next couple of years, but I think for now, anything major is definitely on hold.”

There’s a reason for that. It’s because of the uncertainty and it’s because of the challenges that are being created through bills like Bill 22. It’s undermining the fundamentals of our forest industry. It’s undermining what has created the support for families and communities right across this province. And it’s not just this bill. Whether it’s Bill 21, whether it is a long list of changes…. Contractor sustainability, I think, actually is a good thing, in terms of some of the support there. But professional reliance, even labour changes, the employer health tax that has been added on, the additional consultation, the issues of UNDRIP — the list goes on.

What does this mean? What do all of these things mean? Government is making some changes, and that’s what governments do. They try to figure out how they want to improve things or shape the world in the way that they want to see it. But there are consequences to actions. There’s a cause and effect.

[2:40 p.m.]

What we have seen all through here has been a significant increase in the cost structure, in the uncertainty and in the inability for our industry to compete. We saw this in the ’90s. The same process happened in the ’90s, and the companies were holding on by their teeth to try to get through.

The NDP government of the day came out and said: “We’re going to create this jobs and timber accord, because we want to get more jobs out of our wood. We want to be able to make sure that there’s value that’s in there for the wood.”

Well, guess what happened. We lost 20 percent of the forestry jobs in this province; 20 percent of the sawmills were lost. The forest industry hung on by its teeth until 2001. It took a number of years from that point on to be able to encourage the forest industry to want to invest again in British Columbia.

But we did. Part of that was what we did in 2003. Part of that was the changes to the Forest and Range Act. There was a whole host of things that we did. What we did is we said: “This isn’t about attacking an industry. This is about how we respect and support an industry that was one of the foundational industries of this province and still today supports over 140 communities.”

You have to have some respect. You have to, as government, show that you care about those jobs, about those companies and about that industry. You can’t just go around layering on costs and changing everything without even consulting or working with the industry. It just doesn’t work.

What’s happened now is that the industry has become the highest-cost producer in North America. We’re a global society. They can get wood from many places — the Americans can. And, for that matter, the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and other places where we, under B.C. Liberals, have managed to do significant expansion in the markets.

We’re in a global, competitive world. So what happens when you become the highest-cost producer? Well, as long as prices are high, it goes along. But companies say: “I’m not going to invest in that.” There’s a saying in the mining industry. “If you want to pick a good company that’s going to be solid and give you good returns, you pick a company that’s in the lowest third of costs.” They can weather through the downturns. They can keep operating. They will invest.

When you’re in the top third — in the case of British Columbia, now, the absolute top, in terms of the most expensive — as soon as there’s a downturn, everybody says: “We’ve got to take downtime. We’re going to have to shut down operations. We’re going to have to curtail making investments.” Cause and effect.

What we’re seeing today in British Columbia, as we look around the province, is we’re seeing Conifex taking additional downtime — four weeks for Fort St. James, three weeks for Mackenzie. That’s on top of the curtailments that they’ve already done. Canfor announcing additional curtailments in what they’re doing.

What did Canfor say in the call just today, just this morning? “The challenge of competitiveness in British Columbia is obviously severe.” That’s pretty firm language, about as firm as you get coming from a CEO that knows they have to operate and work with the government.

There’s an interesting little comment from the same company in their call, from Canfor, that said: “B.C. saw weakness in its earnings, but Alberta, U.S. and Europe generated solid financial returns.” Why is that? It’s because we have become uncompetitive under this government. We have become a place where companies are now looking anywhere else but British Columbia to invest, to try to find a way to get a return.

I’m talking about companies. But the reality is that that’s workers. That’s families. Those are those 140 communities around the province that depend on our forest industry. On top of what I just said, they also noted that on July 1, the stumpage is expected to increase, adding to the severe situation that they’re facing, the severe pressure.

[2:45 p.m.]

Is that the legacy that this minister wants for British Columbia and the forest industry? I think not. I mean, I have talked to the minister. I know the minister. We’ve worked together now in this Legislature since 2009, from opposite sides. I honestly believe that the minister wants to see a healthy forest industry. They want to see jobs. We share in those values.

This is not going to do it. This is creating the opposite effect. It’s a cause and effect, coastal revitalization….

You know, one of the things that the minister has talked about wanting to do and that also plays into this uncertainty created from Bill 22…. “We want to reduce the number of log exports. We want to increase the amount of waste fibre that can be utilized.” I share those goals. I think that those are great goals to do.

Here’s the reality of what’s happened. Western Forest Products had their call this morning from their Q1 results. What are they doing? They’re looking at curtailing their mills on the coast. Why? Because they can’t get timber. Log prices are too high. The costs have gone up, and they have to curtail operations. They don’t have the logs to keep operating.

The company mentioned, as well, that they’re going to have to start up their log export program again in the second quarter of the year — expected to start shipments in May. The company said that the decision to restart the raw log export has everything to do with stumpage and increased costs of logs. Despite the coast revitalization plan, the company will continue to make decisions based on trying to make a profit, trying to stay open.

I know that’s not what the minister wants to see happen. I talked to him about it, and of course, we canvassed this greatly in estimates. So what’s the answer? Is the answer to add on more cost, more uncertainty, more challenges for the industry, more regulation, more restrictions — driving up costs and creating more challenges? It’s clear that what we have seen from these actions by this government is a negative response in our forest industry.

I mentioned in question period today and want to re-mention it — that in British Columbia since 2009, which was the very bottom of the Great Recession, our province saw just under 10,000 gains, jobs, in the forest industry. That was the first time since the 1970s that this province has seen sustained job growth in our forest industry. So 20 percent reduction in job growth under the NDP.

And what’s happened since 2017? We’ve now seen 3,000 job losses, and that was only to March. The numbers in March saw another 2,000 jobs lost in the resource sector. I’m not sure how many of those were in the forest industry. The projections for April are the same — more declines in the resource sector in terms of jobs.

The minister, during question period, said that we’re starting to see the curve go up. Well, those are rather lofty words considering the evidence is exactly the opposite. We went from a place where our forest industry was thriving — was competitive, where there was investment in the industry and jobs were growing — to exactly the opposite. And it’s not just me that’s saying it. The forest companies themselves have come out saying the exact same thing.

West Fraser did their conference call last week, I think, and the CEO had this to say: “But what gives us the greatest concern are the myriad of policy changes that the B.C. government is planning to implement that could potentially impact the B.C. forest industry.” He went on to say: “Our company has invested in excess of $600 million in British Columbia over the last several years to modernize our business and to be able to fully extract the value from a declining timber resource due to the impact of the mountain pine beetle. We have been planning for this eventuality for more than 15 years.”

[2:50 p.m.]

I see my time is running short, Mr. Speaker. I am the designated speaker for this bill.

You’ve got a company that has had a very long history that is committed to being in British Columbia, whose head office is in Quesnel and very much understands how industry works. Here they are in a situation where they’ve said they’re holding off on making any more investments. Uncertainty is mounting. The costs are mounting. And quite frankly, they’re looking elsewhere.

The CEO went on to say: “What we have difficulty planning for are government policy decisions that impact industry competitiveness and competition. We believe that policy proposals such as the caribou plan and Bill 22 legislation could potentially impact the ability of B.C. to compete in a very competitive global environment.” Some pretty stark words once again from a company that depends on access to fibre from the Crown.

The chill that has happened in this province because of the policies of this government is remarkable. As I say, I grew up in the forest industry. I was around it, and I’ve done just about any job you can think of — everything from a green chain in a mill to planting trees. I’ve gone out and done recces. I’ve found the wood. I’ve gone out and laid it out. I’ve cruised it. I’ve gone in and logged it, planted it. I’ve gone in afterwards and done stocking standards. I’ve done herbicide treatments. I have done the whole myriad of forest jobs to take a tree through to the end.

I haven’t been a shop steward like the Minister of Labour, but like I say, maybe the Minister of Labour could enter into this debate and provide his perspective.

When you see these challenges, it really worries me. It really does. Let me explain why. I see a company like West Fraser, whose roots are British Columbia, that invests in British Columbia and wants to see success in British Columbia, and they’re going elsewhere. “West Fraser recognizes that we compete on a global market, and the latest policy initiatives from the B.C. government further reinforce the importance of diversification strategy.” They’re going out of the province. They’re moving away. What will that mean for the forest industry? No, they’re not moving away. They’re obviously staying with their operations in British Columbia, but they’re not looking at any investments in this province.

That’s tough, because when you want to have…. There are going to be some challenges with the pine beetle, the challenges that are coming up with that. There’s going to be a situation where there’s going to be some consolidation. The likely result and the cause and effect of a bill like this is that the companies will just sit on their wood and wait for a change. If they have to take downtime or have to close because they can’t continue operating in this environment, instead of doing a deal and seeing that wood being able to support jobs, they’ll just decide to sit on it. That’s not going to be healthy for jobs. It’s not going to be healthy for workers or communities, their families.

It’s sad, because like I say, I grew up in this industry. My family was fed by this industry.

There are other ways to go about doing what the minister wants to do. There are ways to do this without the aggressiveness, without the assault. I’d be happy to sit down with the minister and try to work through those ways. After all, his Premier said he wanted to work together. He wanted to find ways to bridge differences. Well, here’s a forestry file that matters. It just so happens it matters to almost all the B.C. Liberal ridings, not a lot of NDP ridings. But it’s an industry that matters, and it’s an industry that, quite frankly, we could do a lot better on.

Now, were B.C. Liberals perfect? We made some mistakes. No question.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: We’ve got another member of the NDP that would like to join this debate.

Have the courage to stand up and defend the bill.

Interjection.

[2:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Yes, he is learning. And the comment he was wondering about was the comment I said where 40 percent of the jobs are in the Lower Mainland. You’re right. They are. Now, it just so happens that many of those jobs are in B.C. Liberal ridings in the Lower Mainland, but that’s beside the point. We can go into that another day.

Like I say, there are other ways to achieve what the minister wants to achieve here. Yes, the government would have to put some money on the table. Government would have to sit down and negotiate with the companies and engage with the communities and the First Nations and develop a strategy to have targets within an area and work towards that over time.

That can happen. It doesn’t have to happen like this — through a back door, where it’s lipstick on a bill, quite frankly, that is designed to undermine the private sector and competition and the way that our forest industry was built from the ground up.

I was looking at some numbers from COFI. I know the minister had an opportunity to speak to COFI, and he probably saw this report. Hopefully, he an opportunity to read it. I look at the jobs across the province in my riding and in his riding. We’re in the area that’s considered to be the North Coast and Nechako region. Nineteen percent of all employment is forestry-related.

In the northeast region, 20 percent is forestry-related; in the Cariboo, 22 percent. There are 20,000 jobs in the Thompson-Okanagan area, and 21,000 jobs on Vancouver Island, in the coastal region. Ten percent of all the jobs in the Kootenays is forestry. Like I say, 40 percent of all those jobs in the forest industry are in the Lower Mainland and in the southwest region.

What is in the response to the challenges? What we have seen is lumber prices are down from the recent highs. U.S. housing starts are soft. The softwood lumber agreement continues to hurt our industry, without an end in sight, without plans and strategies from this government. We’ve got timber supply coming in.

The industry is stressed over whether China is going something. Who knows the next step China will do? They just announced today that they’re going to start curtailing the ability for us to export hogs — not as in hog fuel but as in the pigs for food. Of course, there’s additional uncertainty due to wildfires. All of this stuff is piled on. Industry is afraid. They’re pulling in their horns.

What’s government’s response? Not a hand out to help, not a way to reach out and say: “We respect and support the industry. We want to find ways to work and strengthen you.” No, no. Added-on regulation, added-on threats, added-on egregious attacks like Bill 22 without engagement or consultation. It really does bother me when I think about our industry and the state that’s gone on.

What it seems to me is the NDP really don’t understand the industry at all. I know they’ve got people in the ministry. John Allan, the deputy minister, has obviously spent a career in and around the forest industry. There are many good people in the ministry. I had a great honour of being the minister for four weeks.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The Minister of Health laughs. I hope he gets a chance to get up and speak to this bill too.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Well, it was four weeks. You know what? I treasured that four weeks, even though half of it was dealing with wildfires.

Regardless of that, as I said, they don’t seem to understand the challenges that are happening in our industry. They don’t seem to understand the industry itself. They’re certainly acting as if they know best, rather than working with the industry and trying to figure out how we take it from being the most uncompetitive industry in North America to being in that bottom third, to be in a position where we can compete and be successful.

I’ll give you an example of what could be done. On the Island, in the heart of the coastal revitalization — and Western, in their comments, talked about this — stumpage is up 118 percent, with another increase scheduled to come in July. Those kinds of costs are unsustainable. There will be an effect.

[3:00 p.m.]

It won’t be nice. It’ll be a negative effect, because it’s one of two things: either companies can’t afford to log, and the log supply will actually decrease and mills will have to take downtime or maybe even close, or they’re going to have to export more to find a way to cover the costs — neither of which is what the minister wants to see happen.

I guess maybe that’s what the Premier said when he was talking to the truck loggers convention, when he said: “We recognize that there may be unintended consequences, and we’ll have to try to work through them.” Well, here are some consequences.

