PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $75,359,000 (continued).

The Chair: Minister, did you have a statement?

Hon. L. Popham: I don’t have a statement today, because we’re continuing on, but I would like to just introduce the staff that’s supporting me today.

On my left is Wes Shoemaker. He is my deputy minister. On my right is Wes Boyd, my assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer, corporate services, for the natural resource sector. In the back row, on the left, we have James Mack, my assistant deputy minister — agriculture, science and policy division. We also have Joan Easton, acting assistant deputy minister, business development division. Joining us from the Farm Industry Review Board is Kirsten Pedersen, executive director.

J. Thornthwaite: I’ve just got a clarification from my comments yesterday. The minister did say that the consultation process with regards to the anti–puppy mill bill had started a couple of weeks ago. Just to quote, the minister had said: “There is a chance that we’ve missed someone. If the member wouldn’t mind passing us the names so we can get that person on the list, that’d be great.”

I know that my key breeder in my riding has not been contacted, so to be helpful, I’ve actually re-photocopied my list. I would be very happy to provide that directly to the minister just to cross-reference the people that perhaps have been missed, but I know that the breeders have not. If that’s okay, I can just provide you with the information.

Hon. L. Popham: We really appreciate that, and we’ll accept your list and use it. Thank you.

D. Barnett: Minister, we are very concerned, a lot of us, about the greenhouses that are being turned over to grow cannabis. We keep hearing from the minister that food security is the number one priority with this Agriculture Minister.

Will the minister put a moratorium on agricultural land where these greenhouses are now providing food and turning them into cannabis operations? Will the minister put a moratorium on these and stop the ALR from being utilized for cannabis?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. This is an issue that is continuing to come up. What I’ve done is I’ve asked for all information or opinions or suggestions to be directed through the agricultural land reserve revitalization committee.

It’s a hot topic right now. The former government changed regulations around what could be grown on agricultural reserve land. One of them was cannabis. That was a change that was made by the former government. Personally, I’ve recused myself from any policy discussions on cannabis. The lead on that file will be the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.

D. Barnett: To the minister: will you give us those answers, or will those answers come from Forests, Lands and Natural Resources in the very near future?

We were the government. We know what happened when we were government. Times have changed, and you are now the government. And we are very concerned, some of us, over food security. We understand that that is one of your largest mandates and that you personally have a passion for it. So these greenhouses, one after another, that are now growing vegetables, in essence, are being turned into cannabis.

To me, you are the government. We need answers, and we need them very quickly, because we are losing food security places day in and day out.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. Again, I understand the urgency. That is why it is before the agricultural land reserve revitalization committee right now. Once they have provided the recommendations to government, the minister who is the lead on this file — the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources — will be able to provide an answer.

D. Barnett: I will say it once again. This is something that is happening on a daily basis, and by the time it goes through the committee stage — I’ve been in government for quite a while — my fear is we won’t have a greenhouse left growing peppers. They’ll all be growing cannabis.

I know you have recused yourself. We’ve had some discussions here about this. I do have a question, if I may. To the minister: I understand why you’ve recused yourself, but there are two different aspects of cannabis — one is recreation, and one is medical. Could you not just excuse yourself from the medical part and not the recreation part?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks again for the question. I understand what the member is saying, but the reason I recused myself was also around a perceived conflict of interest with me being on that file.

Our government is currently discussing cannabis policy. When the federal government comes out with its legislation in the fall, medical and recreational cannabis will be under the same umbrella. I would like to say to the member that this issue is being dealt with. It’s not being dealt with by me.

D. Barnett: We will be monitoring it very closely, as this is one of the biggest issues there is on the table at this point in time for the future of cannabis in Canada and British Columbia. We will see how quickly these issues are dealt with as far as the greenhouse issue. So thank you, Minister.

