How our BC government has introduced Bill 24 resembles how Russia's Vladimir Putin just redrew the Russia/ Ukraine borders. No democracy here either. Our government promised consultation when they announced a core review of the Agricultural Land Reserve Act (ALR) and the Agricultural Land Commission Act (ALC), but it did not happen. On the day Bill 24 was announced, Bill Bennett acknowledged that there 'maybe' was not adequate consultation, and he would take the blame for that. Polls have consistently shown that people with knowledge of the ALR overwhelmingly support it, and Bill 24 does not reflect that. This government has no mandate to make such radical changes to the Act.
Much of the language used by the government about Bill 24 is misleading, such as this quote from Pat Pimm, Minister of Agriculture :
"These improvements are aimed at continuing to protect B.C.'s rich farmland and helping farmers make a better living from it. The changes ensure the ALC is able to protect our fertile agricultural land for another 40 years, while ensuring future generations of farmers can continue to produce food for B.C. families."
In light of the proposed Zone 2 changes to the Act, that doesn't appear to make any sense. Bill 24 does nothing to increase farm productivity or protect farmland, rather it does the opposite. It will open the door again for land speculation and profiting from ALR land for non-farm uses. This may result in increased farmland prices, making it harder for true farmers to acquire land for farming. These kinds of impacts to farmland and farming were what resulted in the formation of the ALR 40 years ago.
We are fortunate to have the ALR and the independent ALC in this province. The regional districts of the province have all developed their own community plans in accordance with the existing ALC. There is also already a delegation agreement between the ALC and the Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) whereby the OGC permits certain oil and gas activities on ALR land. The perception that only farming activities are permitted on ALR land under the existing Act is simply not true. However, the independent ALC is critical as a sober oversight that is detached from local interest and decision making that may not be in the best interest of the greater good, which ultimately is protection of farmland for future generations. It is actually a good system, but not a perfect one. However, any changes should only come as a result of a thoughtful and widely consulted process. I am told that the so called core review process did not even consult with the ALC. These are the people who deal with these issues every day, and I would almost bet the farm that they could offer useful suggestions. As reported by Gwynne Dyer, the real message of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report is that the main impact is on the food supply. Worldwide, food production is predicted to decline. Therefore, we should consider preserving farmland as our priority, even if it is for future production, not short term financial gain from non-farm uses. Furthermore, we should be concerned about our current need to import over
50% of the food we need. Our government should be taking steps to increase our food self-sufficiency, not proposing to gut the precious ALC Act.
Ken Boon
Fort St. John.