I find it interesting. You know, I talked about the coastal and the coastal revitalization plan that’s been in place. What are the early results? I asked the minister in the estimates process: “What are your metrics? What are you going to be measuring?” He stumbled to find out, stumbled to even come up with answers. He said: “Well, I guess jobs and log exports and these types of things.” It wasn’t even a set plan. It wasn’t even a set way to measure as to whether or not you’re able to achieve the goals and your targets that you had in policy. That’s pretty sad.

Here’s another thing that’s happening because of what’s going on, on the coast. Cutting permits are something that companies need to apply for on a regular basis. Once again, it’s the tenure. This is Bill 22. This is the attack on the tenure.

The monthly average of cutting permits on the coast, to get to the 14½ million or 15 million cubic metres that are harvested on an annual basis, is about 2.5 million. So 2.5 million metres of wood is applied for every month to try to get to that, on average. It drops; it varies; it goes around. But what we’ve seen since the coastal revitalization is almost a 50 percent drop in the number of permits. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens when that wood runs out. That’s not going to be a pretty picture, and that’s on this minister’s watch.

On top of that, as we’ve seen that side of things, we have seen a dramatic increase in the percentage of logs exported, because they need to cover the cost. If that’s coastal revitalization, quite frankly, I would say maybe go back to the drawing board and rethink that plan.

The downloading of costs to companies…. I agree that the pulp mills are going to struggle. They’re going to need fibre. They’re going to need chips. We’ve got to find a way to be able to get that residue, that residual logging waste, to those pulp mills, no question. But if you do it at the expense of your solid wood industry, you’ve got real problems coming. If they start pulling back, now your primary source of chips starts dropping off, and pulp mills will struggle big-time — cause and effect.

It’s a real challenge. You know, at the time when stumpage has gone up 118 percent, guess what. The price of a 2-by-4 in China has actually dropped 5 percent. China is a very important market. Chip prices have gone up, but just a little, over that period of time. You’re in a situation where you’ve got a very, very challenged industry.

What I find interesting, as well, is that in British Columbia — and I think this is something that both sides of the House could agree upon — we have some of the highest, if not the highest, environmental standards anywhere in the world. The way we work, our sustainability…. By the way, when sustainability first came in, in the early 1900s, as a concept of our forest industry in British Columbia…. Sustainability and those environmental standards is something we should all be proud about. Even with this, there is this desire to do this assault and attack and protect more areas.

I want to touch on caribou for a moment, because I think about this protection and those environmental standards that we have. Ultimately, when you’re talking Bill 22 and the attack that this is creating on the forest industry, you have to look at the holistic approach. You have to look at the cumulative impact of all of these actions that have happened.

On the caribou file, up in the northeast, there’s somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 cubic metres that are going to be lost annually in this protected area. Of course, that raises a big concern. West Fraser mentioned it in their call. Many other people are talking about it.

[3:05 p.m.]

I looked at it, and I thought: “What would that be across the province? What would that be if all of the caribou habitat, all of that critical habitat, were to be treated exactly the way the northeast is going to be treated? What’s that impact?”

You’re talking about a 15-million- to 20-million-cubic-metre drop in AAC out of the interior of the province of British Columbia. Those aren’t my numbers. That’s the analysis that industry has done on a worst-case scenario. That’s a 40 percent reduction in the AAC in the province of British Columbia in the Interior.

Think about all those 140 communities. In the community of Revelstoke, 100 percent of their timber supply area will be gone if all of their caribou habitat is protected. Other supply areas will be between 50 and 70 percent of the timber-harvesting land base gone.

So what happens? Now you come along with Bill 22. You’ve had this impact. Companies need to start looking at closing doors, selling operations, downsizing of the forest industry. And now you’re saying to them: “Your primary asset is worthless.”

Timber across this province and the allocation of timber, the tenure across this province, is worth over $10 billion. That is a significant amount of money. That is the basis of companies investing in this province. That’s the basis of creating jobs and supporting communities and families. That value may have just gone to zero, or some number — certainly lower.

As an asset, if you’re not able to trade it, if you’re not able to purchase it and not able to make a deal without conditions attached…. Maybe it’s losing a sawmill. Maybe it’s taking back a tenure or handing timber over to something else. The minister, quite frankly, has very broad abilities under this bill to be able to set those kinds of goals. How do you put a value on that asset when you don’t know what you actually have or what you can actually deal with?

Suddenly now companies that need to raise money, that want to invest in mills, are seeing that big drop in their primary asset, that contract that was created over 140 years ago and has continued for many, many, many decades — that contract that you have the right to harvest if you’re going to create jobs. It’s being ripped up.

It’s unfortunate. I know the minister will put some lipstick on this bill and talk about it in a very different perspective. That’s fine. That’s politics. That’s the way it is. But this is how industry looks at it, and that’s what’s most important, not the political bantering that goes on in this chamber.

Ultimately, it’s industry that creates jobs, not government. It’s industries that support communities and families, families like mine and families like many throughout this province.

I’m very concerned. When you look at the pine beetle drop, when you look at this kind of a bill, when you look at what’s happening with the caribou, I’m very concerned for the future of the forest industry in the province of British Columbia, for my riding, for my communities.

Now, I agree. If we can find ways — and there are better ways to do this — I’d be happy to sit down and work through and support a bill, a bipartisan bill that we could do. But this approach, quite frankly, as I say, is offensive.

You know, I think back on, whether it’s communities in my riding or in my time in forestry…. On top of doing all the jobs in the bush, I also did forest planning, forest development planning. I looked at timber supply analysis. I’ve done watershed analysis. I’ve looked at all aspects of that side of the industry as well, and I’ve never seen the industry in a situation that we are today, even at a time when lumber prices are still at $340 U.S.

It’s remarkable. Can’t even make money at $340 U.S. anymore. It wasn’t that many years ago when that break-even price was around $200 or $210, maybe even below $200. In one short period of time, two years, costs have gone absolutely through the roof. It’s the challenge that we have. It’s a challenge that’s been created.

[3:10 p.m.]

It does make me wonder, as I say, whether or not the minister understands truly what he’s doing, what he’s creating here. I know that industry has written him. I know the industry has expressed their concerns in strongly worded language, and I’m sure the minister is considering all those factors. But I also know it’s very hard for government to back down from a bill like this.

If the minister was that confident in this bill, and if this government was that confident in this bill, why are they not putting up any speakers? Why are they not up defending this policy? It’s a critical piece of policy. It’s a cornerstone of what the minister is trying to do, Bill 22. Yet no one is getting up to speak to it. Are they worried? Is government worried that somebody might say something that would create a challenge from industry? Is that why they’re not putting up any speakers?

Or does nobody over there care about the forest industry enough to want to get up and talk about it? You do wonder. But when you look at some of these impacts…. Even if the caribou impact is half of what the industry is worried about, it hits a tipping point. You start seeing pulp mills go down and start seeing significant restructuring and losses in the industry. I know that’s not what the minister wants, but that’s going to be his legacy if they carry on with the path that they’re doing.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The member from the Sunshine Coast refuses to get up and defend this bill, and I understand why, because he’s embarrassed about it. But that’s okay. He’ll get a chance if he really wants to get up and talk about it. But he likes to heckle. He likes to chirp on about these sort of things, and that’s fine.

If you look at the stats, and if you were here earlier for the speech, the longest stretch of gains in forestry jobs since the 1970s was under the B.C. Liberals from 2009 to 2017, and it’s reversed and dropped now under the NDP. By the way, those aren’t my numbers. That’s the Ministry of Forests numbers. They’re on the Ministry of Forests website.

I do look at this as being a potential tipping point and a real challenge for our industry. I’m very concerned about where our industry will go.

On top of Bill 22 and on top of the challenges that are here, I want to talk just for a minute about mountain pine beetle. Obviously, there’s an impact, a downfall, that’s coming with the mountain pine beetle. But let’s look at history, as I did the history with tenure. The mountain pine beetle epidemic started in the 1990s. The mountain pine beetle has been existing in our forests forever. As long as there have been pine trees, there has been mountain pine beetle.

What changed in the 1990s was clusters of pine beetle started expanding and growing. There was a cluster in particular that was of great concern to the industry. The industry went in and started doing selective logging, falling and burning. It did approaches to try to contain this pine beetle epidemic. If we had accelerated some harvesting back then, maybe they could have done more.

The big problem was a little place called Tweedsmuir Park, in my riding. In Tweedsmuir Park, because it’s a park, they weren’t able to go in and do many of the forest activities that we would have liked to. The pine beetle epidemic festered and grew in this park. It grew to a point where industry went to government and said: “You’ve got to take action.” And the ministry itself went and laid out what was going to be a big fire. They had a beautiful high weather condition. It was tinder dry. It was stable. It would have been a big fire.

Now, burning in a park is pretty controversial, especially back in the ’90s. But that was the only way that we were going to slow down the pine beetle epidemic. The ministry went up to the minister and said: “We want to light it up. We need to do this for the health of our forest.” The minister at the time thought it was too big a decision for him to make, and he took it to cabinet. And cabinet turned the ministry down. It turned the ministry down because they were worried it was going to be too big a fire, and they didn’t want the political fallout of having a big fire in a park.

[3:15 p.m.]

So they said: “Wait for it to cool down. Wait for the temperatures to cool down, and then you can have a fire.” So they did. They tried in the fall, and of course, the fire was ineffective. The next year, waves of pine beetle came out of that park — waves of pine beetle.

Pine beetles are the size of a grain of rice. They’re tiny. Yet so many of these pine beetles were flying at one time, they actually showed up on Doppler radar. These waves came out, and the epidemic spread completely out of control. By the time we had an opportunity to get in there, in government, to start making decisions, all we could do was try to attack the edges that we could, to slow it down and try to salvage. That was it.

The falldown because of the pine beetle and the mills that are going to be lost is on this minister’s head. He didn’t make the decision, but it was the NDP that did.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.

J. Rustad: I am talking about Bill 22. I thank you for the direction, Speaker.

The reason I’m talking about this is because of what Bill 22 does to tenure and the impacts that is going to have and the compound impact on our forest industry. The pine beetle is one piece that has that cumulative impact that this government needs to wear, because they created it. They’re creating it again with Bill 22. They’re creating the same kinds of problems and challenges.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Yes, you did.

The member from Sunshine Coast doesn’t believe it. Go back and look at history. It is well documented.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Let’s talk about the current bill, Members.

J. Rustad: I enjoy hearing the heckling coming from the members opposite that refuse to stand and defend an undefendable bill.

N. Simons: It’s called “indefensible,” if you want to use the right word.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the member from Sunshine Coast. It is indefensible, and I agree with him entirely that this bill is indefensible.

That challenge from the pine beetle is something that the province is having to live with. It’s one of the reasons why there is consolidation, one of the reasons why there are going to be some closures and there have been some closures. It’s one of the reasons why Bill 22 is going to cause such grief. As West Fraser said, they planned for this. For 15 years, they’ve been planning for this. Now it’s thrown completely in chaos. It’s really a shame.

Like I say, I grew up in this industry. In my riding, 30 to 40 percent of the activity is tied to forestry. We’re ground zero. Quesnel, the Cariboo and my riding are ground zero for that government’s faults from the ’90s. What I’m worried about is we’re going to be ground zero again for what this government’s policy is.

Like I say, whatever the minister is trying to do with this…. You know, he stood up and talked about it. There are other ways to do it. I think there are other ways to be able to achieve public interest and the test, as he said. But I tell you what doesn’t work: that is, to have staff or others quietly calling companies and suggesting that they should be giving up timber to First Nations. They can do that, of course. You can ask them to do that. You can ask them to do anything. But what Bill 22 does is give them a hammer and say: “If you don’t, we could suspend your licence if you’re going to make a trade or a deal.”

I know the minister doesn’t view this bill as being that way, but that is how industry views it. That’s how anybody else outside of the political realm views it. The minister can put a spin on, that he’s trying to help communities, that he’s trying to help First Nations and he’s trying to create balance and all of this kind of stuff. There are ways to achieve that, just like we did back in 2003. This isn’t it. This is not it.

[3:20 p.m.]

This assault that I am seeing on the forest companies…. Could you imagine? Forestry is a contract between government and companies to access fibre, to access the resource.

You know what else is a contract? You know what else is out there? Why don’t we talk about mining? Why don’t we talk about the minerals that are in the ground? That’s a resource. That’s a contract between government and a company, whether it’s coal or metal mining or even aggregate. What about oil and gas? Those are resources that are the Crown’s that’s a contract between the Crown and a company to operate.

Let’s even go a little bit further, whether it’s range, guide-outfitters, trappers, other activities on the land base — are they next in terms of how government is going to take a heavy hand to structuring and looking at companies and the way companies operate and the way they can trade and do business? Is there too much concentration in the oil and gas sector, so they’re going to have to try to socially re-engineer it? Is there too much concentration in the mining sector?

Like I say, I get the goals, but this is a very dangerous precedent in terms of the approach for trying to achieve those goals. It is wrong, plain and simple. It will be the equivalent of expropriation without compensation, of tearing up of a contract.

I wonder if the minister has really looked at this, if the government has really considered this in their options. What other options did they consider to try to achieve this, or is this really what they’re trying to do? Is this really the goal of this government?

You know, you look at what they’re doing in trying to force people to be unionized and trying to force people to not even be declared people under an agricultural act. Maybe this Bill 22 is doing just that. It’s what they want to do. They want to have complete government control and oversight. You know, for that matter, maybe they just want to nationalize the forest industry. I don’t know. Maybe that’s where they’re going. It’s hard to say. But they sure seem to be going a long ways with this bill to achieve something that could have been achieved with a much simpler process.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the Minister of Labour giving a few comments in there while I got a chance to have some water. I know he’s eager to get up and stand and talk about this bill, but he won’t, just like nobody else over on that side will.