I have other topics to deal with. During your last estimates, you said that, yes, there was funding going to be split between yourselves and the Ministry of Agriculture and FLNRO for predator control. Has the funding been put in place for the predator control program with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, and what funding is in the budget for this program?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. We are a partner in the predator management program — Forests, Lands and Natural Resources and the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. I can’t speak to the commitments from those two entities, but I can say that we’ve put aside $250,000 for predator management.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. Is that for one year or three years?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The $250,000 is for this year. But I can tell the member that we are in close contact with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, and we understand that the predator management program is something that evolves over time. So the needs change, and we’ve committed $250,000 for this year, but we are having open discussions as far as the future goes.

D. Barnett: To the minister: you say predator management, and it was called predator control. Is it the same program, or is it a different program than it was in the past?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I misspoke. It’s predator control. I called it predator management, but it’s the same thing.

D. Barnett: Now we’re going to one of my very favourite topics, called slaughterhouses. As you know, during the past few years, I have spent a lot of time and was able to obtain a portable slaughterhouse for my community, the South Cariboo, and I really appreciate the fact that the minister did give our community an extra opportunity to see if anybody was interested in that portable slaughterhouse, as the operator who had the contract for five years is retiring and the slaughterhouse will be moving on. So I thank the minister very much for that opportunity.

When I go back into the past — which we shouldn’t do, but we do — to 2012 and 2009, the comments by the then critic of Agriculture…. Of course, the critic is now the minister. You were very hard on our government. Basically, a lot of comments were made that the meat regulations were changed due to BSE and all the other great things that happened. But they are all federally regulated, not provincial.

So back here in the good old days: “The B.C. Liberals have demonstrated their commitment to small farmers and to rural B.C., and their record speaks for itself — closed slaughter facilities, failed attempts to open others because the cost of the regulation is too high, and reduced consumer choice for British Columbia.”

To the minister: from all the comments I’ve got here — I could read them all, but I’m not going to — are you going to open up the slaughterhouse industry so farm sales can take hold once again, as you were quoted when you were the critic, or will things stay the same?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I love this topic, and I also share the passion that the member has.

The member repeated back some words that I said while critic, and I stand by those words. I feel the same way. In fact, I have asked my staff to look into ways that we could increase the capacity around the province, looking at smaller-scale processors that would be able to provide food to smaller communities, rural communities. So we’re looking into that right now.

In fact, I have an abattoir location map front and centre in my office because it’s that important to me. I like to remind myself that that’s one of the commitments that I’ve made over the last eight years — that it’s a priority.

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

I can tell the member that we’re also working on other projects. There is a proposal to have a slaughterhouse in Prince George — just working out a feasibility study, working with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. We also work with the B.C. Association of Abattoirs to make sure that they’re looped in. They just finished an amazing course up in Courtenay at Gunter Bros. Meat, where they trained, I think, a dozen people on cut-and-slaughter.

We have a lot of things to grapple with when it comes to meat production in the province. Of course, health and safety are among the big ones, but we also have a skills shortage. Being able to increase the skills level is something I’m also interested in. Of course, I know the member has always been passionate about this topic, and I’m happy to work with her along the way.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. The interesting part about it is the B.C. cattlemen. We had worked with the B.C. cattlemen for a couple of years on this project. Prince George is great, but Prince George doesn’t really help rural British Columbia. As you well know, with our geography, we certainly have some serious issues throughout the province. There has been a shortage of meat cutters and people who slaughter for decades now. I don’t believe it’ll change.

My question was: are you going to go back to the era where they can kill on the farm and do farm sales, or will things stay the same?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I want the member to feel hopeful that things will change because I’m pretty committed to making those changes. The geography around Prince George doesn’t address a lot of areas in rural B.C., and I am very aware of that. I’ve been having conversations with communities up in the Kootenays, communities in the Cariboo, just to get a handle on what the capacity is and what the demand is.

I think we all know that as consumers have tuned into buying more B.C.-produced and -processed food through our farmers markets and other venues…. This is something that has come to my attention more and more. So I’m committed to making those changes.

