WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2011
Bill 19 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2011
M. Sather: It’s my pleasure to join the debate on Bill 19, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. As with most miscellaneous bills, this one has a number of areas of amendments in different acts, and I’m going to address two of them — the Agriculture Land Commission Act amendments and the Wildlife Act amendments.
There are certainly parts of this bill that I find quite supportable, and I’m pleased to see them come forward. There are others that I have questions about. In addition, I think the government has missed an opportunity with this bill as well. But certainly, with regard to the Agriculture Land Commission Act, it’s very relevant to my constituency, and so I wanted to get into parts of the bill that are of interest to me.
The first one I wanted to talk about was section 5 of the Agriculture Land Commission Act. In the explanatory note to the bill it says that it “provides that a covenant that restricts the use of agriculture land for farm purposes has no effect until approved by the commission.”
This one is significant to me because we had…. It’s an ongoing situation in Pitt Meadows, where a road was proposed through the agricultural land reserve north of Lougheeed Highway. It’s a cutoff from the connector to the Golden Ears Bridge to the Lougheed Highway. It’s been called the North Lougheed Connector. This is very concerning to me and to many residents because it would definitely push the urban boundary north into the agricultural land reserve and constitutes urban sprawl pretty clearly.
Now, the land commission has ruled on the North Lougheed Connector, and they gave approval for the road, which I was very disappointed in. But they made a condition which I felt very heartened by, and that condition was that the lands adjacent to that potential road — which, as I say, on agricultural land reserve — must be covenanted for agricultural use. I thought: “Well, that’s good, because we can keep it in the agricultural land reserve, but they have to have a covenant, surely, for agricultural use.”
This has led me to talk to the Agricultural Land Commission about this. I initially thought: “Well, the commission would impose the covenant.” But that’s not the case. The municipality, the city
of Pitt Meadows, would have to do that, and just how they would do that is becoming less certain to me. So I’m curious to know, and it will be good to find out more about this from the minister, as to what effect this amendment would have because it says that the covenant insofar as it may or may not be placed has no effect until approved by the commission.
So I’m really looking to understand what that means. Does it mean that in our case, in Pitt Meadows, that now because there is no covenant on the land as we speak that a proposal can be brought forward to remove land from the agriculture land reserve? I suspect that is certainly the intent. It needs to be understood that the real intent of this road is for big-box development or the like. And SmartCentres organization, which fronts for a lot of big-box development, is very actively involved in these properties along this road.
So I’m really looking forward to the discussion, and I certainly do hope, as other members have said, that we do have committee stage for this bill, because there’s not enough explanation in the bill. And you know, that’s understandable. Oftentimes bills are sort of inscrutable, and it’s really good to have the minister and the backup that he has with the professionals to explain what’s going on, so I look forward to that one.
Another section of interest to me in this bill is section 7. This is on panels, the panels that the Agricultural Land Commission has in place to make decisions over applications to remove land from the agricultural land reserve. It says in the explanatory note that it “provides for the executive committee to reconsider a decision made by a panel.”
But before I get to that, though, I do want to talk about subsection (2) of section 7, which I think is the part that…. You know, this is a good part of this bill. What it says, in effect, is that the CEO may refuse permission, that is to remove land from the ALR, if within five years immediately proceeding the application a previous application was refused permission by the commission.
So in the case, for example, in Pitt Meadows…. A different situation. I’m sorry. This one is in Maple Ridge just across the border from Pitt Meadows where the Pelton family made an application to remove a large section, 200 or so acres from the agricultural land reserve in which is the most contiguous agricultural land in Maple Ridge and the best area for agriculture, although we have lots of smaller parcels farther inland.
This one was turned down by the Agricultural Land Commission, as so it should be. The ALC commented in that decision what would happen to the surrounding farmlands if they were to grant approval. The commissioner said very clearly: “Well, I can tell you what would happen. It would be that every other landowner in that area would be coming to us to remove their lands.” Why wouldn’t they, if somebody gets a big chunk like that out for industrial use, which is primarily what it was for.
That application came forward. I’m wondering how one like that would be affected by this bill. On first blush it appears at least that it would be five years — because this was in 2010, so within the last five years. It would appear that for the next five years they couldn’t make a reapplication, except that as I read the bill, subsection (b) says that “the previous application was made on or after the date this section comes into force.” So obviously, this section…. None of this bill is in force yet. As early as it could come in force, I suppose, might be next week. I don’t know, but oftentimes it’s longer.
In any event, it seems to me, then, that that application which was turned down in 2010, the person can make another application…. Let’s say it comes into force on January 1, 2012, and the person could make another application. So it wouldn’t be really five years from the last one at all; it would be, like, two years. Then after that, if it’s turned down again, they can’t make another application.
So it’s a good piece, but I wish that there was a retroactive clause in it too, that said that if you had made an application, let’s say, in the last two years before this bill comes into force. As I
understand it, there will be, as I interpret this bill, the opportunity for plenty more reapplications before the bill really takes effect.
