SPARROW (Independent): I have been a strong voice on council for the protection of our farmlands. Unfortunately, since being first elected 11 years ago, a majority vote of council has repeatedly shown that if you try hard enough or know the right people, our farmlands are open to urban development. We have a role to play in making our voices heard and while ultimate approval for ALR removals is in the purview of the ALC we have a role and a responsibility in voicing what is in our communities’ best interest.

In my opinion we have continually set an example which encourages land speculators not farmers and one that will only drive up the price of farmland. There are very specific applications made to subdivide parcels of farmland where farmers for example, are wanting to divide off a smaller parcel for farming purposes or to allow for farming succession that do have a role in supporting our farmers; but none of which include the kind of approvals that have been supported for urban development. With the increased pressure for housing supply across our region the protection of our farmland is more crucial than ever.  

WHITMARSH (Independent): The ALR land should be protected for agriculture but currently less than 40% of it is actually use for agriculture. We must focus on land utilization and not simply protection. Currently, the TOL Council confirms the zoning and/or community plans and the ALC determines agricultural merit. The process for ALR exclusion or non-farm usage applications to the ALC needs to be changed to have a partnership with the ALC on utilization of ALR lands. Determining if a property should be excluded from the ALR is a multi-faceted decision best managed in a transparent TOL/ALC partnership with proper public input.

WOODWARD (Contract with Langley): We will protect the unique rural character within Langley. Non-farm uses can support farmers with economic viability to continue farming too.

We do not support exclusions from the ALR, like the “Gloucester Giveaway” supported by the current Council, re-zoning farmland to industrial which created $100M+ profit for farmland speculators with very little in return to the community. The current Council voted for that, while voting down even considering contributions for climate change mitigation or public safety, both proposed by Eric Woodward.

COLEMAN (Elevate Langley): Elevate Langley will protect the Agricultural Land Reserve. It is not a land bank for development. Period.

The Agricultural Land Commission as the statutory authority can make changes to the Agricultural Land Reserve if there is a net benefit for farming. That is very rare.

GARDNER (Independent): No. I will not support any exclusions from the ALR at a municipal level. This is a very slippery slope that leads to further speculation on farmland. Discussions about future land use and food security need to happen, but these discussions should not be in the form of individual applications for exclusion from the ALR.

ELEVATE LANGLEY (Group Response): Elevate Langley will protect the Agricultural Land Reserve. It is not a land bank for development. Period.

The Agricultural Land Commission as the statutory authority can make changes to the Agricultural Land Reserve if there is a net benefit for farming. That is very rare.

WARD (Independent): Land in the ALR should be used for agriculture. I do not anticipate at this time considering exclusions.

ARNASON (Independent): No. As an incumbent Councillor for the last eight years, I cannot recall but one instance of personally referring an ALR exclusion or non-farm use application proposal to the ALC except for a few applications based on verified evidence meeting the criteria of the homesite severance provisions embedded within ALC policy. As a strong generalized principle, I do not believe that agricultural lands should be subject to development applications or industrial development based on the fact that we have a very limited amount of arable land within our community which is required for food security. However, I have made one exception in the recent past which supported the conditional removal of lands adjacent to the Gloucester Industrial Estates based on a prior unilateral decision by the ALC itself to remove the properties. In my opinion, the merits of the associated community benefit which is worth many millions of dollars will be extraordinarily beneficial to both the environment and to the agricultural community, as a whole. The project could also likely attract significant funding and grants from senior levels of government given its alignment with climate objectives and the planned protection of wetlands in conjunction with salmon habitat restoration, which is of a very high priority both provincially and federally. In this specific instance, a very degraded property within the ALR just outside of Fort Langley in and around the Salmon River will be rehabilitated based on input and planning from qualified environmental professionals in addition to local watershed stakeholders. The strategy also includes an educational and agricultural component to be designed with local Kwantlen First Nation participation. Overall, I believe that this amenity would prove to exponentially valuable to the community in that it is solidly grounded in our desire to both enhance local food security objectives through both education and demonstration, as well as advancing the interests of reconciliation.

CHANG (Independent): Each situation must be evaluated on its own merits, but in general, I believe that we must protect our arable farmland

PRATT (Independent): There is a culture in the Township of special deals and favours being made for friends or donors at the expense of a fair and cohesive process where everyone is treated equally. Further, there is often a lack of vision and forethought into the decisions to exclude or allow a non-farm use, and the impact that decision will have in the grand scheme of things. Even for community kick-backs, there are very rarely circumstances that exclusions from the ALR are merited, and if they are, there should be a one-to-one replacement of excluded lands for lands added to the ALR. We need to change the culture in the Township where if you know the right people or if you can provide enough funding for a Councillor’s or Staff member’s pet project, you get to exclude parcels of land or get special treatment.