The idea of skills training — I think that that’s something we have to address. So I think the member can feel hopeful that we will see those things being addressed.

Now, how we’re actually going to get there and what’s going to be allowed…. There are a variety of meat slaughter licences that are available in the province right now, so we’re reviewing those.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. That probably is another reason why we’re so disappointed. In the Cariboo-Chilcotin and throughout the Cariboo, there is nobody representing the cattle industry on your new commission or group that you put together to review the Agricultural Land Commission. There are many reasons why the input from places that really produce the cattle in this province should be at the table.

On to my next question. The rural strategy that we put together, by 13 different communities in the province, is now being dismissed by government. We’re starting all over again. Of course, we, basically, are not including many people — one month through the Internet.

In our rural strategy, we had taken in all our ministries, and the big one was Agriculture. The rebates of up to $3,500 through a new livestock tag reader rebate program so that small ranchers can purchase equipment to enhance food safety and food traceability protocols — is this still in place?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Yes. The answer is yes. That program is still in place.

I just wanted to get back to what the member said about her disappointment around the agricultural land reserve revitalization committee and representation. I can tell you that the Cariboo is being heard loud and clear.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I’d like to know how — when there’s no representative at the table, when I have ranchers from all the way from the other side of Anahim Lake to 70 Mile House who, basically, are at my doorstep saying: “How do we give input?”

In our rural strategy, there are three or four things in agriculture that have really, really assisted the agricultural industry in rural British Columbia. We also invested $10 million in 2017-18 for multi-year projects to manage invasive plant species. Will this program be kept in place, or is this one, too, going to be under FLNRO?

Hon. L. Popham: That program is administered by Forests, Lands and Natural Resources and always has been.

D. Barnett: Thank you for the clarification.

We also had in our strategy…. We invested more than $480,000 in 2016-2017 through the Canada-B.C. agri-innovation program to support innovative projects in rural B.C. communities. Is this program also still in place?

Hon. L. Popham: The program is still in place. It was part of the Growing Forward 2 funding, but as we move into the CAP funding, it’s still in place.

There’s a heightened focus on innovation and a lot of opportunities for rural B.C., which makes me happy, because a lot of the focus that we have in our agriculture mandate are exciting opportunities for rural B.C — on the processing front, on the food hub front. There are so many projects that I’m excited about.

I look at it, especially in the Cariboo, as opportunities to recover from some of the devastation from last year. So it is in place.

D. Barnett: So Minister, we do know, in rural British Columbia now, what programs have been in place. Will you be providing a list, a document or something so that we can, in these rural communities, know what programs are still in place and what new programs are coming in place, so we can get these out to our constituents? Because this is very, very important to them.

Those engaged in the agriculture industry are probably more sincere at what they do than a lot of other industries in British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The member asked for a list of programs that are going to be available, that have been available and future programs that will be available for agriculture in rural B.C.

We can absolutely provide a list. That’s not a problem. But the new partnership, the new Growing Forward 2, which is CAP, that agreement won’t be signed until the end of March. That will kind of show us what direction things are going. Things haven’t been finalized exactly. After that, we’d be happy to provide a list.

If there’s ever any question on what the Ministry of Agriculture can do for any farmer, in rural B.C. or urban B.C., AgriService B.C. can always be phoned. We’ve got lots of staff that can help people sort that out as well.

D. Barnett: I have one more question. The B.C. government increased loan guarantees to $15 million from $9.75 million for two popular programs so ranchers could buy additional cattle. The Bred Heifer Association loan guarantee and the feeder association loan guarantee programs help ranchers in the B.C. top-producing regions of the Thompson-Okanagan, Cariboo, Peace River and Nechako. Will this program stay in place?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. It’s an important program. Yes, it continues. In fact, we have increased the support from $68 million up to $74 million, so there’s been some improvement here.

I completely agree with the member — how important this program is for the cattle sector. I’m sure the member already knows, but since 1990, this program has supported the purchase of over 650,000 cattle, and the value of that is $276 million. So yes, it’s a very important program for British Columbia.