Bill 22. I think about the example that the minister gave and Houston. Houston’s in my riding. There’s a situation where, because of declining fibre and because of the mountain pine beetle and because of the problems that this government created in the ’90s….

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The minister laughs because he doesn’t even realize or understand the problems that were created and how they were created.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: It is facts. I was working in the industry. You weren’t, Minister, not at that time. As a matter of fact, I had many conversations with the bureaucrats that were working with industry, which is why I know it’s fact. It’s not making it up. It’s not politics.

We’re in a situation where two companies, West Fraser and Canfor, decided they couldn’t carry on with their operations and be competitive and survive in Houston. I went to HFP, and I said: “Look, is there anything we can do? Is there anything we can do to keep you operating because I want to see the mills stay, both mills stay operating in Houston.” They came to me and said: “The quality of the wood is deteriorating too much. We cannot keep this up at a sustainable rate. It is inevitable that there will be a closure. So by doing this deal, we are able to strengthen their core asset, which is in Quesnel.”

Canfor, I went to talk to them, and they said the same thing: “We cannot sustain the mill in Quesnel. There’s nothing we can do. It will have to close at some point. So we’re making the deal so that we can strengthen and sustain our mill in Houston.” So they did the deal. I wasn’t happy about it. I didn’t want to see the mills close.

The community came to me and said they don’t want to see the wood go, whether it’s to Smithers in the minister’s riding or over to Fraser Lake. They wanted to see that wood stay within their community, to create jobs in the community. I agree. I think it would have been good.

[3:25 p.m.]

The reality is you have to have a company that wants to build a mill. You have to have a company that has tenure, that has the contract and has the value and confidence to be able to do that. This bill destroys that. It destroys that. And for what?

There is a better way to be able to expand community forests. There is a better way for being able to have wood in First Nations’ hands, to have that connectivity between communities and the forest industry. There are better ways to do that. We do not need to have this kind of an egregious assault on the private sector.

I would support working with the minister to do those things. But alas, politics, unfortunately, divides us in our ability to be able to put forward good pieces of legislation, and this is what we ended up with — Bill 22.

It is sad, as I said before, when I think about it. I know for a fact that government is interested in tenure, that they’re interested in tenure reform. They want to see smaller mills. They want to see fewer shifts. They want to see more of these out and around. I get that they don’t understand economics, that they’ve never signed the front side of a paycheque.

The reality is simple. Our industry is very fragile at the moment. We’re facing tremendous uncertainty from the U.S. That will play out in the courts over time. Unfortunately, there may have been a window to do a deal, but that was missed. We’re facing potential uncertainty with China, the second-most important market for British Columbia wood.

We’re facing uncertainty in terms of tenure through this bill; uncertainty in terms of what that fibre and future is, potential land claims and UNDRIP — the approach that government is taking, creating divides in the community between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. We’re facing tremendous cost increases at a time when companies are struggling.

I know the minister would like to see jobs increase in this province. I know he’d like to see more value. People won’t invest in this province, not with this. The chill on the investment community is unbelievable. Government just seems to be blind to it. They think that we’re just playing politics in talking about it. We’re not.

You can just look at it. As West Fraser said, their investment decisions that they were looking at are on hold. Canfor is the same way. Other companies in the province are the exact same way. Yet they’ll take their money and invest in other jurisdictions, because they have certainty and they know that they can get a return.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The Minister of Labour is talking about Canadian companies investing in 50 mills down across the line. I get it. Maybe he doesn’t understand why.

When you cannot compete in the province of British Columbia, when there isn’t an opportunity to invest, when the environment is negative and unwelcoming, you go where you can to make money.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the fact that some of the members opposite are getting exercised over this, but the reality is that money is driving out of this province.

Has there been a new mine opened in two years under this government? Has there even been a start, construction, of a new mine?

Interjection.

J. Rustad: That was B.C. Liberal. That was built under B.C. Liberals.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: Sorry, which one? Red Mount. Got approval. There are others that have got approval. Has it got a shovel in the ground? Have you gone and done a ribbon? Have you gone in construction?

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s have a debate through the Chair, please.

J. Rustad: I’m sorry, hon. Chair. Through you, I look forward to seeing it. Maybe there will be one. Maybe they will be able to raise the capital to do it.

What I do know, though, is that companies are looking anywhere else other than British Columbia to invest capital. The forest industry is exactly the same. Nobody is investing in British Columbia, except for the bare minimum.

I guess that’s not quite true. There was one investment down in the Kootenays. Of course, there’s the pulp mill investment with a sweetheart deal, which is what the coastal revitalization is all about — getting fibre to it. But the reality is that companies are very reluctant to invest in this province, and they’re having a tough time raising money.

[3:30 p.m.]

Look at LNG, for example. I know it’s not related to Bill 22, but it is related to Bill 22 because of the ability to raise capital.

You’ve got TransCanada wanting to go forward. You’ve got a gold-star client that receives the gas. They’ve got a gold-star supply. They’ve got a pipe to prove in 40 years. They’ve got to figure out how to raise the money. They can’t go to the bank, because the bank won’t give it to them.

Deputy Speaker: Let’s talk about Bill 22. I’m sure the member has lots of material to talk about Bill 22.

Continue, Member.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the direction, hon. Chair.

Bill 22 is really about this assault on our industry. If the minister…. I know he’s going to get a chance here shortly, because I’m almost wrapped up, in terms of the comments I want to make.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I know the minister will have a chance to stand up, and he’ll talk about the lipstick that’s on this pig. He’ll talk about how this is going to help diversify and how this is going to meet the public interest, that it’s going to prevent any increased concentration and density. I know he’s going to get up and talk about all those things.

You know what? I agree. Some of those things would be good to try to achieve. But this bill does not do it.

I think what I’ll close by saying is this. When you grow up in the forest industry — when you work in it, you plant trees, you watch it grow, you log, you mill, you manage the forest — you have a real appreciation. I also live out on Klukas Lake in my beautiful riding of Nechako Lakes. I go out walking in the forest all the time. I appreciate the wildlife. I appreciate what our industry and what our province has.

There’s so much dynamic nature to our forests and our industry. But when I walk through there, I’m also proud. I’m proud of the fact that through our forest industry, we’ve created a great province. Now, there are lots of other things that have contributed to it, but forestry is always the backbone. It was always the foundation of so many communities. Today it is still the backbone of those communities.

It’s under attack, and that makes me sad. It makes me really sad. I think about the families, whether it’s in Fort St. James or Fraser Lake or Vanderhoof, the families on the south side of François Lake, Grassy Plains, families up in Granisle or Houston, Burns Lake. So many people are connected to the forest industry, and it’s hurting. They’re hurting, and they’re worried.

This government has done nothing to alleviate those concerns. They’ve done nothing to stand up for the workers and the families and for what this forest industry needs, which is some confidence and some help. Not more taxes. Not more regulation. Not more uncertainty. Not assaults on the very fabric of our private sector and our history.

When I first got into politics, back in 2005, in provincial politics, I used to go out in my riding and hold round tables. Forestry was a topic, and I’d do this for a number of years. I’d invite people in, and we’d have this topic, and we’d talk about the challenges we were facing. The pine beetle epidemic. The eventual downfall that was coming. How we’re going to need to adjust. What we needed to do around this.

People were engaged. They wanted to come out and engage in these conversations. Why? Because they knew it mattered to them.

Just in Burns Lake the other day, just yesterday, I think it was, or the day before, the chief forester was out in Burns Lake talking. They’re going through a real challenge because the timber supply is dropping off dramatically there. They’re trying to figure out how to fight to keep a mill going, how to fight to keep a mill in their community.

I’ve been fortunate, in that the communities I represent haven’t lost all their mills. Forestry is still part of it. But some of my other colleagues have been in communities where they’ve lost their only mill.

[3:35 p.m.]

The devastation that was to those communities, the challenge that those communities went through, not just because of revenue and services but because people moved away. There was loss of hope in the community. There are still some logging jobs, but it wasn’t the vibrant type of community that a healthy forest industry can provide.

We are going to be going through some challenges. We can throw barbs back and forth about causes and issues, but there are going to be some challenges for our forest industry and for communities like mine, whether it’s Fraser Lake or Fort St. James or Vanderhoof.

I think the way forward to try to help communities through that is to recognize, respect and support our industry, find ways to make it competitive, find ways to help it through these challenging times so that when we come out, we can be strong and we can see the changes that are needed. The steps that this government has taken does anything but do that. It has driven up costs, to being the highest-cost producer; it has driven up uncertainty; and it has assaulted the very fabric and the contract that was formed so many years ago, in terms of the tenure and the contract between government and companies and the devaluation of that through this assault.

As you can imagine from my rather lengthy speech, I will not be supporting a bill like this. But I do offer an olive branch out to the minister that maybe there is a way we could sit down and work on something that could work, that we could find a way to be able to bridge some of these political divides and support our communities without this kind of assault. I hope that the minister will take this seriously. I know he’s had an opportunity to be in here for all of the comments. I hope he would take that offer seriously, for the good and for the benefit of our forest industry in the province of British Columbia.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to offer my few comments on Bill 22, the Forest Amendment Act. I have to say, first of all, that the forest sector goes through different phases, as we’ve seen over the history of this province. Our government has made a decision, I think a forward-thinking decision, that in effect addresses some of the problems that weren’t addressed by the previous government, and that is that we’ve seen a major concentration of ownership, a concentration of control among a few companies. The changes that are being made allow government to have more oversight over the industry.

I know that over the last number of weeks, we’ve heard members of the opposition complain about restoring public interest into the basis of other acts and pieces of legislation. It seems to be almost an ideological opposition to including the public in the administration or in the development of policies in this province.

I think when you include the public, you get legislation, regulations, that reflect the public interest. What we have seen over the 16 years of the previous government is that the public interest wasn’t necessarily top of mind for them. So I’m pleased to see that our government has made this decision to try to make sure that the public asset, the benefits of that common wealth of our province, are shared more effectively and more fairly throughout our province. What we’ve seen are communities, in some cases, and First Nations left out of that format.

The legislation that’s before us today simply allows government to have some more oversight. When the disposition of Crown tenures…. Previous legislation prevented government’s ability to involve itself in any way, and I think that did not serve the public interest. What we’re doing, I believe, through these amendments to the Forest Act is addressing some of those.

I understand the previous minister has a concern that he’s not in charge anymore. The decisions that he made are under question, obviously. The changes and the improvements we’re making failed to be done by the previous government, but I think that the changes are utterly and entirely supportable.

[3:40 p.m.]

They recognize that our small communities…. I represent a community that is very forest-reliant, very forest-centred. I have two pulp mills, a large forest industry. I’ve heard from a number of people about the concern about the concentration of ownership of the resource that we accurately describe as our common wealth. This is our resource. The province of British Columbia’s resource. I think it’s appropriate that government ensures that that resource is managed in a way that benefits all British Columbians.

I just wanted to make it clear that the member, the opposition critic, does take every opportunity to ensure that even the simplest discussion becomes a partisan one. I think that, in fact, this is just a good piece of legislation that addresses some concerns that have been raised by people across this province. I think these are important changes to ensure that we pursue better oversight of the forest industry.

I thank members of the opposition for letting their case be made. They have ample opportunity to provide the House with amendments that they would like the House to consider. I have not heard any suggestion that they’re going to put forward amendments. I’ve heard about olive branches, but I don’t think they are accepted by the Clerk’s office as amendments. I believe that the amendments have to be in a certain format.

The previous speaker talked about wanting to work with the minister. I’ll take him at his word. How is that going to happen? Is he going to propose some changes to this act or not? That’s ultimately up to the opposition to do. As someone who, in 12 years, sat in opposition, I didn’t always have a lot of confidence that government would listen. In fact, they rarely did. But we have an agreement with another party here, and we know how to make some compromises when they’re necessary. We won’t go against our values, but I believe that the opportunity is there to make amendments to this legislation. I look forward to the opposition’s amendments.

We have a situation where we’ve addressed and identified issues. I thank the minister for the work that he’s done. I think he has the full support of caucus. These are some changes that we’ve hoped for.

With that, Madam Speaker, I’ll take my place.

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

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to thank all members who took the opportunity to present their perspectives on Bill 22 for rising in this chamber. I do, of course, want to address a few of the perspectives I heard from the benches of the official opposition, and to correct some of the record.

The lack of recognition that it’s the people in B.C. who own the forest…. It was just astounding when it came from the benches of the official opposition. It is the people of B.C. who own the forests, and they’re not private assets that belong to companies.

The member for Kelowna-Mission talked about a perceived concentration of tenure amongst a few companies. Well, it’s not a perceived concentration of tenure; it’s a reality. It’s a reality due to the policies and legislation of the former government. The reality of that concentration of tenure is it has undermined competition.

The member for Nechako Lakes claims that Bill 22 will somehow undermine competition. The reality of the situation is that the concentration of tenure we’ve seen as a result of the actions by the previous government has undermined competition, and there has been a dramatic increase in concentration. That hasn’t been to the benefit of communities, First Nations or the forestry sector in general.

