1. Stakeholder Organizations Consultations

2. B.C. Regional Consultations

3. Individual Consultations and Submissions, Vancouver, BC

Note: "*" designates written submission; "**" designates multiple submissions.

4. Review Workshop, Vancouver, BC

NOTE: All individuals from organizations or volunteering submissions prior to July 15 were invited to the Workshop, plus participants in the Provincial Agri-Food Policy program.

5. Consultation Comment Overview

The following indicates the range of comments received during the consultation process, both as an indication of the difficulty of defining the problem, and of the importance of opening a process with many concerned and committed participants.

• It is not about a clause but about setting a framework for government and the ALC.
• We need to consider the other issues around the clause.
• There is not the need to define the clause.
• Remember that BC has doubled it range of commodities since 1973.
• The expansion in the number of BC commodities has been mostly a soil bound expansion.
• We need to talk about agricultural worth instead of capability.
• If there is a political will, it will find a way.
• It is naïve to think that the government is committed to the ALR.
• We need a review of the ALR.
• Agriculture is unique, it cannot be turned on & off like a light switch.
• The NAFTA & WTO agreements have subverted the ALR as an economic system.
• We are changing from a pro-technology to a pro-ecological society.
• Provincial interest must include generational interests.
• BC agriculture is a patchwork of land: an archipelago.
• The ALR is precious: no means No!
• Agricultural land is not singularly a land use, but rather our commonwealth and community inheritance; its quasi-sacred.
• Keeping the options open: it is about options not zoning.
• The ALR is bigger than all of us, it is the provincial interest.
• BC has so little agriculture that its supplier infrastructure is already in trouble.
• Without a land base, agriculture is closed down, not moved to another location.
• Why do farmers have to play by the rules while private corporations can get away with removing land?
• We need to plan for agriculture.
• Farmers are becoming an endangered species!
• Where is the future of farming when the kids no longer are interested?
• Corporate players are taking over owing to the high costs involved in agriculture.
• Young farmers cannot get the financing they need to buy the land.
• A land use issue should not be allowed to be political!
• Local government needs to have a voice in the process.
• Land-use decisions need to fit the local context.
• Big industry only sees the ALR as good for future housing.
• It's time for a review of the ALR after 25 years!
• We need good information on the ALR: government is always sitting in weeds.
• Cabinet should not be involved; they have leather lungs with a silver tongue.
• But we need to look at the other side: where are the people going to live?
• Grand Prairie paved their agricultural lands and got rich, why can't we?
• The ALC is inflexible, illogical, and a waste of time.
• Why didn't the Island Highway have a provincial interest review?
• We need a pro-active approach to stabilize the ALR.
• The ALR is killing the farmers of BC.
• We are starving the Canadian farmer so that urban people can ignore us.
• Government made this ALR framework - freezing the land - but have taken away the supports to make it work.
• Nothing going to change until we know hunger in the cities.
• Give ranchers a free market to do what needs to be done to save the industry in BC.
• This cabinet does not inspire trust or confidence.
• ALC needs to be an advocate for agriculture.
• What would dissolving the ALR accomplish but a single generation of rich farmers who wouldn't reinvest in agriculture.
• Agriculture needs to integrated with other sectors
• The ALR has become stagnant.
• Defining provincial interest binds us to the present and blinds us to the future.
• Who is the ALR trying to protect; certainly not the farmer.
• The ALR maps are out of date.
• The whole system is flawed; it's all smoke and mirrors.
• No accountability or regional voice with the ALC.
• We ask farmers to steward, but other don't: why?
• The ALR has fallen behind the times, it's out of context.
• BC government doesn't even buy BC grown products.
• Why are parks seen as a public good, but agriculture isn't?
• A review of the ALR is long overdue.
• Six Mile case reveals agriculture's bad state of health : its withering even on the best lands.
• The ALR has constrained agriculture's development
• The ALR is a confirmation of the provincial interest.
• ALR has bled capital out of farms that have been built up over generations.
• The basic principle is still to preserve farmland: we cannot see tomorrow.
• The ALR is not here for only the current farmer, but for the land long-term.
• How are communities going to grow if they cannot expand into the ALR?
• Agriculture is changing: do we need the land?
• We have not even utilized the current ALR, so why preserve it all?
• People are ignorant of where food comes from.
• Provincial interest needs to be a a sober second thought, a safety valve.
• Process is the key, not the definition.
• Cabinet needs to be an appellate body with no override.
• Need a way of validating a proposal's claims.
• Urban renewal has been delayed owing to ALR exclusions.
• Regional Districts need to have a say in the ALR.
• Original ALR mapping needs to be redone.
• The system is not broken: no matter what the definition, it will be challenged.
• Defining "Provincial interest" leaves the Act and therefore agricultural land vulnerable to legal challenge, constant tinkering, and possible changing through political pressure and continuing land speculation; yet not defining "Provincial interest" leaves a perception of "weasel words" which leave agricultural lands vulnerable to short-sighted political overriding, legal challenge, manipulation through political pressure, and continuing land speculation and development.
• Concern for fair cost and time-effective resolution of disputed applications.
• General lack of resources for ALC information and analysis to ensure informed decision-making
• Lack of information of other precedents
• Lack of updated agricultural-land classification for a finer-grade of detail, including ALR boundary refinement, and treatment of isolated parcels of agricultural land
• Lack of updated "net benefit to agriculture" application criteria

6. Stakeholder Consultation: Note

The above lists are our best effort to confirm the many who participated, from all corners of the province. I apologize to anyone who may be wrongly associated with an affiliation, or worse, left out or name misspelled. Please advise me with these or any other changes or corrections.

Many individuals took the time and energy to bring their concerns and perspectives to me. Frequently they reflected the views of their affiliated organizations which we had not been able to formally consult. For future reference, I would add these individuals and their affiliated organizations to the lists for consultations as stakeholders in the future of our rural lands. In addition, several important organizations in the province should be consulted on these matters as bodies which have a history of good work on public policy matters, including, The Real estate Foundation of BC; Boards of Trade; Chambers of Commerce; Trade Unions, such as the BCGEU; Business Council of BC; and Teachers Federation; among others.

I expect that through the diversity of individuals we consulted, some have memberships in these organizations, and some have expressed views consistent with those of such organizations. However for a more comprehensive public participation process, invitations to such organizations, as well as general public notices, are advised.

Return to Top

Report Summary | Full Report | Appendix B | Appendix C | Return to Index