[3:15 p.m.]

J. Tegart: I want to talk a little bit about flood and wildfire and the effect that it had in my riding. I’ve had local farmers come to my office in regard to crop insurance. I think they find themselves in the same place as many people with insurance find themselves — the assumption that everything was covered and finding out that so much isn’t. I have a local farmer who lost $2 million in peppers. There is no opportunity for them to have insurance on that.

I know that there are discussions with the federal government and partnerships, etc. I would ask the minister if there are discussions around crop insurance and around the limitations in regard to that. I’m looking at family farms. One family farm lost $2 million worth of peppers because of the fires.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. That is a substantial loss. Let me get to that in a minute.

The member alluded to this, but we are reviewing the business risk management programs right now across Canada, and I will be hosting all the Agriculture ministers in July, in Vancouver, where we will be reviewing this and addressing this. Any input up till that point is very valuable. We have been pushing quite hard from the British Columbia perspective, because we have quite unique growing areas here, much different than the prairies. Our needs are different, so we’ve been representing that. But more information and details from members across the province are really important.

Getting back to the loss, it’s substantial. I’m not sure at this point if the farmer has been able to explore all the options available, but we would be happy — and we want — to take that information and work with the member to walk through the situation again.

We have an enhanced AgriStability program which does allow farmers to buy insurance, but it gets backdated for this past year. It’s a provincial program that we established because we know that, given the situation with the forest fires and other situations we’ve had around the province this year, some flexibility was needed that wasn’t being offered on the prov-fed partnership. So we’ve come up with our own provincial program, which has much more flexibility. I don’t know if this farmer would qualify, but I would really like the opportunity to try and find out.

J. Tegart: Thank you for that. When you have farmers coming in and talking about their loss, they are absolutely so tired of filling out forms, being rejected, negotiating and trying to recover.

[3:20 p.m.]

People understand recovery for things like buildings, equipment. But when you talk about the power being out for 48 hours, needing to have irrigation and pumps aren’t covered, gasoline’s not covered, and you have to fight for it…. Quite honestly, they’re done. They are so tired of phoning and dealing with people.

The people at the end of the line have tried very hard to be helpful, but they find themselves in a situation where they’re sitting in my office and saying: “We’re done. We’re done.”

I will work with you. Thank you for that offer.

The other thing is…. Under Red Cross, the support seems to be for small business. Certainly, we have lots of small businesses in our area that were devastated by last summer. When I look at my two major farms, which are Horsting’s Farm and Desert Hills…. They produce food for the province. They were devastated by the fires and the smoke. There seems to be nothing for big business. These are family-owned farms. Because they’re successful and they produce a lot, they’re feeling very much like there’s not a lot of support for them.

When we look at Red Cross and the money that hasn’t gone out yet, we’ve tried to influence, to say: “Hey, there are people with businesses that are much bigger than a small business. Their sales are much bigger, but they produce food for us.”

So to the minister: has there been any discussion in your ministry or within the cabinet to talk about the money that has not gone out through Red Cross to support people producing food for the province?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I’ve got a few answers for the member. We’ve just had communication with our business risk management folks. The farms that the member mentioned are actually currently enrolled in programs, and they are being assisted right now, which is good news.

I just wanted to take a moment to talk about small business versus larger businesses. The Red Cross has been dealing with the smaller side, but our business risk management programs are dealing with the larger businesses. If there’s anything that would normally fall under AgriStability, they may have already been enrolled. But if not, we’ve created the enhanced AgriStability, which, I believe, is capturing some of the farms that the member talked about.

But I would like to say: any time the member gets the name of a farm and some details, just bring it straight into the ministry. Bring it straight to me. We will have staff look into it right away. I’m not saying that everything is solvable. But because we’ve offered these new programs, they may not know about them.

Then, as far as anything to address what’s left over in Red Cross or what hasn’t been used, that doesn’t fall under the Ministry of Agriculture. It actually goes through emergency management B.C. and FLNRO. That the member can canvass in those estimates.