The changes in Bill 22 will allow more government say on behalf of the people of B.C. on how tenures are transferred or acquired. It will allow respectful dealings with First Nations, which the member for Nechako Lakes characterized as an unacceptable cost — an unacceptable cost to respectfully deal with First Nations that Bill 22 will allow.

[3:45 p.m.]

The member for Nechako Lakes not only talked about through industry’s perception of an unacceptable cost of dealing with First Nations but how industry looks at the bill is most important. The members on this side understand that the public forests are a publicly held asset, and the most important aspect of Bill 22 is ensuring that government has control over an asset, control that was diminished by the actions of the previous government.

The member for Nechako Lakes intimated that something was going to be ripped up. Bill 22 is not about ripping up anything. It says the minister may take further action around tenure transfers or amalgamation. He typified, in a negative sense…. This is a direct quote: “Under Bill 22, you can’t do a deal until you meet a public interest test.” How shocking is that? It’s a public asset. The trees in this province are owned publicly, and the member for Nechako Lakes is casting a negative aspect on saying you can’t do a deal until you meet a public interest test. Unbelievable.

Businesses will look after businesses, as it should be. The government role is to look after the broader public interest. That’s what Bill 22 will do. The member for Kelowna West talked about uncertainty. Of course, the prime example of uncertainty was the swapping of tenures that the member for Nechako Lakes referred to between Canfor and West Fraser in 2013, swapping of tenures without any notification to the communities. How great an uncertainty and distress that caused in communities. That’s what this government on this side is concerned about, communities and First Nations, when it comes to a publicly held natural resource asset like the forests of our province.

As the member for Nechako Lakes talked about, that swap happened 12 years after the B.C. Liberals came to government in 2001. Yet he tries to claim that it was the policies of the 1990s that created that timber swap. Twelve years after the Liberals took government, the timber swap happened. From what I understand, there was no consultation with the Minister of Forests at the time. The Minister of Forests was in China on a trade mission.

That’s what happened from the concentration of tenure. That’s what happened after the 2003 supposed forest revitalization plan that the previous government had put in place. No say by the communities. Uncertainty created in Houston; uncertainty created in Quesnel. I know there was an exodus of people from Houston because of that uncertainty. They’re just recovering from part of that today, many, many years later.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin talked about the need for strong leadership. I can’t agree more. We’re making decisions and taking action on the challenges facing the forest sector in communities. Bill 22 is one way of showing strong leadership that should have been done over a decade ago, when the trends were demonstrating that the increased concentration and the ability to swap tenures without any kind of public test were detrimental to communities and First Nations and the sector generally.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin talked about standing up and taking action. Well, the previous government sat on their hands while thousands of jobs were lost during their tenure, thousands of jobs in the forestry sector, and 100 mills shut during their tenure. They sat on their hands and didn’t do anything around that.

They also sat on their hands when it came to taking measures necessary on caribou recovery and put thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity at risk through a unilateral decision by the federal government. They sat on their hands around forestry jobs, sat on their hands about the caribou file. That’s a lack of strong leadership that we’re addressing and making changes today. An example of that is Bill 22.

In fact, there were fewer jobs in 2017 in rural areas, when that side of the chamber left government, than there were in 2008, fewer jobs in rural B.C. The member for Cariboo North talked about actions that we’ve taken as government in the last 21 months that have negatively impacted the local economy in her area. Well, I want to quote from the Quesnel Cariboo Observer just a couple of months ago, in January.

[3:50 p.m.]

Here’s the headline: “The Unemployment Rate Is at a 43-Year Low for Quesnel, 5.6 Percent.” You know, you have to have your facts straight when you’re addressing these kinds of economic issues. Obviously, the member for Cariboo North didn’t have her facts straight. A 43-year-low unemployment rate in Quesnel, and she is saying this government has had a negative impact on the local economy in her area. Well, you know what? That was the lowest-ever unemployment rate in Quesnel since StatsCan began keeping records — the lowest ever.

Not only did the member for Cariboo North talk about the history of participation in the forest industry in her family through independent jobs, but the member for Nechako Lakes also talked about the comments of the Premier at the truck loggers annual conference just earlier this year. I want to touch on that briefly, because the truck loggers are independent small business owners. They have membership from around the province. They’re the ones who harvest the timber and supply it to mills. They’re the types of jobs that the member for Cariboo North was talking about. They’re the kind of people that were at the conference that the member for Nechako Lakes was referencing.

I just want to read into the record briefly a couple of comments from the executive director of the Truck Loggers Association, Dave Elstone, when commenting on Bill 22 in a news release.

“For more than 70 years, it has been the Truck Loggers Association’s position that consolidation is not good for the financial sustainability of all stakeholders in the forest industry. Now finally this government is making a substantial effort to prevent further tenure consolidation…. We are encouraged by this change. Combined with the recent policy changes resulting from the contractor sustainability review, it will ensure a more sustainable future for contractors and communities.”

That’s the Truck Loggers Association, representative of small businesses across this province involved in the forest sector.

I just want to wrap up by saying that, first and foremost, the forests of this province are a publicly held natural resource, and any dispositions of tenure need to keep this fact at the forefront in the name of the public good for communities, for First Nations, for workers and for the forest sector economy.

With that, I move second reading.

[3:55 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 22.

[4:00 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 22 approved on the following division:

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that Bill 22 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Forest 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.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading debate on Bill 17, Environmental Management Amendment Act.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

BILL 17 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be read a second time now.

This bill proposes to make two crucial improvements to the Environmental Management Act for the better protection of human health and the environment. The first improvement updates the process of identifying contaminated sites in the province to achieve more timely investigation of potential contamination on land. The second expands the investigation powers of the conservation officer service.

The changes to the site identification process in the Environmental Management Act are made in direct response to consultation completed with local governments and stakeholders since 2014.

The purpose of these changes is threefold: to eliminate unnecessary steps in the process and make requirements easier to understand for site owners who use it; to create an automatic requirement for site investigation when a prescribed industrial or commercial activity has occurred on a site and if a person, owner or operator is seeking redevelopment or the shutdown of operations; and to identify industrial or commercial sites with owners or operators undergoing bankruptcy proceedings in order to increase the likelihood that contamination is addressed by the responsible person and not by taxpayers, as has been the case far too often till now.

The amendments will streamline site identification by eliminating the condition for a person to disclose information about a site when no change of use or redevelopment is occurring.

[4:05 p.m.]

A new requirement will be added for a person to provide information about a site if applying for a building permit involving soil disturbance. Adding it as a requirement will ensure sites being redeveloped are properly identified.

The bill will also create a new automatic requirement for site investigation to ensure identified sites with a prescribed industrial or commercial use are investigated in a timely manner.

The amendments also place a new obligation on an owner and operators of a site to provide information if an owner or an operator of a site has either filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act or filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., also known as Redwater, does not have an impact on these proposed amendments.

Consequential amendments are proposed to the Local Government Act, the Land Title Act, the Islands Trust Act, the Oil and Gas Activities Act and Vancouver Charter to reflect the proposed changes to the Environmental Management Act.

The amendments will only apply to new applications for local government permits or following a future site closure. The existing provisions will continue to apply to applications made before these amendments come into effect. Amendments to the contaminated sites regulation will be developed to support full implementation of these legislative amendments.

The second amendments are to the conservation officer service. The remaining proposed amendments to the act will provide the conservation officer service with the expanded set of tools needed to fully investigate serious environmental offences, which can range from pollution to wildlife poaching and illegal trafficking in animal parts.

The amendments will incorporate into the Environmental Management Act specific provisions from the Criminal Code of Canada, including:

Preservation demand, which gives authority for a peace officer to demand a non-accused person preserve computer data; preservation order, which is a court order to compel a non-accused person to preserve computer data; production order, which is a court order to compel a non-accused person to produce a document containing information related to the offence; non-disclosure order, which is a court order to compel a person not to disclose the existence of or the contents of a preservation or a production order; assistance order, which is a court order to compel a person to assist an officer in the execution of a particular warrant.

General warrant, which gives authority to use any device or investigative technique or procedure not otherwise permitted by other warrants under the Criminal Code with permission of the court; impression warrant, which gives authority to collect impression information from persons — for example, finger-, hand- or footprints; tracking device warrant, which gives authority to conduct electronic or remote surveillance of a suspect or a vehicle through transmitters; transmission data recorder warrant, which gives authority to install a transmission data recorder and collect real-time transmission data — for example, incoming and outgoing telephone numbers or origin and destination of an Internet communication.

Authorization to intercept private communications with consent, which gives authority to intercept a private communication where at least one party consents, otherwise known as a consent wiretap; sealing order, which gives authority to protect sensitive information contained in applications for search warrants or production orders or other types of judicial authorizations, such as information about a confidential informant.

Currently conservation officers already have authority to use these Criminal Code powers to investigate offences under federal environmental legislation, but they can’t use them to investigate offences under provincial environmental legislation. This restricts the quality and amount of evidence that can be collected. It can render investigations unnecessarily long and complex. And this limits the chances of successful prosecutions.

The benefits of allowing conservation officers to make use of Criminal Code authorities when investigating offences under provincial environmental legislation are numerous.

[4:10 p.m.]

They include more effective and efficient investigations; more efficient use of staff and resources when conducting investigations; improved quality and increased quantity of evidence obtained, thus leading to a higher rate of successful prosecutions; an enhanced ability to investigate serious offences where the evidence may be effectively hidden or difficult to obtain; faster completion of investigations; and improved officer safety through the use of remote surveillance.

The use of these Criminal Code powers will only be utilized with prior approval by the judiciary. One notable exception respecting judicial approval involves the warrantless search provision. This is not a new Criminal Code power, however. This is an amendment to an existing provision to ensure that it aligns with constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state.

The Environmental Management Act currently allows a conservation officer to search premises, including a private residence, without a warrant, in exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances are defined as those where the delay necessary to get a warrant would result in danger to human life or safety, or the loss or destruction of evidence. As amended, and based on legal advice, a warrantless search and seizure of a private residence will be possible only where the delay necessary to obtain the warrant could result in danger to human life or safety. If these amendments are enacted, a conservation officer would not be able to enter a private residence without a warrant in search of evidence.

I look forward to comment from other members. I look forward to answering questions in committee stage. With that, I take my place.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 17, Environmental Management Amendment Act. As the minister referenced, these are amendments that date back to 2014. The work was starting to be done then, working with municipalities to try to work with their planning departments and figure out the best way forward to streamline processes for people coming in and making sure that land purchasers have some certainty around what they’re getting themselves into when it comes to purchasing a site and redeveloping a site.

On its face, no huge concerns from our side of the House. As I say, it was work that was initiated and has spanned two governments now, so I’d like to thank the staff for sticking with it and moving this forward, because it is important that bills like these and issues like this do get revisited from time to time and get updated. I spoke to that effect when we were thinking of the Civil Forfeiture Act and modernizing it and updating it to reflect more modern technologies and what’s happening out there in terms of how people are finding workarounds to try to circumvent the rules as they currently exist.

In terms of the reporting requirements, in terms of making sure that taxpayers are protected to the highest level possible, of contaminated sites being cleaned up by the people who are truly responsible for making the contamination, it’s a step in the right direction and something that is good to see the modernization and the updating happening in.

In terms of the conservation officers’ provisions and powers, again, we very much see that as a modernization of what’s reflected in the real world and technology and how conservation officers — a tough job that they have in the first place…. It enables them to have other tools to better do their job while still protecting people through making sure that their rights, through judiciary processes and properly processed search warrants and the like, are still maintained.

On balance, no great concerns with Bill 17. We’ll certainly have some further questions in committee stage to make sure that we’re understanding sections properly so that we can then convey back to our own constituents and our own municipalities how the bill is to be interpreted and the intent behind the different provisions. But overall, as I say, it’s really a bill that we seem to view more as a housekeeping-type bill in terms of modernizing and making sure that modern processes are taken into account within the legislative framework of the Environmental Management Act.

[4:15 p.m.]

With that, I will take my place. I look forward to committee stage on Bill 17 and making sure that we can provide those assurances to people that their projects can still proceed. This is not creating big barriers to them. They don’t have to worry about conservation officers entering their properties at will to try to seize things that they would not otherwise have a proper search warrant for. So we will see where that takes us in committee stage.

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

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson. Indeed, these changes will protect the taxpayer, a long overdue measure. They’ll also make the activities of the conservation officer service in carrying out their duties consistent with what they can already do under federal offences and further protect British Columbians.

As the member noted, it is good for all of us to note that modernization and sensible changes begun by one government can and will be continued by another.

With that, I move second reading on Bill 17.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 17, Environmental Management 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.

Hon. G. Heyman: I now call continued second reading debate on Bill 15, an act intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019.

BILL 15 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure today to rise to give some remarks to Bill 15, which is called the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. I want to begin…. I love to speak about agriculture, because my area is a large agricultural area. I want to talk about the importance of agriculture to Chilliwack, Agassiz and the surrounding area where I live and serve.

That’s why I want to speak to this bill, because it’s about the importance of agriculture to my riding. The gross farm receipts in my riding are more than $600 million every year in economic activity, which is the second highest in the province. We maintain 4,500 jobs. There are 800 farms on about 17,000 hectares of agricultural land, and it is good land. Some of the best land in the province is in Chilliwack. Sixty percent of the agricultural land is class 1 and 2, and as Madam Speaker knows, out of a scale of seven classes used by the Agricultural Land Commission, classes 1 and 2 are the best.