MORAES (Independent): This would depend on the circumstances in each case. I cannot give a yes or no to this question.

CONTRACT WITH LANGLEY (Group Response): We will protect the unique rural character within Langley. Non-farm uses can support farmers with economic viability to continue farming too.

We do not support exclusions from the ALR, like the “Gloucester Giveaway” supported by the current Council, re-zoning farmland to industrial which created $100M+ profit for farmland speculators with very little in return to the community. The current Council voted for that, while voting down even considering contributions for climate change mitigation or public safety, both proposed by Eric Woodward.

RESPONDEK (Independent): These applications need to be looked at on a case by case basis and the benefits should greatly outweigh the potential costs in any case

RICHTER (Independent): No. As the Township is a “regulated” community with the Provincial Ministry of Agriculture, the Province should be doing their own work on this and not down-loading it to the Township.

For the purpose of food security in the future, ALR lands should be used for growing food. Period.

Unfortunately, the reality is that people are now buying ALR land in the Township and abusing it for industrial (i.e. trucking) and commercial purposes (i.e. wedding venues) as it is cheaper land. This needs to stop.

As long as the Township is a “regulated” community, we cannot stop these abuses. The Province has to do it and they need to very significantly pick up their game on this.

The Province can start by removing the Township from their “regulated” list which they put us on 25 years ago over mushroom farms.

TOWNSLEY (Independent): As a farmer, this is a simple question for me. There is no land which, given the right type of agriculture, cannot be farmed.

Before a farmer purchases the land, they should know if the soil and conditions is appropriate for their type of agriculture. Purchasing farmland in the hope that with enough political sway or “community benefits” you can have the land excluded from ALR as a cash cow needs to stop. We have enough farmers wanting to start farms in the Lower Mainland. We cannot risk our food security for urban sprawl.

If we had a council that made this clear, then smart development would occur on land not in the ALR. We need to hold the line on ALR exclusion.

SUARÉZ RUBIO (Independent): As mentioned before, I am property rights. I lament that Andrew Scheer did not won’t the last leadership for the conservative to achieve is purpose of property rights as part of our constitution. My discernment and judgment will be to bring more freedom to farmers and property owners and from that stand I shall not be moved.

POITRAS (Independent): I do not support the removal of ALR land for non farm usage. As long as there is the perception that Langley Township has an open door on ALR land for individuals or companies we will continue to have speculators buying land with the hope that they can do just that; benefit from ALR land for non farm uses. This drives up the market value and makes it unaffordable for farmers to acquire land in the ALR for farm use.

DARNELL (Independent): The ALR must be preserve not only for agricultural use but also to protect the aquifer. If Industrial uses are imposed on the ALR we will suffer pollution and that will have a deleterious impact on all of the surrounding land, including the ALR. Imagine a major oil spill in our aquifer. That is just a recipe for a major nightmare. The ALC has overriding jurisdiction. The Fraser Valley Communities needs to lobby the Province in order to ensure that they all have a voice in amendments to that legislation if and when necessary.

JOEHL (Independent): I would support any and all applications to the Agricultural Land Commission. Recently there was a removal of some land from the ALR for industrial purposes. I can’t fully get behind that because I feel we can better utilize existing industrial land, but appreciate that we are looking at the ALR properties for their highest utility. As a councillor I’d rubber stamp everything that came across our desk and send it off to the Province to rule on it, which, as the question suggests, has been the trend of prior ToL councils.

VAN POPTA (Contract with Langley): The only time it would “possibly” be acceptable to remove ALR lands would be in Aldergrove where the boundaries in the Metro Van Regional growth strategy conflicts with the ALR boundaries. We would need to add lands to ALR in compensation for those odd situations where realigning the boundaries would be beneficial to the success of Aldergrove. Otherwise, no, the preservation of our farmland outweighs the lobbying pressures of speculators who want to gain mass financial wealth by rezoning for density and usage. I never want to see another Gloucester Giveaway again!

KUNST (Independent): I am comfortable with the ALC making the final decision. The ALR is a provincial program that has been instrumental in protecting farmland for almost 50 years. That being said, we talk a lot about protection of farmland but I think the ALC and TOL should do more to support farmers to help them to be economically viable. A lack of cold and dry storage and processing facilities are BIG issues for our farmers as an example.