In the long run it’s going to be a very positive outcome, I think, for the agriculture land reserve, because as the commission has pointed out, they’ve been inundated with reapplication after reapplication, sometimes five or six of them, such that they’ve been completely swamped by that — so badly that the government has had to make some response with some additional funds to try to address that.
The other part of section 7 that I started to talk about was subsection (d) that says: “the chief executive officer considers that the application is substantially the same as the previous
application.” That is, if the commission looks at this reapplication and says it’s substantially the same as the last one…. Again, I’ll want clarification of what it means, “substantially the same.”
The Pelton proposal, for example, was about 200 acres. If they carve off a quarter of it, does it remain substantially the same, or is it actually a different application then, and in fact, they can
reapply sooner than the five years, given the considerations I’ve already mentioned?
This is good legislation, that part of it, but we need to know more, certainly about…. You know, the devil is in the details is the saying. We want to know that there’s not going to be wiggle room for applicants to get around — which I think is the intent of this part of the legislation, to make the agricultural land reserve more secure.
Certainly, it hasn’t been over recent years. We’ve had a lot of loss, in some parts of the province especially, but even in my area in the Lower Mainland. We have the best land, so some of the smaller losses are still very significant because there’s plenty of potential to produce on some of those.
Then the next part of the bill talks about reconsiderations of decisions of a panel. There again, I wonder. As it stands, if your application is turned down — that would be the only reason, I would assume, that you would go back for a reconsideration — you can go back for a reconsideration. I guess that’s okay, but again, I worry that a reconsideration is going to replace the reapplications. “Well, I can’t reapply in the next five years, but I’ll keep bugging the commission for a reconsideration.”
Again, we’ll be looking for assurances from the minister and the government that this is going to, on the ground in actual fact, have a really positive effect on agriculture, because we definitely need that.
From there I wanted to move on to the Wildlife Act, and section 16 of the Wildlife Act. This one is talking about “dangerous wildlife” and attracting dangerous wildlife. I wanted to know…. I was
wondering what the government meant by “dangerous wildlife.” I don’t see it defined in the act anywhere, but looking in the information bulletin that the government put out, it mentions grizzly and black bears, cougars, coyotes and wolves.
I want to make a few comments about dangerous wildlife. Whether it’s a wild animal or it’s a domestic animal, virtually any animal can be dangerous at some point. If you throw Bowser a steak on the floor and then try and take it away, you could get bit. You know? If you get a varying hare backed up in the willow bush somewhere, they might take a swipe at you too.
G. Gentner: Or a porcupine.
M. Sather: Or a porcupine. Definitely. The member knows all about being threatened by a porcupine, as it happened to him a couple of years ago in the Spatsizi. But anyway, Mr. Speaker,
he survived. Porcupines aren’t afraid of anybody, by the way.
Coyotes and wolves — I don’t like us to put them in the category of dangerous wildlife. Probably the most dangerous coyotes in British Columbia are the ones in downtown Vancouver, because they get used to people and sometimes there can be some problems, but they’re not widespread.
In the wild, coyotes are by and large certainly not dangerous. And the same thing goes for wolves, actually, contrary to what a lot of myth may be, with the possible exception of…. There have been problems, not fatal or severe, but there have been a few problems on Vancouver Island, interestingly enough, with wolf-human interactions.
I don’t know why that is. It may be because wolves and dogs interbred on the Island — I’m not sure — and maybe some of the dog genes are still there in the gene pool and are causing some of that kind of behaviour. And of course, as the member from Revelstoke mentioned, the Kootenays have a problem with some deer that have been rather aggressive.
That’s unusual. We don’t generally tend to think of Bambi as being dangerous wildlife, but as I say, any animal at some point might be dangerous. That’s a comment I wanted to make on section 16.
Section 17 is the interesting one. Again, it’s about attracting dangerous wildlife. But it makes a significant change, I believe, to current legislation, and it is a good one. The first part talks about it
being…. “A person must not intentionally attract dangerous wildlife, but then it goes on to say that you can’t place an attractant, whether it’s a carcass of an animal or some other form that would attract dangerous wildlife. That becomes an offence.
So although it says in the explanation, it “makes it an offence to intentionally feed or attract dangerous wildlife,” I think the important part is subsection (2) there which talks about placing an attractant, whatever that attractant might be, in a place where wildlife are — in particular, dangerous wildlife— or that can be accessible to dangerous wildlife. I don’t know how this is all going to play out, but I know in the Lower Mainland we have huge problems — in Maple Ridge, like many communities on the north side — with interactions between black bears and human beings, and so much of it is around a fruit that’s left out, not gathered.
Sometimes, it’s true, the animals take the fruit right off the trees, but a lot of times it’s fruit that’s left to rot underneath. I’m not sure if this is going to address that. I gather from some of the comments I read in the paper that it’s felt that it will.