That doesn’t include the district of Kent. The district of Kent, north of the river, has another 4,000 hectares of land in the ALR. Almost all of it is available for farming, and it’s actually used for farming. While only 40 percent of the land in B.C. is used for farming in the ALR, only 4 percent is not used for farming in the district of Kent — 165 hectares out of 4,000.

There’s a great love of agriculture in my constituency, and there’s also huge pressure on this land because of its location in the Fraser Valley. It’s near all kinds of urban development. It’s near large populations — millions of people within a couple of hours’ drive.

Agricultural land is relatively inexpensive when you compare it to a city lot. You would pay a maximum of about $100,000 a hectare in agricultural land — that’s in land in the ALR — but you would pay about $300,000 for a city lot, even in Chilliwack. So there’s huge pressure to develop agricultural land.

Now, my constituents support agriculture for a number of reasons. Of course, as I just said, it’s the biggest economic driver in the area. But there’s also a strong cultural tradition of farming and farm families, people who’ve moved to town but grew up on the farm, people who love to eat local things, like Chilliwack sweet corn — what could be better than that? — and all kinds of berries. There are two meat-packing plants in my riding.

There’s just a love of the land and a love for the esthetics of green fields and animals in the verdant countryside. Last weekend I was able to paddle the Hope Slough in a canoe, along with other people who love the land. We went through Rosedale in the canoe, and I must say that it was a beautiful experience.

[4:20 p.m.]

I also love to drive along the winding Camp River Road, in the middle of Rosedale in my riding, just to look at the beautiful, orderly fields which our expert farmers cultivate. City people love it as much as country people. People feel good when they live near farm country, and they feel good living in Chilliwack. I don’t want that to change. My constituents support the ALR, and so do I.

I want to talk about just the history of the ALR for a moment. In a few words, it began in 1972. It’s relevant to this bill because my former employer is MLA Harvey Schroeder, who was the Minister of Agriculture in 1984. He was first elected in 1972 to the riding of Chilliwack, under the Social Credit banner. He survived the Barrett years. He served as Speaker and then as Minister of Agriculture. I was his assistant at that time. He told me that the ALR was created on the back of a napkin, in very broad-brush terms. The boundaries of the ALR were sketched out in a mighty rush by Dave Barrett’s NDP government, and they were pushed quickly into law. That meant that there were many mistakes. There were many anomalies.

The ALR, as I’ve said, is made up of seven classes of land, with the best land growing the most crops under good climatic conditions, and class 7 land being almost good for nothing, useful for only a very small number of activities, like maybe putting greenhouses on. The land in 1972 had not been extensively tested, so much land was included which would have been class 8 or 9 — right off the scale — meaning that it would be completely unsuitable for agriculture. Maybe a gravel bed or something else like that.

That meant there had to be a process by which land could be removed from the ALR. This was a matter of simple justice. It would have been pure injustice to deny a farmer whose land was a gravel bed, included by mistake in the ALR, to keep that land reserved for agriculture when there were 100 other non-agriculture uses for it that would help the farmer pay off the mortgage on that same piece of land.

There are also uses within the ALR that are not taking land out of it but allowing a compatible use, such as a food processing plant which processes the things farmers grow, or perhaps an agritourism business. Farmers can apply for these kinds of uses as well.

Now, I want to talk in a larger sense about the importance of agriculture to B.C. Provincially, agriculture is a huge economic driver, and it’s of growing importance. We have 20,000 farms in B.C. that use up 2.6 million hectares of land in the province. That’s about 3 percent of the land area of B.C. We have 1,000 food processors. The food industry, in total, employs 260,000 people, which is 14 percent of all jobs in B.C. Revenues from agriculture are well over $10 billion every year. Agriculture is hugely important to our economy. For all the reasons I’ve just stated, we need to protect and enhance farming and food processing in B.C., and that is what the agricultural land reserve is all about.

You can see it in my riding. The evidence of the impact of the ALR is very clear when you drive through the Fraser Valley on Highway 1. The Trans-Canada Highway bisects my riding and bisects the city of Chilliwack. You will note when you drive through that there are large residential subdivisions built into the hills and mountains on either side of the valley, while the valley floor remains largely devoted to agriculture. I really do think that the ALR and the ALC, in broad terms, have indeed accomplished their purpose of preserving agricultural land.

I’ve heard stories over the years about people who wanted to develop agricultural land who’ve been terribly frustrated by the agricultural land reserve and the land commission because its purpose is, first and foremost, to protect agricultural land.

This love of agriculture is reflected in Chilliwack’s activity before the ALC. I looked it up on their website. In the past two years, there have been four applications from Chilliwack by landowners. Two were approved and two rejected. A total of 12.8 hectares was taken out of the ALR. One of the applications that was approved was only for 8/10 of a hectare. That’s because a house was already sitting on the parcel, so kind of a no-brainer.We’re talking about a very small number of applications here and a very small amount of land. The ALR, I would remind you, is 4.6 million hectares, but only 12.8 were taken out of Chilliwack.

Last year in the entire province, there were only 39 applications to exclude land from the ALR, even though the minister said that the bill before us is necessary because the number of applications is so very burdensome, which is a thin veil of an excuse to do what the minister and this government really want to do.

Let me explain. I want to talk for a moment about what this law, Bill 15, proposes. The law proposes to make the protections of agricultural land even stronger than they are today, and they are already very strong.

[4:25 p.m.]

In fact, I would say the ALC is already the most independent of all the agencies of government. But the hypocrisy of the Minister of Agriculture on this issue is rather astounding. Just a few years ago the minister herself was confronted with an application for exclusion, in her own riding, of a piece of perfectly good agricultural land. In her speech to this bill, the member for Saanich South, who’s the Minister for Agriculture, was talking about the ALR as a precious land base.

Let me read something she said when she was the opposition critic for Agriculture for the NDP. This is what she said in December of 2012. The headline of the story is in the Saanich News, and it was headlined “Saanich Hands Decision on Gordon Head Farmland to Agricultural Land Commission.”

This is what the story said about the NDP’s agricultural critic at that time. She appeared before council and “spoke at the council meeting about smart farming. She said she felt Saanich ‘decided that this property isn’t a farm years ago,’ by developing everything else around it.” She “took the stance that, given its location, this property should be developed, instead of being farmed.”

I want to quote the minister. Here’s what she said. “It’s a difficult choice that I’ve made, and I’ve probably disappointed some folks in the audience. As far as Saanich as a community, I think it’s a better direction to have a subdivision.” That’s what she said.

When it comes to everybody else in B.C., they should be held down and not have their land taken out. But when it comes to her own riding, she was happy to take land out of the precious land base, the ALR, even though she wants to clamp down on it everywhere else. I think that is a marvelous bit of hypocrisy on the part of the Minister of Agriculture.

But let me get on to the bill before us. Section 30 of the existing law says this: “An owner of land may apply to the commission to have their land excluded from the agricultural land reserve.” That statement is simple. It’s direct. It’s a matter of justice, as I said before. It addresses the problem of changing circumstances in the lives of farm families and communities, and it addresses the right of the landowner to ask for something different concerning his or her own private land that they own, that they have title to.

What does the law before us propose to do? It will repeal that simple statement — that simple article of justice that has been offered to farmers in B.C. for the past 47 years.

Now, we might say that it’s such a little change. It’s just a little piece of an act that’s taken out, just one line. So what? Well, how about a little change in other rights? Why not allow just small assaults against people? Or little thefts? Or legalize little bits of vandalism here and there? It’s an absurd thought. It might be a short line in a bill, but it’s a big issue of principle.

I think it’s all about power, so I want to talk about power a little bit. Who has the power to effect change on agricultural land? Well, in a free democracy, the power belongs to the people — the little person, the ordinary, the average citizen, the individual. But this is changing with our present government, because in every way, power is being consolidated in the hands of fewer people rather than the many, in the hands of governments. Even though we are talking about private land only, land that doesn’t belong to the government, even so, governments are going to be able to make all the decisions about someone’s private, privately owned land.

Interjections.

L. Throness: I see I’ve touched a nerve on the other side, because they don’t like me talking about the consolidation of power under the NDP.

First, there is the commission itself. Power is being consolidated in the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. Under our government, we had 13 board members of the ALC. That’s being reduced to 11. That’s a 15 percent consolidation of power right there, but it’s a small thing in the NDP’s eyes, I’m sure.

The chair has the power to appoint a panel for the purpose of making a decision on an application, exclusive power to appoint one or more vice-chairs to the commission, exclusive power to appoint panels to adjudicate and review applications. Even in the appointment of a CEO for the ALC, the people of B.C., through the Legislature and the minister herself, will no longer be able to appoint a CEO. The minister herself will have to consult with the real boss — the real boss is the chair of the ALC — before she makes an appointment.

[4:30 p.m.]

The only restriction placed on the chair are applications that involve provincial importance, novel, or affect more than one region impacted by an application. Then the whole commission must review the application.

Well, let’s talk about exclusions for a moment. Bill 15, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, is a truly stunning shift in the ALR because of the definition of “persons” contained in the bill. It specifically excludes all individual people and all corporations as well.

I cannot think of another law — and there are about 7,000 laws on the books in the B.C. Legislature; I checked — in which a British Columbian is not considered a person — no other law in B.C. This is an unprecedented attack on the rights of British Columbians in general and on farmers in particular, because if this government will do it to one, it can do it to another individual.

This is an unprecedented attack on property rights. It is similar…. It is just one step removed from expropriation, in which private land is actually taken away from an owner. But this law will effectively remove a farmer’s say in the disposition of their own land.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Allow me to quote from section 19 of the bill, which amends section 29 in the current act. It’s a section entitled “Exclusion applications.” This is what it says: “A person may apply to the commission to have land excluded from the agricultural land reserve if the person is (a) the owner of the land and is (i) the Province, a first nation government or a local government, or (ii) a prescribed public body, (b) a local government, and the land is within the local government’s jurisdiction, or (c) a first nation government, and the land is within the first nation’s settlement lands.”

This, being interpreted, means that only a government body is considered to be a person under the ALC. A farmer is no longer a person under this law and can no longer apply to have their land excluded. Instead, their local government has to apply on their behalf.

Let me talk about respect for farmers. This is really about respect. Our agricultural producers grow food for our province and people around the world. Particularly for dairy farmers, they work morning, noon and night, seven days a week, to put dairy products on our tables.

The minister is supposed to boost farmers and farming and enhance respect for farmers and agriculture and help to raise the profile and respect for farmers and the morale of farmers and the dignity of farmers among other British Columbians, many of whom live in cities and have very little contact with farming today.

Instead of showing them respect, the minister is doing the opposite. She’s saying: “You don’t matter when it comes to the disposition of your own land. Maybe you’ve been there for several generations and are a long-time farm family. We don’t want to even hear what you have to say, because you don’t count anymore.”

Now, I want to talk about natural justice for farmers. As I said earlier, this is a matter of simple natural justice. When the ALR was first conceived, it was sketched out in very broad terms, as I described, very broad strokes. It was a very inexact thing. There was much land included in the ALR that should not have been included, and it was a matter of natural justice for a farmer to be able to apply for exclusion.

That process of adjustment to the ALR is still ongoing, but that feature of natural justice is now being denied. There are legitimate scenarios that could cause an individual to want to exclude their land from the ALC, like changes in families, small business, to support a farm, expand an agricul­tural-related processing facility. But now it will be “government knows best.”

One might say that it’s no big deal because the local government, the municipality, will be able to apply on the farmer’s behalf. But what if the farmer and his or her local council do not see eye to eye? What if the local government disagrees with the farmer’s plans, for whatever reason — legitimate or illegitimate? That farmer will be in the glue without rights, and the local government will hold all the cards.

There is another related provision of this act, which we find in section 30. The commission will have the power to exclude land on its own initiative or permit a non-farm use without anyone making an application. In other words, the commission will have the power to exclude a farmer’s land when the farmer may want to keep his or her land within the ALR. Maybe the owners want to stay on the land but the municipality wants to build on it. The municipality removing the parcel of land from the ALR will put more pressure on the farmer to leave.

It used to be that governments would have to ask farmers for permission to exclude their land, but no longer. The farmer won’t have a say in this either. Under this legislation, a local government could make an agreement with the ALC to take out land on which there are currently homes so that the local government can tax them at a higher rate, and the owners wouldn’t be able to say a thing.

[4:35 p.m.]

Once again, the government’s argument for this antidemocratic action is that people cannot be trusted. The minister seems to think that everyone who purchases or owns land in the ALR is simply a speculator waiting to cash out, when in reality, there are only 39 applications a year in all of B.C. That removed a total of 28 hectares out of a total ALR of 4.6 million hectares. That’s 1/1000 of 1 percent that was removed by those awful speculative farmers.

Removing their basic rights for this non-reason is an insult. It is a false accusation. It is an imputation on the reputation of farmers. It is saying that all farmers are suspect, that they are self-interested speculators, when the records shows that nothing could be further from the truth. Only 39 applications out of 20,000 farmers in one year in B.C., and 1/1000 of 1 percent of the ALR was changed.