J. Tegart: One last question. Not only did we get wildfires; we started with floods. We’re only beginning to see the long-term impact. In the budget document, it states that there are “new investments in community wildfire resiliency and funding for recovery from the 2017 wildfires.” Where in the Ministry of Agriculture, and what are the amounts that qualify for that statement?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. Those announcements actually pertain to money that’s in FLNRO.

J. Tegart: Just a follow-up: there is no money, extra money, in Agriculture to assist people affected by the wildfires or floods last year?

Hon. L. Popham: We have our usual suite of business risk management programs that do cover instances that have happened over the last year, in our normal suite.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’ve added the enhanced AgriStability to be more flexible — to cover some of the other areas that might not have been covered. There are many applications coming in, and they are being processed very quickly.

We think we’ve captured a lot that would pertain to recovery, but given that it was a disastrous situation, we could have missed something. It’s always good to have an open line of communication. The door’s always open.

That’s really what we have. We don’t have anything specifically in the budget line that talks about fire recovery or flood recovery, but our business risk management programs cover that.

I. Paton: To the Minister of Agriculture, on the topic that we’re on right now. We met in the member’s office in Ashcroft with the Porter family — Desert Hills farm. Randy Porter and his two sons were there. They were extremely distraught over losses — with peppers, as the member mentioned, but I think there were other vegetables that were lost. Due to the smoke and the haze, these vegetables just wouldn’t ripen properly, like a normal vegetable would.

We know that there was the federal-provincial amalgamation of the AgriRecovery, at $20 million, and then the Red Cross had a whole bunch of money. The frustration with the Porter family with Desert Hills farm is that…. Farmers and ranchers that took losses for livestock that was burnt, fence lines that were burnt and grazing pasture that was burnt off — there was money there out of the $20 million. But they were telling us in this meeting that vegetables don’t seem to rate and they can’t get any money out of this AgriRecovery $20 million, even though they believe there’s lots of money left over.

My question to the minister: of the $20 million, has it all been used up? Was there money left over? And do we know how much was left over from the Red Cross? We think there’s money left on the table that should be able to be used by Desert Hill farm.

Hon. L. Popham: The farm that the member mentions is actually being covered by the enhanced AgriStability program, which would cover vegetable farms. They’re in process right now, speaking with our ministry, and they will be covered. It was a significant, significant loss to them, so we are really happy that we found something that would fit.

As far as money left on the table, we don’t know yet, because applications are still being processed. They’re still being processed with us through our programs, and the Red Cross is still processing as well. We might be able to answer that at a later date, but we’re still continuing on.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for being forthcoming with the answers today.

I have a question around the Grow B.C., Buy B.C. and Feed B.C. programs. I’m just reading from the Finance Minister’s budget speech: “Supports for farmers, better local marketing efforts and groundwater protections.”

[3:35 p.m.]

Has groundwater protection always been a part of these three’s — Grow B.C., Buy B.C. and Feed B.C. — scope of mandate for what they’re supposed to be doing?

Hon. L. Popham: That’s a great question. It is a new program that was added under Grow B.C., which is also a new program. So it’s new with the new government.

The groundwater protection is under Grow B.C. because we have the nutrient management side of water management. That’s making sure that our groundwater is not contaminated with nutrients. It’s a way of looking at that.

But the Grow B.C…. Any time that there are any agricultural policies that pertain to the land base or farming policies, they fall under Grow B.C., and this is one of them.

P. Milobar: Thanks for the answer.

There’s $29 million over three years for all three programs, by the looks of it. How much, specifically, within Grow B.C. is (a) Grow B.C. for that…? How much of the $29 million is for Grow B.C.? Then, within Grow B.C., how much of that allotment is for groundwater protection?

Hon. L. Popham: This is how the $29 million is laid out. I’ll give you the allocations for Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. for next year. So 2.02 for Grow B.C., 3.92 for Feed B.C. and 1.5 for Buy B.C.