I certainly hope so, because it’s nothing short of carnage, the decimation of black bears. It’s astounding. It’s usually well in excess of 100 that are killed annually, because once they are attracted to whatever it is that’s there, people become worried about that and the bear sometimes become dependent upon that. Certainly, bears can be dangerous to people.
So that’s a good section that I am certainly supportive of. Now, subsection 17(5) is where I think the government has missed an opportunity. It says that “A person does not contravene…leaving or placing an attractant in, on or about any land or premises for the purposes of hunting or trapping wildlife in accordance with all other applicable provisions of this Act and the regulations.”
I have a real concern that it still says in the Wildlife Act that you can bait wolves. You’re not allowed to bait bears in this province, but you’re still allowed to bait wolves, which means specifically
that you do place an attractant, usually the carcass of an elk or moose or deer, and then use that as part of the hunting process. That’s a concern to me when I look at what the overall effect is of what’s going on in this province with regard to wolves. It seems rather than trying to protect….
You know, wolves are wildlife. That is the first thing to remember. They’re not vermin; they’re wildlife. And yet….
Interjection.
M. Sather: I disregard the comment there from my colleague, because it’s not repeatable.
You know, this government seems bent on increasing the kill on wolves. They have now no closed season and no bag limit on hunting wolves or….
Interjections.
M. Sather: I see the wolves are howling. Only these are dangerous wolves. They could actually do damage.
But you know what it means in terms of reality? If you’re hunting wolves year-round, what it means is that you are killing the adult wolves during the period when they have pups in the den, which means….
Interjections.
M. Sather: Oh, there’s lots of chirping over there.
….which means that if you kill the parents of those wolves, in most likelihood those pups are left to starve to death and die in the den or outside the den. I guess that members opposite think
that’s okay. I don’t think most British Columbians think that’s okay — that you let the young of any animal starve to death or die. But that’s the effect of what this government is doing.
They’ve missed a great opportunity in Bill 19 to be able to actually address some of the problems with regard to the management or the lack thereof of wolves. This is based, admittedly by the officers themselves, who know what they are talking about, not on science…. And the government says: “Oh, we’re science-based.”
This decision to have a year-round kill of wolves is not based on science, because they don’t have the science. They’ve even admitted — or their spokespeople have, who actually know — that it’s anecdotal information. It’s really unfortunate but that’s the case.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
M. Sather: The minister says: “Talk to the farmers and ranchers.” Well, you know there actually is a provision, if someone has livestock that’s killed by wolves, to have the conservation service have a look at that and for them to get recompense for that. But there’s nobody left in the service, in the ministry, to go and look. So now they are going to say…. The government says, “We’re not going to provide any conservation officers” — cut them way back — “but now we’ll just let you have at it yourself. That is not responsible wildlife management. It is really not at all.
Moving right along. I wanted to move on to section 32…
Interjections.
M. Sather: …and you know what? I really suggest that members opposite get up on their feet and say their piece. Put it on the record, because I’d be glad to hear — particularly what the Minister of Environment has to say. I’d really love to hear what he has to say about this bill.
Section 32 “removes the requirement for a guide outfitter to deliver a completed guide report to the regional manager within 10 days of concluding a hunt.” In the publication, the info bulletin, it says: “The requirement to submit a guide report after a hunt will be moved from the act to regulations and consideration will be given to extending the report submission deadline to give guide-outfitters more flexibility and time.”
That may be okay. I would want know, though, how long the government is considering delaying or extending the time to report, because, as has been mentioned by one of my colleagues, the guide-outfitters do a great…. In fact, they tend to be doing a lot of the wildlife management in the province, because the government has abdicated their responsibility for it. So it is important to get their reports back, and it’s important to get them back in a reasonably timely fashion.
I want to hear more from the government. The Minister of Environment perhaps wants to get up today and actually talk about the bill. But it would be good to hear what the intentions are there with the regulation that’s going to be forthcoming.
Then lastly, I’m a little but curious about section 35, which clarifies…. Is this the one about bag limits? Yeah. Section 35(a) says: “in respect of a regulation under paragraph (l), requiring that
wildlife taken or killed by a person be included in the bag limit of another person.” I want to understand. The minister, in wrapping up or whatever, can explain what that means.
A bag limit, by the way is the amount of game of whatever species that you can kill in a day. So they are talking about including that in a bag limit for another person, so…. I mean, it kind of sounds like…. If you go out hunting with, say, two other people, and you’ve each got a permit for one moose and you get your moose, does that mean you can shoot another moose and put it on the bag limit of your friend who wasn’t able to do that? I hope not, because that’s never been the way that we’ve done wildlife management before. That may not be the intent — I don’t know — but it’s kind of curious to me as to just what it means, so again I’ll look forward….
I know that the members opposite are really eager to get up and explain how wonderful the bill is and their great understanding of wildlife management and wolves and what have you. That’ll be very worthwhile listening to.
With that, I will take my seat and let another speaker have her piece.