While I was chief of staff, in a former life, to the federal Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa, we met with hundreds and hundreds of farmers from all across Canada. I can tell you that farmers will do just about anything to stay on the land and continue the lifestyle they love. For them it’s not a business; it’s a way of life. It’s a multigenerational project. It’s a family tradition and a personal identity. A farmer wants to farm, and producers will often get jobs off the farm and work in town in order to subsidize and support their farm so they can stay on the land.

They will keep equipment long after it should have been sold. They will cut personal corners and skip holidays and drive old beaters, old cars, and live life on a shoestring because farmers want to farm. Farmers often tell a joke that goes around that says: how do you make a small fortune in farming? Well, you start with a large fortune. That’s a joke, but there’s a truth behind it. Often farming is a difficult business to make a go of.

We on our side, when we were in government, tried to find ways to make farming more viable — for instance, with a second zone in B.C.’s north that provided the ability to do other things with land that would support the viability of farms and farmers and farm families and farm communities. But of course, in their zeal, in their ideological fervor, the present government abolished that zone, to the detriment of agriculture across B.C. Simply put, this government doesn’t trust farmers when, of all British Columbians, farmers deserve the trust and respect of government.

The government is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, and it’s doing so in the most egregious way possible at the expense of the fundamental rights of British Columbians who own their land, by taking away the rights of individual landowners to ask for change. We’re simply asking that this government reverse this legislation and restore to farmers the right to apply to remove their land from the ALR. We’re not asking that applications for exclusion by farmers be approved by this Legislature or by the ALC. We’re simply asking for their right to apply, to make their case before the ALC.

Now, in all these things, I always say: “What’s next?” Not just what’s happening today, but given the direction the government is heading in, what’s the next step? How else will the government reduce the rights of landowners and concentrate power in the hands of government? What concerns me is that this legislation follows a disturbing pattern being set by the government in which it’s okay to discriminate against certain British Columbians on the basis of NDP big-government ideology, as if the government says, “We don’t have to be fair, as long as we’re right,” even though they are not right.

Let me give a couple of examples. If a person working in the social service sector helping people who are disabled or elderly or mentally ill, the most vulnerable in our society, doesn’t want to join a union, the minister responsible for Poverty Reduction thinks it’s okay to discriminate against that worker.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.

L. Throness: I am speaking to the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue speaking to the bill.

Let me give you another example of the pattern that this bill is following — that of community benefit agreements, where you have to join one of the government’s favourite unions in order to work on publicly funded projects. I think of the privatization of medical services or assuming 4,000 workers into the sphere of government from the private sector, banning private contracts in the provision of medical services. Everywhere we see, as in this bill, a consolidation of power in government across the board.

[4:40 p.m.]

We might even talk about child care, which is another example of the same behaviour as the bill before us. The government has decided to create an entirely non-profit child care system, so they favour non-profit providers, and they push out market-based ones as they consolidate power into the hands of the public rather than into the hands of individual providers.

The speculation tax follows exactly the same principle. In like manner, if the person is a farmer who gets in the way of NDP agricultural ideology, just run over them. Take away their right, discriminate against them, and don’t allow them even to apply, even if it causes them a financial hardship.

I will point out, though, that this government retains the right of cabinet to deem something in the public interest and exclude land on its own. Again, the individual knows nothing; the individual has no rights. The government — in this case, the provincial cabinet — knows everything and keeps all the rights as it continues to gather more power to itself.

This law, along with others, will send a message to business across B.C. and outside of B.C., particularly in northern B.C., where the land is generally of lower agricultural quality, the growing season is shorter and farmers need other uses for their agricultural land so that they can make ends meet and keep the family farm going. The message, internationally, will be: “B.C. is closed for business.”

LNG Canada and Coastal GasLink — their current plans run through ALR land. They had better ask for an exclusion from the provincial cabinet under the public interest exception if they want their project to go, because individual farmers won’t be able to ask.

Allow me to close with a question, Mr. Speaker. What would it hurt for the government to reverse its course and stop this discrimination against farmers — the insult to them of erasing them as persons under the law — and restore to them the right to appear before the commission and plead their case? There are only 39 applications a year. This is hardly burdensome to the ALC, as the minister wrongly asserted.

It wouldn’t hurt the ALR, which still needs to be adjusted from time to time, as I’ve explained in detail. It would only hurt the government, because their ideology, their passionate belief, is to increase the power of government at the expense of reducing personal freedom. To them, the individual is less important than the collective. It would be contrary to their DNA.

I will be voting against this bill, and I call upon the government to drop this negative idea, to respect farmers, to affirm and support farmers in their freedoms and their personhood under this law by acknowledging the justice and fairness that this and every government owes to them. Allow them to appear before the ALC about their business and about their own land that they own.

R. Coleman: I rise to speak against this Bill 15. I’m going to go into a couple stories and some examples.

I find it difficult to talk to this bill, because I’ve been here for 23 years and have never seen a more bigoted piece of legislation come before this House. The fact that you’d take away people as people, and they’re no longer persons in a piece of legislation….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Let’s have one speaker on the floor, please.

R. Coleman: Particularly on a day like today…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Coleman: …on a day like today when we witnessed people whose rights were taken apart and away from them in the 1940s.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: If you want to listen to the debate….

Interjections.

R. Coleman: No, I’m not. I’m saying this is a bigoted piece of legislation, and I’m going to tell you why.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Member for Langley East, take your seat, please.

Let’s have one speaker at a time.

Continue.

R. Coleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a humbling day today, and when I’m speaking about a bill that concerns me relative to people and people’s rights, I have a right to say that in this House.

I just want people to understand what’s going on here. What’s going on here is this. I have….

Interjection.

R. Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member should be in his seat if he wishes to heckle.

Deputy Speaker: The member will continue.

R. Coleman: Thank you, Member.

That is one of the members that said that people would be grandfathered in the last piece of legislation we debated about the Agricultural Land Commission, and it didn’t occur. So the member….

[4:45 p.m.]

This bill purports to say that today, when this bill gets passed — if it gets passed…. Maybe these guys will get some compassion for humanity. I doubt they will. When they pass the legislation, a person who is a farmer in British Columbia immediately loses their rights to actually apply for something you do in the agricultural land reserve.

Now, this bill isn’t just about…. It’s about people. The members opposite….

Interjections.

R. Coleman: I know when I’m hitting a tone for somebody when they know I’ve caught them, and they know that they have decided to not recognize or respect the rights of people versus just rights of agencies like municipalities and agencies like First Nations.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: Let me talk about the people, hon. Member.

I had a lady come into my office a couple of weeks ago. She was, with a crutch, walking with her husband. She’s a farmer in Langley. She had a childhood ailment that actually gave her the disability. She and her husband have worked hard to get a farm. They went to work to try and build a new home on that farm. They were informed by the authorities that they must, first of all, demolish the house that was on the property. After going through a process that would have taken them through permits and what have you, they were told that.

Their parents moved into a basement suite, and they moved into a rental house. They went through the process of demolishing the home to try and get to the permit. As they came through the process, a riparian area issue came up, and they had to get a permit from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. It took months, long enough that on the 22nd of February, when they went to see the status of their property, they were advised by the municipal township of Langley they would no longer be allowed to build the house under the new rules because they didn’t have their building permit that day.

They have spent, of their own money — trying to build a farm, supporting their parents in a basement suite and renting a house because they had demolished their house — $200,000. Do you know what they were told a couple of weeks ago?

They went to say: “Well, how do we deal with this? You know, we can redesign the house. We have the permitting. What can we do?” The answer from the township and from the officials at the ALR was this. “You can no longer apply, because there’s a piece of legislation coming that says that by the time you get that information to us, you will not be able to personally apply. You will have to have the municipality or someone else apply, because you’re no longer a person under a definition in an act.”

Now, can you imagine someone coming to this country as a young person with a disability from a debilitating disease as a child, building a life to the point where she and her husband could start to have a family and build a life…? Could you imagine coming from a country where sometimes your human rights weren’t so great and finding out that you have now arrived in a place, as you want to build a home for your parents and yourselves — to run and build your farm — that you’re not a person anymore? That you don’t have the right, on your own land, to fill your own application.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: It’s right there. It’s right there in the act, Minister, and you know it. It’s in your definition. If you don’t like it, then change the definition.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: Of course you do, because you don’t care about the individual farm or person. You only care about other things.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

R. Coleman: Through the Chair.

The Agriculture Minister, through this legislation, seeks to redefine the persons eligible to bring a land exclusion application to the Agricultural Land Commission. First Nations are defined as persons. Municipalities are defined as persons — that being local government — but not people. Not actual human beings who actually own the property and that want to build things on their land.

[4:50 p.m.]

Now, here’s another one. I have a family who’ve been farming in Langley for 40 years. They have a mobile home on their property that their parents live in, and they are actually farm help. But you know what they were recently told?

Interjection.

R. Coleman: Oh, I know who these people are, Member. They were told that should they want to either put a newer unit on there or whatever, they couldn’t do that because they can only have that second residence for farm help, and not for family.

I love it when they get all wound up, because every time one of these files comes, I do actual follow-up calls.

I have another family. This one’s even sadder. This is even sadder. These people have been working and spent $60,000 of their own money to build a new home. This is a family of a couple and three children. They’re in a home of about 1,250 square feet. However, these are caring people to the point where they’ve adopted five other children, all First Nations, all from one family. They’ve been told, because of the timing of the changes, on February 22, they can’t build the house that they submitted. They’re waiting for some permits from other agencies of government to build their house and are told: “Go back to the drawing board.” So $60,000 — go, stop, start from scratch.

The irony of this is…. They looked at it, and they will probably come back and redesign the house. The irony of it is this is how stupid some of the things government does is.

They were told: “Well, you can put….”

N. Simons: Point of order.

I understand that debate can flow all sorts of ways and in all sorts of directions. But I think the member crosses the line when he calls anybody or any body stupid. I think the member should withdraw that comment.

Deputy Speaker: Point taken, Member.

Member will continue.

R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

A pretty stupid piece of legislation. I can say that, and I know I can say that.

You’ve got ten people in a 1,200-square-foot house who’ve spent $60,000 to prepare for a house, and somebody comes along….

Interjection.

R. Coleman: It’s not false. You know what they were told by one group? “Put in a basement.” You know where most of the agricultural land in Langley is? On the floodplain, hon. Member. You can’t build a basement on the Sumas Prairie or in Glen Valley, in areas of my riding.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: You know, it’s interesting how excitable this man is, the member opposite from Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I don’t know how many farmers he’s got up there, but I’ve got dozens of families who’ve spent almost $1 million to prepare and build their house, and not one of them is on a piece of property that isn’t farmed. And not one of them is a great big house that you think you’re going after speculators on.

These are real, decent, hard-working people who have saved their money to be able to build a home that they can be in generationally for their families. What you’ve done is decide the generational farm is no good anymore.

I know you don’t like this, but the fact of the matter is I think real people are people, not persons defined by this legislation.

I have another one, a 9.6-acre farm, fully farmed. They did the work and spent $250,000.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: Well, they had to do a number of things, hon. Member. Maybe I should give you a lesson in construction as well.

In this particular area of Langley, the soils need preloading. Preloading takes time. You need to put the fill in. You need to let it settle, let it settle, let it settle, and over time, you actually get to a building site. You need to wait….

Interjection.

[4:55 p.m.]

R. Coleman: Oh, I’ll get into that for you in a second, because you don’t do anything about that either.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: I’m not off guard. I’m happy to talk about preloading on a legal piece of property in Langley that isn’t illegal fill. This is clean fill. An engineer, an environmental engineer have both been on this site since the beginning of this process. Because the load is just finishing up….

You change the law. You forget about the person. They walk in. They can’t build their house. Why? Because in spite of the fact members from that side of the House were at a meeting in Surrey and said: “You’ll all be grandfathered,” there was no grandfathering on February 22. It shut the door — $250,000.

I get a kick out of the minister. The one minister over there giggles, knowing that these people are actually from your community. I don’t know why you think it’s so right.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, no personal comments, please.

R. Coleman: So these people, $250,000 later, started this process in 2015. Why? Because you need to preload all the land. You need to do the other…. So what have they done? They’ve had erosion sediment reports to be completed — soil testing. Surveying has been completed on this particular preload every three months for three years. Hired Cornerstone Engineering to conduct the elevation and environmental assessments. Hired another group for other assessments.

Gained approval for the demolition of a house that was already on the property, which was a pre-condition for their approval to demolish the house. Gained approval to go forward through the township of Langley — still had to go through the professional works. The professional works weren’t completed by the 22nd of February, because it takes time.

Boom — $250,000 later, and they’re told to go back to square one. And they can’t actually go apply under this legislation when they’re ready to be able to go back and do this, simply because at that point in time, they won’t be people anymore under the definition of Bill 15.

I have another one. This one is a cranberry farmer. Now, do you know what a cranberry farm looks like? It’s in water. That’s what you do. It’s on a floodplain. You have to preload. You plan. You save. You do the work. While you’re doing the work, you’re trying to get to the point where you have the ability to build a home.

This legislation is to take out the rights of a person to be able to apply on its own land.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: Oh, I’m not wrong. I am definitely not wrong. Even legal advice has told me I’m not wrong.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: I don’t need a briefing. I’ve had this checked out legally, and they can tell you you’ve written this section wrong. It’s incredible that in today’s world, people — people — by a government are having their rights taken away on their very own land.

