This is a brief summary of the history of land commission legislation in BC, followed by a summary of recent policies and guidelines to provide an overview of the legislative documentation involved.

Please refer to original sources to confirm summary statements and current status.

BC Legislature

Policies and Guidelines

Attached are the following excerpts for more detailed reference:

• Land Commission Act, SBC 1973, c.46 s. 7 Objects;

• Land Commission Amendment Act, SBC, c.73, s. 5 (amending Objects);

• Agricultural Land Commission Act, RSBC 1996 c.10, ss. 1, 20 and 40-44;

• Agricultural Land Commission Handbook, Table of Regulations, Orders and Policies (as amended 1997); and

• Guidelines for Invoking the Provincial Interest under s. 40 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, 1998.

APPENDIX B - I. Legislative Excerpts

The following excerpts are provided for general reference in the context of provincial interest in the Agricultural Land Commission Act, RSBC 1996. Please confirm all references and current status with original and current sources.

Appendix B - II. Guidelines for Invoking the Provincial Interest Under Section 40 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL, 1998

Any proposal to be considered under section 40 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act must meet the following conditions:

1.  Agricultural Capability

(a) The specific site has unique non-agricultural values that could not be replaced or relocated to a non-agricultural site; or
(b) The project proposed for this site could be implemented so as to result in a no net loss to the agricultural capabilities in the area, through alternate land that is in close geographic proximity being brought into the ALR that is,

(i) of equal or greater area, or

(i) of equal or better quality, accounting for such factors such as soil capability, climate, land improvements and proximity to market infrastructure, and
(ii) capable of growing the same or a wider range of crops; and

(c) Agriculture in the area could be enhanced through consolidation of smaller parcels into larger, more viable farm units.

2.  The alternative environmental, economic, social, cultural or heritage values could be of major benefit, defined as either:

(a) significant to the province as a whole (for instance, a major transportation facility); or
(b) significant to a region of the province providing the proposal has shown overwhelming public support.

3.  The proposal could result in multiple benefits, to agriculture, and to environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage values.

Appendix B - III. Agricultural Land Commission: Regulations, General Orders And Policies

Attached is a table of contents from the ALC Handbook, as amended March 1996, as an indication of the additional framework for decisions relating to agricultural lands in the province. The ALC Handbook notes the following distinctions:

"The Act, passed by the Legislature, sets the legislative framework for the establishment and administration of the agricultural land preservation program.

The Regulations, passed by Cabinet, identify the procedures for submitting applications for inclusion, exclusion, subdivision or non-farm use; specify land uses permitted in the ALR; specify special case land uses requiring Commission approval by a special application process, and; specify fees.

The General Orders, issued by the Commission, identify, other than on a case-by-case basis, certain uses or subdivisions that may be allowed without need for an application, and any conditions that need to be met.

The Policies of the Commission outline principles, guidelines, strategies, rules or positions on various issues; and provide clarification and courses of action consistently taken or adopted, formally or informally."

[Note that in addition, in 1998 Cabinet provided the Guidelines also included earlier in this Appendix B].

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION: REGULATIONS, GENERAL ORDERS AND POLICIES

Appendix B - IV. Recommended Amendments for the Provincial Interest Reference in the Agricultural Land Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C.10.

The following consolidates,
(a) recommended changes from the Quayle Review (1998) in bold text, and
(b) suggested changes in bracketed italics,
into the existing organization of text of the Act.

Appendix B - V. More Discussion about the Balancing Test

The Balancing Test provides a context for a board to consider non-agricultural uses of agricultural lands, and report to Cabinet. My conclusion was that the only way this would be consistent with the objects of the act is if the use of such a test further defines "Provincial Interest" by applying the general principles of Provincial interest in the more specific context of agricultural lands and purposes.

Note 1: Planning Legislation Difference from the Act

Perhaps part of the confusion lies with well-intentioned casting about for precedents, and the nets falling on environmental review or planning legislation. However, note that the Act starts out several steps further advanced than such legislation. Environmental review or planning legislation which includes comprehensive reviews of everything under the sun are critical when there is (a) a lack of information or (b) the value of certain factors has not been determined. In the Act, however, we have the information (agricultural capability), and the value of such has been determined (high, based on limited supply, and market and not-market factors).

We therefore need to understand how the Act is different from other legislation. In this case, the context is the Agricultural Land Reserve, where the agricultural capacity of the lands has been established, and the lands in the reserve itself have been declared a scarce and valuable resource which ought correctly to be preserved. It is not a general development statute dealing with extremely broad concerns (such as a Municipal Planning Act or Environmental Assessment legislation), nor is it a statute guiding the management of relatively abundant resources (such as the Forest Land Reserve Act).

Note 2: Other Reasons for Focusing Scope

Two other considerations follow in support of focusing the scope - one practical and one political. A practical consideration for focusing the scope is that it is also not in the public (or Provincial) interest to have scarce administrative, executive or quasi-judicial resources, human and financial resources consumed by unnecessary debate. The political concerns are that if there is even a perception that larger exclusions and removal may be permitted, then this will serve only to encourage some people to push the limits of the envelope. This increases the risk of election-driven political decisions.

Note 3: Some Practical Concerns

A practical concern with the effects of the economic, social and cultural factors in considering the Provincial Interest is a disconcerting tendency for decision-makers to misconstrue what economic or social benefits warrant an override of very, very limited lands reserved for agricultural purposes. Although the Act is currently silent on what specific uses could warrant such an override in the Provincial Interest, examples of transportation, infrastructure, defence and health or emergency response facilities are often noted in discussions. Then we get the first decision from Cabinet on this question which supports residential and recreational uses, and which is justified by the courts because it is not inconsistent with the current Act.

These are tough issues and we need to help decision-makers focus on relevant factors. There is a reference in the Cabinet Guidelines to a "major transportation facility", and coincidentally, recent news of revisiting the Robert’s Bank Superport land assembly (arguably, the absence of political judgment in the Provincial Interest which resulted in the Act in the first place). Economic, social and cultural benefits can be argued at length for a superport, or defense facility, based on election, construction or other perceived schedules. But were there no options in the Provincial Interest which were consistent with the preservation of scarce agricultural lands and the benefits of agricultural purposes?

Therefore, the Balancing Test recommended reflects the priority of agricultural purposes on agricultural lands, and on other irreplaceable resource of long-term importance such as environmental or heritage effects.

Return to Top

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