Within the new allocation, you will find the nutrient management. There isn’t a specific number attached to that; we have a variety of things going on. But this is on top of the already allocated money from the previous budget that puts money towards things like environmental farm plans.

P. Milobar: Of that $29 million, then, is any of that being accounted for with internal governmental transfers from fees being paid for water licences and groundwater fees, which have been increasing over the last few years as it is? Is that the funding source, and if so, how much?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The groundwater licence money transfers — what the member is talking about — is actually under FLNRO.

P. Milobar: No, I understand that the ground licence fees are under FLNRO for the collection. However, we have a new program that previously was not funded and that has been wrapped into a Grow, Buy and Feed B.C. program envelope, which, to the average person, would seem like providing the farmers market coupons and those types of things, and support to get the physical product more broadly marketed, as with all of the verbiage here from the speech. Then it tags in groundwater protection, which I understand, with the answer, is around the nutrient on the top of the soils.

However, I’m trying to figure out where the $29 million is coming from. Is it from taxation? Is it from an internal government transfer? If so, is it partly coming from the increase in water fees with an internal transfer from FLNRO over to this new $29 million commitment?

Hon. L. Popham: I can confirm that this is a budget lift that came from consolidated funds from the province.

P. Milobar: I fully understand that. However, there’s also a budget lift because water rates are scheduled to generate more revenue for government.

I guess what I’m asking is: is this $29 million for these various programs, with, basically, language around water protection in these programs but no actual defined budget, no money of any sort at this point determined to be for water protection, and in fact only a $2 million commitment total for Grow B.C…? So probably very few funds for water protection out of that $2 million.

Is the $29 million going to be funded as a result of increased water fees? In other words, are the increased water fees going to be funding programs that have absolutely nothing to do with water protection?

Hon. L. Popham: None of the money coming from water licensing transfers are funding our programs in the Ministry of Agriculture — none.

C. Oakes: I know that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin had the opportunity to ask many questions. I won’t repeat. I have one question. First, I want to recognize and ensure…. I know that the minister has received the letter from the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association with discussion around B.C.’s approach to wildfire. I think it’s a really good piece of document that’s been canvassed, around how we support the agricultural sector, lessons learned and how we move forward.

I will suggest that there is nervousness about making sure we’re prepared for grass seeding. You know, we were hoping to get to that in the fall. We’ve had a really significant winter this year as well. So we want to make sure we’re prepared, and we’re concerned about feed come spring and fall. I just wanted to raise that.

[3:45 p.m.]

On a different note, I really want to say that we try and look at events that occurred in 2017 and look to opportunity. I said this in the fall that I really believe that there’s a strong opportunity for agriculture. It always has been in the Cariboo. I am very optimistic. I’m trying to be optimistic about the future of agriculture, because I think it’s a key piece of the diversification of what is needed.

We have a North Cariboo agriculture working group that has put some really significant proposals forward. I know that the minister has had the opportunity to meet with some of the members. They brought forward the idea of an agricultural hub at the Alex Fraser Park.

I wonder if we can share good news, if there’s any opportunity. I know it probably may not be through your ministry, but I think it’s critically important to help support the agricultural sector with groups like this that are doing significant work on looking at optimism in the future for agriculture.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I share the member’s hopefulness around learning lessons from what’s happened and taking advantage of perhaps a new start in some areas.

The way that my mandate is — grow, feed, buy — it really focuses on how to grow primary products, how to process them and how to market them. Rural B.C. is going to have to take a major role in that, and I think there are so many opportunities to do so.

My staff just had another conversation with Mayor Simpson about this exact idea that the member has brought forward. So we’re exploring all the ideas — that grow, feed and buy can support that. One of the ways, specifically, could be around the food innovation centres. That would fall under Feed B.C. We’re looking at supporting UBC with a food innovation centre but having food hubs around the province. We’ve been looking at Quesnel as one of the opportunities to set up a place where, basically, you could do R and D for food processing.