I know you’ll pass it through. Oh well. It’s too bad, so sad, you didn’t get your stuff in by February 22, even though your members in Surrey said they’d be grandfathered. Oh bad, too sad you were waiting for permits from the provincial government bringing in the legislation to be able to go get your building permit to build your house. You shut it down on February 22 and are bringing in a piece of legislation that takes the rights away to go reapply.

Hey, it’s amazing how upset you are.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: It is absolutely true what I’m saying.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: Oh, just heckle for fun.

As I go through, I had another one come in yesterday. Another one, February 22 — they go in with their building plans around February 28 to 30. They’re given a legal letter advising that they cannot proceed, because they’re slightly over the 5,000 square feet. They have to go redesign the house, and they’ve got to get it done quick.

[5:00 p.m.]

The reality is this. In front of us is a piece of legislation that farmers, the people I’ve sat down and talked to who own the land and who operate the farms, are not persons in the eyes of this piece of legislation. That’s sad. And the reality…. If governments are persons, the province is persons and First Nations are persons, why can’t a person be a person?

You look at it, and you think back in the history of our country about when people got rights and got to vote, and other aspects of our history. When I read this, I thought: man, we’re going backward. We’re going a long way backward.

I know these folks. I know how hard it was to save the money. I know the sacrifices they’re making right now, particularly the ones whose parents are in the basement suite and they’re renting a house because they had to demolish the house on the property. Particularly them, because the parents are starting to fail, and they would like to be able to be there to care for them in the same home. They can’t because of Bill 52. And subsequent to this, it’ll be this bill too.

It’s all about, you know, we decided to take a hammer, from a government perspective, because there were some people, quite frankly, who built ridiculously sized houses on agricultural land. But we jumped way up to the bigger one and forgot about the one in between, with the generational farmer. These people, persons, are being affected by this legislation for their futures.

You know, as a kid, I picked fruit at 12 years old for Mr. Campbell, ironically. Not the same Campbell’s farm as I first served with, but on his farm. I spent summers on my great-grandfather’s farm out at Rocky Mountain House. I know these people work hard. I know farmers actually care about the land. But they do have a legitimate right to have a decent home, one where they can actually have a generational relationship in their family, where parents and children can work together to work the farm.

As we come through this legislation, I’ve been hearing from my community that they’re stunned about the language. I’ve given people the section to read it themselves, and they look up at me stunned. I handed it to the one lady whose parents are living in the basement suite and explained it to her, this change. She teared up. She read this, and she said: “Are you really kidding me? We worked hard, and from now on, we’re not actually a person under the definition of a piece of legislation?” It’s sad. It’s very sad.

It’s easy for people in this room, from the Lower Mainland, in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and Victoria and places like that, to forget how hard it is to be a seasonal farmer in this province, how hard it is to actually build the ability to farm. If you look at some of the things in this bill, I start to worry about whether you’ll actually be able to have accommodation on the farm for workers, for actual workers who have to run a large-scale farm.

Good gosh. Gosh help you if you have to go to the commission to be able to actually get residences for your people on the farm. Some farmers have actually told me they’ve been told by the commission: “Rent something in town for your employees. Don’t think you can build something on the farm.”

As we go through this, you’ll get to get up. I’m sure the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast will get up and explain why people aren’t people and persons aren’t persons anymore, why farmers aren’t persons and why you say that’s acceptable, when you know people that have worked farms and owned farms and spent thousands of hours to build a crop and a foundation for the future for their family.

These guys work hard. They work in every single condition. It doesn’t matter whether you’re growing grain in the Peace, whether you’re growing berries in the valley, whether you’re in other aspects of farming. As you go along through this, you just think: “Wow, we’ve decided to take a hammer and hammer people with regards to the fact that they’re not people.”

[5:05 p.m.]

While all this is going on, which I find rather incredible…. These five families or six families now have spent close to $1 million of their own money just to get to where they can get a permit on a home and lose that right by somebody putting a date in place. And then, in the future, they won’t be able to apply.

All I have to do to get really frustrated about this attack on the individual farmer in British Columbia is to drive down 264 Street to 0 Avenue in Langley and see the Walmart-sized industrial building beside Canopy Growth marijuana operation and the stink that it’s putting in my community. I look at that, and I think: “Man, they’ll let them build this, but they can’t have a home of a decent size.” They’ll let this industrial building — which is bigger, frankly, I think, than any industrial building in the Gloucester Industrial Park north of the freeway — on farmland.

They’ve got this building down there. You look at it, and you say that this poor family that actually demolished their house and has the parents living in a basement suite in one house and a home they’re renting in another now can’t get the building permit for the home they want to build because they’re waiting for permits from the provincial government, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. So they can’t build their house.

You should come out and see this building sometime. It is massive. It’s backed up by four or five generators. It’s noisy. The stench is unbelievable. As a matter of fact, I wrote the federal minister today as an official complaint on behalf of my constituents to say: “Enforce the law on this.” Right now these people…. I had a note today from one of them. “I have a migraine, and again tonight I won’t be able to sleep in my own home because of the stench coming from the marijuana operation near me.”

I wrote the federal government, and they wrote back some platitude answer. That’s why I made an official complaint today. I also cc’d the minister in the letter. That was a couple months ago.

The fact of the matter is these people, some of them…. One of them in particular, on my list here, one that we had the fill site, is down the road a couple miles and gets to drive by this multi-hundreds of thousands of square feet of an industrial building in the agricultural land reserve every day. When he goes into the co-op or whatever to pick up his stuff, he thinks: “I just got told I don’t get to build my house.” What’s wrong with this picture?

Interjection.

R. Coleman: Yeah, but he has to now reapply, and he won’t be able to after this bill, Member. It’ll have to be the municipality or a First Nation that does it for him, because he won’t be a person. He’s not people; he’s not a person, in your mind. This is what you’ve decided — that farmers aren’t people. They’re not persons. You’ve decided by definition.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: It’s your legislation, Member, and you’ll have every opportunity in committee stage to discuss that section and every other section of the bill. But in second reading, you get to talk about it, and I’m telling you about what you’re doing to people, and you think it’s funny. You think it’s funny that a family with seniors have their parents in a basement suite while they’re failing because they don’t have a home to live in because they had to demolish the one in order to try and get a permit that you changed partway through their process at a cost of a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: You think…. I think it’s terribly bad.

You should think it’s sad, hon. Member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Coleman: Why could you do that to someone? How possibly…?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair, please.

R. Coleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So why are farmers being stripped of their rights by legislating them out of being a person? That’s a question I want to know.

You know, the minister insists that they’re solving a problem, preventing a massive rush by farmers themselves on agricultural land in British Columbia. I look at the number of applications at the ALC. I certainly don’t see those numbers — 39 applications.

[5:10 p.m.]

Now, the fuss is the fact that you’ve taken people’s rights away, you’ve taken hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their pocket with the previous bill, where they were legitimately following the law. Now you’ve decided that, in addition to this treatment of these people, they’re no longer persons as well.

What’s the relevance? They’re people. In your new piece of legislation, they don’t qualify as people. They don’t qualify. They can’t apply for anything.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: No, no.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: I know that’s in your dreams, Member. You have your dreams, and you can have them. But even if you went to the inclusion, why aren’t they persons anymore? Why isn’t the landowner a person, even if that was how narrow you want to define and look at this? It’s still….

Interjections.

R. Coleman: Thank you. Would you please go to your seat to heckle me? It would be the legitimate way to do it, if you want to be the Speaker.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members, come to order.

The member will continue.

R. Coleman: Thank you.

There was a total of 39 applications across the province in 2018 through the agricultural land reserve — 11 in the Okanagan, six of them rejected; 14 in the south coast, nine of them rejected. Two in the Interior were approved. Four on the Island — all were refused. Four in the Kootenays, all rejected. Four in the north, two rejected. None of that sounds very balanced to me.

The reality is this: this piece of legislation forgets humanity. I know the members will try and define it anyway they want, but when you decide to take the definition of a person and you make it into a First Nation and local government only, under any process of law, to me, that’s prejudicial. It’s wrong, and the spinoff of the things and the actions this minister has taken, with regards to the agricultural land reserve, have been inhuman.

Imagine — let me leave with you this — a family who will try and apply, in the future, on their farm to do some things to improve it, whose parents are living in a basement suite, and they’re not well. They’re renting another house because they have to, because they had to demolish the house to actually bring their application forward and move off the land. And we think that’s funny over there. I don’t.

I’ve seen these people’s faces. I’ve seen the stress on them. I know all this bill will do is to continue that stress for people who are legitimate, decent, hard-working farmers in British Columbia, and I will not support this bill.

N. Simons: I’d like to, first of all, thank the government for bringing forward a piece of legislation that makes an effort to strengthen the Agricultural Land Commission, the legislation that protects our farmland in this province, after we’ve seen a prior government essentially try to dismantle it, piece by piece.

Everybody will remember the outcry of Bill 24. Everyone will remember that almost the entire agriculture sector was opposed to it, and the member for Kelowna–Lake Country was proudly talking about the ability to open up agricultural land for other uses.

I think, if we remember back to the original purpose, we recognize that they’re not making new agricultural land for us to grow food on, so we have to take extra care to ensure that the land that we have is protected. I think we saw a government that was very forward-thinking when they introduced protections to agricultural land. I’ll say, at the time, it was controversial. I’m sure it was controversial in the communities where it was most impactful. I think we understand that, but the step was taken.

[5:15 p.m.]

I think other jurisdictions around North America and, in fact, worldwide look at British Columbia’s system of land protection and look at it as a model, look at it as a model that ensures that farmers are given the opportunity to grow food and that the farm infrastructure and the community infrastructure exists so that we can ensure that we have people growing food.

I think that the opposition, expressed through the member for Langley East, is hyperbolic, not based on fact, emotionally driven, perhaps purposefully inflaming. I found it unfortunate, because he’s been here for 23 years.

He started off his conversation today, if you weren’t here, comparing it, or asking how it was possible that we would be talking about this bill on a day like today, referring to Holocaust Memorial Day. I find that insulting. I have stronger words that I perhaps need to speak to the member before expressing them. I certainly hope he wasn’t drawing a comparison between the language that we’ve included in a bill to protect agricultural land with horrors of previous governments that eroded entire communities’ rights.

This preoccupation with the word “person” in a piece of legislation that deals with zoning seems completely over the top, absolutely over the top, and a bit shameful, I would say. I just want to say that for a member who talks about the importance of looking out for other people’s rights, I take personal offence from his comment. I’m one generation moved from someone who was directly impacted by fascism. So it’s a little bit over the top.

When we’re talking about applications to exclude land from the Agricultural Land Commission and pointing out that it’s the local government that will make the application now…. That’s the only change. The local government makes that application. They would have had to approve the application anyway. They would have had to look it over and review it. I’m questioning whether there was anything really sincere about the opposition’s statements on this bill or if it was purely an attempt to just…. Sometimes the opposition just opposes because that’s their natural role, and they have to keep government to account. But that was different.

Here we’re simply talking about legislation that will make our protection of agricultural land stronger. The member before him, from Chilliwack-Kent…. Although it sounded like he was reading a children’s story, the content of what he was saying was, as well, absolutely over the top. I would recommend to those MLAs, one who has had less experience than I in this chamber and the other who has had far more, that there are ways to assuage your fears if they’re not based in reality. That is by finding out the truth, simply finding out the truth. Don’t get all worked up and scared before you know what the truth is.

That member for Langley East, 23 years here, talked about: “Oh, no one is going to be able to apply for anything unless you’re a local government.” No, we’re just talking about exclusions. If you want to change the zoning, you have to go through local government. That is not a big stretch. It’s pretty simple and straightforward. If you want to apply to build a house to house people on your land, and it’s agricultural land, you make the application. You make the application. It’s not that complicated.

You know, we’ve seen these opposition members who claim to stand up for the little guy. That’s a first for me. But they’re just wrong. I’m hoping that the stories that the member for Langley East told us…. I hope that he finds out what he could tell his constituents instead of fomenting the fear that he’s obviously planted in their minds.

[5:20 p.m.]

There are probably, in most of the examples he brought up, some factors that will change his conclusions. I really do recommend, for constituents of MLAs who don’t know what they’re talking about, that they go to an MLA who does.

Bill 15 strengthens protection of our most precious provincial resource, a resource that produces over 200 agricultural products. It’s a $14.2 billion industry. I wonder. Maybe the members from the opposition are going to propose some amendments. Maybe we’ll get to see what they’d like to see changed.

I imagine that their entire opposition to this bill is based on their misinterpretation of the legislation. Maybe when we come back, they’ll have had a chance to have had a tutorial or a briefing. Or maybe they’ll have read it. Maybe they’ll get some briefing notes from somebody in the basement. Maybe they’ll get some points to note. Maybe they’ll find out, in fact, that they’re concerned. They could call a friend, maybe a shout-out. But it disappoints me they can use such hyperbolic rhetoric on a bill that is simply designed to ensure that we protect our most valuable resource.

I’d like to read into the record, for the edification of members on all sides of the House, a letter from someone who I think the province holds in great esteem, regardless of one’s personal partisanship — although he was fired by the Liberals. I think he has been known to be a staunch defender of agricultural land, and I think his words carry weight. I think his words speak to many of the concerns — real or imagined — that members opposite have.