I think the Cariboo is such a great location. Every region can focus on something. We’ve got a lot to focus on in the Cariboo. I’ve had conversations with people about, obviously, beef products, mushroom-drying. There are so many opportunities. It’s absolutely on our radar, but there’s nothing specific to announce at this point. I will make sure the member knows as soon as there is.

M. Bernier: To the minister, I know we’re getting close to the end, so I thank her for her patience and for some of the local issues that some of us are bringing forward. Hopefully, mine won’t be too intensive or too long for you.

As part of the Site C project in 2016, there was an agriculture mitigation fund announced — a couple of years ago. Can we start by committing how much money is in that fund still?

Hon. L. Popham: Just to be clear, it actually would fall under the Ministry of EMPR, but I don’t mind commenting on it. It’s an agricultural fund that has $20 million, and as far as I know, it hasn’t been initiated yet so the $20 million is there.

M. Bernier: I do know where the jurisdictions fall, but the reason I’m bringing it up here is because of comments the minister has made publicly around this. It’s good to know it is $20 million, announced a few years ago, around that mitigation. The commitment at the time was made, working with the Minister of Agriculture. He was the one that actually announced it, in the previous government.

[3:50 p.m.]

The commitment at that time was a committee to disburse those funds and set up a program for those funds, which were going to be committed specifically to the Peace region for distribution.

No commitment made yet on how that money would be flowing out, but the commitment at the time was made that it would be people — farmers or groups — from the Peace region that would formulate that committee and make those decisions. Is that commitment still here?

Hon. L. Popham: I don’t have any control over how it’s being organized, but I have the same understanding as the member has around a committee being formed and the funds going directly into the Peace River agricultural areas. I know that about a month ago, there was a call-out for three new members-at-large to be added to that committee, but I don’t know where the process is at this time.

M. Bernier: Where does the minister see her role through this? The minister is making public comments specifically around this, from my understanding, around the people getting onto this committee. So I assume the minister has an understanding of how she’d like to see this roll out. Is there a timeline?

It was originally an understanding from Minister of Energy and Mines for B.C. Hydro. And then there were discussions with agriculture on making sure Agriculture Ministry was really closely aligned, since it’s kind of the ministry stakeholders that are going to be affected and part of this. I just want to make sure and understand where the minister feels her role will be in helping guide the process.

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question.As Minister of Agriculture, I have no role with the committee. My staff will be engaged with the committee as need be, but I have not been given any role with that committee.

M. Bernier: Okay. I appreciate the issue that the minister is raising. I guess my only…. I shouldn’t say observation. My ask would be, obviously, through the Ministry of Agriculture and through the staff that there is not only scrutiny, I guess, but…. We want to have the involvement through the ministry but not so much where it undermines the local people who we’re asking to really be on this committee. That’s kind of where I was wondering on this.

I think the minister would agree that the people in the North Peace and the South Peace that we’re hoping will be really a part of this know the area better than anybody. They know the land better than anyone. And they know the opportunities, I would say. We just want to make sure that they have that flexibility to be able to put suggestions forward. The intent originally around the $20 million fund — again, with no directives at the time — was $20 million that the local communities and the stakeholders could actually talk about — what they felt was the best for agriculture in the area.

I won’t, maybe, put a question to the minister. I’ve heard her point on that. So thank you very much. The people in the area will be happy to know that we’re still moving forward with that, obviously.

One other question that I have. I know it’s really important to myself. As always, with my colleague in the North Peace, every question I have or he has seems to be one and the same, because we share so much up there.

It’s around our region being probably one of the largest grain-producing regions in the province. I’m very happy to hear today from Canadian National, CN, that they’ve recognized — now, they talk about the prairie provinces more than anything — the shortfall they’ve had getting grain to market. It’s been a huge issue, huge, for the people in the North Peace and the South Peace. Our grain producers, who have had to fill the silos, have left product out on the land. It’s a depreciation of their product cost.