It’s dated in March. This is a letter from Richard Bullock, the former chair of the Agricultural Land Commission:

“As a former chair of the Agricultural Land Commission from 2010 to 2015, dismissed by the previous Liberal government for doing my job, it is time I provide my support for the recently proposed changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. In particular, I wish to comment on the proposal to end individual landowner exclusion applications.”

This — I may interject here — is specifically to the issues raised by the member for Langley East. I think he has respect for Richard Bullock and his ability. When we were debating Bill 24, we were reassured that he had full confidence of government.

“Some believe that there is a ‘right’ to apply to exclude land from the agricultural land reserve. After almost 50 years of opportunity for individual landowners to make an application to remove land from the ALR, the proposed changes to that process is the next logical step.

“Having reviewed the proposed legislation and read the media coverage, as I understand it, individual landowners will continue to be able to apply for subdivision and non-farm uses in the ALR. During my tenure — and I believe it is still the case today — a very low proportion of applications to the ALC, less than 10 percent, are exclusions. As chair, I observe that the large majority of the exclusion applications were not from farmers and ranchers but, instead, from folks looking to make a substantial financial gain from paving over good agricultural land.”

Let me just pause again and remind members that this is from the former chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. I would suggest that if you ever want an argument by authority, he’s a good authority to have an argument with. No, have him on your side; put it that way.

I continue with the letter:

[5:25 p.m.]

“All types of applications to the ALC currently go through local government, and always have. Moving to have exclusions of land from the ALR be part of a broader joint local government and ALC land use planning exercise makes sense. One-off applications are most often financially driven and have little to do with good land use planning. It is time proactive land use planning becomes the foundation for such exclusions, along with the commission’s ability to make changes to the ALR boundary in areas of the province where this has not already been done.

“After nearly five decades of forward-thinking farmland preservation policy, it is time to ensure greater stability of the ALR. While there will remain means to amend the ALR boundary, if appropriate, what is overlooked is that there has been considerable effort expended by the commission and local governments on refining the ALR boundary already.

“This is not about property rights. It is about reducing speculation on agricultural land. As long as the door is open to an individual or a company to make an application to remove land from the ALR, speculation on these lands will continue. Currently anyone who purchases ALR land can immediately apply to have it removed from the ALR. In many cases, land is purchased and held for long periods of time, expecting that eventually the owner will apply to exclude it and develop it for a non-farm purpose. Both of these situations increase the cost of farmland, making it almost impossible for younger farmers to get into farming and very costly for existing farmers to expand their farm operation.

“This proposed legislative change appears to be aimed at supporting the goal to preserve agricultural land for farming and is a clear commitment aimed at ending speculation on farmland. When the farmers of B.C. are making important contributions to agriculture, including significant financial commitments, we owe it to them to have an affordable land base that they can rely on and that will be there for farmers to farm now and into the future. A commitment to the ALR is a commitment to agriculture and farm and ranch businesses in B.C. This translates into good economic sense, good food and good health. Agricultural land is a precious resource, and we are not making any more of it.”

That’s a letter from Richard Bullock, former ALC chair, and a man who I think commands a lot of respect throughout the food- and beverage-producing industries that are land-based throughout the province. I think that his words are clear. It’s about time we had legislation like this.

I would like to also just point out that when members of the public hear the fearmongering and the inflammatory comments about what is a fairly benign piece of legislation, they remember the facts of this situation. They don’t buy into that kind of rhetoric, because it’s silly.

He called government names. Members opposite did all sorts of things to try to denigrate the minister and the government for this legislation. I don’t think it works. I really don’t. I think farmers understand this legislation. Local governments and First Nations understand this legislation. There was a problem. It was identified. It was clear.

When you look at their opposition to this legislation, remember that the opposition was in government when they allowed construction waste to be dumped; when they cut the resources from the commission, from enforcement; when they made it almost a reactionary office, unable to even engage in their other mandates to promote farming. I think this is a problem. This was a government that allowed mega-mansions to go unhindered. It allowed massive speculation to continue.

It was sad, because I think our agricultural land protection is one of the things we hold dear as British Columbians. I think that that, along with our Islands Trust, is protecting what we have for future generations. It’s clear, when we look at our delicate island ecosystems, that we protect them. When we look at agricultural land, we recognize that we’re not making more of it, that we need to protect what we have.

[5:30 p.m.]

If there are other ways that opposition members could suggest that we improve our protections for agricultural land, I can tell you one thing: the Minister of Agriculture will be interested in hearing the ideas. This is a minister who cares deeply about agriculture, more than she does about politics.

For that reason, I would recommend that in our system, if there’s a problem, either you try to amend legislation or you try to influence future legislation. If there are identified problems, bring them to the minister, bring them to the minister’s office. If there’s a solution, we look to try to fix things. We look to try to make things better.

I don’t think that it’s any surprise that members opposite argue against the public interest being put back into the principles of our legislation. We’ve seen it in the forests, and we see it here. We see it in our transportation, in our Coastal Ferry Act. The public interest is why we’re here. The public has elected us to make decisions on behalf of the people of the province. We don’t do so just for one side or just for the other.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

There are obviously examples that people will bring up to point to their particular conspiracy theory. But when it comes to agriculture, we are all interested in ensuring that we have food-growing land.

No, I’m not a farmer. My mum wasn’t a farmer either, but her dad was. Her dad lived on a farm — and his dad and his mum and dad and their parents too since the 1700s, cultivating the land in Nova Scotia. I go back there, and I know what kind of work it must have been. I read the stories that my great-aunts wrote down. It’s hard. It’s a tough life to be a farmer. It takes a lot of sacrifice.

Some farmers that I speak to love their life. They love being able to produce food for their communities. They want to do so on a land base that is protected. They want to do so in an environment where they know government has their back.

We’ve had the agricultural land reserve for a long time. We’ve made changes to it. Changes have been made. Boundaries have been adjusted, and boundaries will be adjusted again, I’m quite sure. But we need to make sure that the land that we have is where we can grow food.

As we see climate change occur, we see different patterns of growing. We see different patterns of rain, different patterns of sun. Temperatures are different in different places.

As we look at the patterns that are emerging, it seems to me that we’re going to be growing a lot more food, and we’re going to be needing to grow a lot more food. We already rely heavily on food from California. We import huge amounts of our produce from California. We need to be cognizant of the fact that, yeah, we talk about energy security a lot. But we really need to talk about British Columbia having more food security. Feed B.C. and a number of programs the Ministry of Agriculture has undertaken are part of that.

This legislation is part of that. We’re plugging the holes that were either created or existed already. No need to blame, but we are making sure that our protection of agricultural land is strong, remains strong. For that, I’m very pleased to be supporting Bill 15.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to take my place to talk about Bill 15, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. Firstly, I want to say that this is very, very difficult, in terms of responding to this, because of the fundamental action that has been taken in the legislation to remove the right of farmers as individuals to make applications for exclusion under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. That’s really the basis of my comments.

I listened carefully to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and his reading out of the letter from the former chair, from Richard Bullock. Essentially, what was said in that letter confirms exactly what we’re concerned about. The letter said clearly that this is the next logical step to take the right of individuals away from making the application for exclusion. That’s what was said in the letter.

[5:35 p.m.]

That’s the point that we’ve been making. That’s the point that the minister and others who have been commenting on this from that side, all of them saying we’re wrong…. That’s not what the case is. Individuals can still make applications for exclusion.

Well, that’s not the case. Read the legislation. The legislation says clearly that persons who can make applications are local governments, First Nations and other specified bodies. It’s not the individual. It’s not the individual farmer, and Richard Bullock’s letter clearly stated that. It was clear. Now, he agrees with what is being done. That’s fair enough on his part, but it confirms exactly the concerns that we’ve been raising here — and the members opposite continue to say we’re wrong. We’re misinterpreting it. That’s not what the intent of the legislation is.

Well, it’s very clear. Read the legislation. Read it clearly. It clearly defines persons and farmers. Individuals, property owners, are not persons under that provision of the legislation. That is what has really caused so much of the concern and the concern that we’ve been raising here.

It surprises me that we’re having to have this discussion around that element of the legislation, because I know the minister is passionate about the industry, has real empathy for the industry, for the agricultural land reserve as part of the foundation for the industry. I know, when I was first in the government, first appointed as Minister of Agriculture and the minister was the critic, I had a discussion with her at that time and her saying: “At some point in the future, I want your job. I want to be the minister.”

I know this appointment is the culmination, I think, of a lifelong dream of hers to have this position. So it really surprises me that, given her feeling for the industry, she has taken this step to define persons and farmers and individual property owners — the ones that she is so passionate about and works for — as being non-persons under the legislation.

Now, I want to start off my comments today by clearly stating that I’m a strong supporter of the objectives and the principles of the agricultural land reserve. All my life, before politics — from growing up but also all the career paths before politics — was all working on behalf of farmers and ranchers in British Columbia.

I grew up on a family farm in Kelowna that continues to operate to this day — 123 years on the same property. We’ve transitioned on the property from tobacco, originally, to field vegetables. The farm was known as Okanagan Producers and produced a whole range of field vegetables — celery, lettuce, onions, potatoes, cauliflower, all the field vegetables. We got squeezed out, in terms of competition, in the early ’50s from California, some real challenges, and transitioned into the dairy industry. The farm was a dairy operation for many, many years, until dad sold out of the dairy business.

Now the farm is being operated as a hay and beef and a very successful small agritourism component to the farm, all under the stewardship of my brother who now has the farm after my mom and dad passed away. The estate planning succession moved the farm to his stewardship. He’s raising his four young boys on the farm and raising the next generation of farmers. So I have a strong background in the industry.

I know all of my work in the industry — one of the best things about all of that work, over all of the years, was the people, the individuals that have helped build this province, helped work the land, the feeling for the land, who were great, great leaders in the industry and great people.

[5:40 p.m.]

I think the minister would agree that it’s the people that make up the industry, that are one of the best and strongest parts of the industry. They make a tremendous contribution to the province and to providing food for us, environmental stewardship. At the core of it all is the people.

In my world, the one that I interact in with the farmers, these farmers and ranchers are persons. Fundamentally, for me to take those people, those persons who have worked so hard and continue to work so hard and define them now as not persons under the legislation in order to make an application for exclusion for a private piece of property, a property they own — that fundamental right to be able to make that application….

Now, I know in most cases, the applications will not be successful without local government support and those elements through the applications, but the right of the individual to make the application was there. That’s what should be maintained in the legislation going forward. It’s just like owning a house in a city, and that’s your private property, your house. You have the right to make an application to change the zoning or to do something different with the property. You don’t have to go get another level of government or somebody else to make that application for you to do the change.

It may be completely unaccepted. You know, it won’t be accepted because you’re asking for a change that doesn’t fit with the official community plan, doesn’t fit with the plans for it, but you have that right to be able to make that application. Here in this legislation now, that right of the individual is being taken away because they’re not defined. Their rights as persons have been taken away for the purpose of exclusion.

You just have to listen to the letter and the comments of the former chair, Richard Bullock, which confirms that. The fact that the members opposite continue to say we’re misinterpreting this…. “You’re wrong. That’s not what this means. That’s not what it says.” Read the legislation, read it clearly, and even listen to your former chair, his comments on it. He confirms that it’s a logical next step to take that process away from the individual. That’s what the letter says.

As I pointed out, he supports that. He is a strong, passionate supporter of the agricultural land reserve, and I’m not surprised he takes that position. But he does make it very clear that it is a change and that it is taking that right away from people.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, I started work in the agricultural industry in 1974, fresh out of university. That was just after the Agricultural Land Commission came in and was implemented. When I started work at that point for what was known then as the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the provincial farm organization, I went back through all of the files and the history of the implementation of the agricultural land reserve at that time. Because it was new, it was still in the process of being fully implemented.

I looked at all the history on it from the initial announcement, the emergency orders that were put in place because the announcement actually preceded the legislation. The implementation, which created a flurry of activity that led to legislation, led to a lot of amendments in the legislation when it was brought in.

As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast pointed out, it was very, very controversial. One of the major events was a massive demonstration on the Legislature by farmers against the legislation who, at that time, felt that a fundamental property right was being taken away from them, that property rights were being expropriated. Many felt that at the time when it was first being implemented.

[5:45 p.m.]

I remember reading about farm leaders like Charles Bernhardt, the former president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the Fruit Growers Association; George Aylard of the B.C. Milk Producers, from North Saanich; Ralph Barichello with the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association; Pat Hibbert from the Deep Creek Farmers Institute.

They were leaders at that time who led that demonstration against that initial legislation primarily on the basis of the principle of property rights. I think those leaders would be dismayed and shocked to see what is being proposed now in terms of that right, that fundamental right they fought for at that time, around property rights.

Now, over time, it became clear that…. The support developed for the legislation. It has had its iterations and its processes over time, but I think, generally, the greatest majority of people support the legislation, support the principles of the legislation and the objectives of the legislation, as I do. But one of the key things that they fought for was that property right.

Now, in this case here, a fundamental right, of private property ownership, is being taken away by declaring them non-persons for the purposes of making an application for exclusion. Speakers have pointed out the fact that this is a limited number of applications, but from my perspective, it’s not about the numbers and how many and those types of things. It’s about the basic principle. I look back into some of the history of it. The key amendments that were fought for at that time were….

I’m getting a lot of signals here, and I’ve got quite a bit more to say.

I will reserve my right to continue and move adjournment of the debate.

S. Thomson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.