[3:55 p.m.]

It’s been a huge challenge for them as well — for the Fraser Valley. That’s where a lot of their product goes to domestically for feed.

I guess it would be more of a comment that I’m making to the minister so she’s aware. Also, what I’m asking is that the minister will talk to her counterpart in the Ministry of Transportation and ensure that they’re talking with the federal counterparts as soon as possible.

When this happened about four or five years ago — we were in the exact same situation — the federal government stepped up and said: “We recognize it’s an issue, and we’re going to make CN deal with this right away.” What did they do? They doubled their cars in the prairie provinces and said they’d met their quotas. It did nothing, in the short term, to really help the people of British Columbia.

The minister needs to be aware of that, and I’m hoping for a commitment that she can at least follow up with the feds to ensure that B.C. is on that radar.

Hon. L. Popham: I’m happy to report out that I have been on top of it. Just last week I had a call with Minister MacAulay where we discussed this very issue. After that, yesterday or the day before, I actually had a call with CN. I asked if there was any possibility that we could have a focus on agriculture to get that grain out before the melt starts to happen and the roads aren’t available.

From that, we have now organized a meeting with the grain growers. We’ll be having a call with the grain growers tomorrow, and then we’ll be having a follow-up call with the federal minister and the grain growers.

I do feel hopeful that we’ll be able to get things moving, but I understand how critical it is. Apparently, there are 35 boats in the Vancouver harbour waiting for grain specifically. So it’s a major, major issue. I have heard that it’s weather-dependent, but I think we know that it’s much more than that.

Yes, I am on top of it, and I will be happy to update the members as soon as we have any news to report.

D. Davies: Thank you for that response as well. I’ll answer on behalf of my colleague in Peace River South. Of course, sitting with 20,000 tonnes of grain right now in our one elevator in Peace River North certainly causes a problem. Unfortunately, we have the ships sitting in the water waiting for grain that we have.

My question is around ag plastics. I’m just wondering…. I hear a lot from the farmers in my area about the issue of disposal and recycling rules and such that are making it really difficult to deal with the tons of plastic that farmers in the North Peace — and, I presume, probably the South Peace as well — are dealing with.

Maybe the minister could give an update on where the province is with the recycling programs and some guidance for the farmers in the northeast.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. This is a new one for me, and I’m very interested in it. What I’ve discovered, after consulting with my staff, is that the majority of this is covered by the Ministry of Environment, so you might want to canvass this with the Ministry of Environment, for sure.

As far as how the Ministry of Agriculture can play a role, we do have an agri-innovation fund, and I think right now there’s a program around baling twine that’s happening in that program. But we’re open to discussing with the member any of the ideas that are coming from the Peace. I would actually like to be briefed by the Peace River MLAs on how big the problem is, so maybe we can set up a meeting, and both members can come in and chat about that. I’d really appreciate it.

D. Davies: We certainly could arrange something like that, following when all this is done.

You mentioned the twine issue. Like you say, it is a large issue. Of course, a lot of the problem is, like anything, we’re so far from everything. So when we’re talking tonnage of plastics that the farmers are using and getting it to the recycle centres, just the pure cost of it is almost punitive to the farmers that are being encouraged to, first and foremost, recycle the plastics. Secondly, they have to use them.

Again, rules around how clean they actually have to have the plastics once they’re done with them…. When you’re talking football-field-size sheets of plastic, it’s pretty hard to get it spotless and off to recycling. So I certainly look forward to talking to the minister about this, following this.

With that, I think questions are over to my colleague from Kelowna West.

B. Stewart: I just wanted to bring up a few questions about some of the experience that I’ve had in terms of agrifood and the opportunities that present themselves for agriculture in British Columbia. It’s fortuitous today that we had all of the East Asian trade managing directors here. I hope that you had a chance to meet with them, perhaps discover some of the opportunities — and, I would say, missed opportunities — that we have.

I’m interested in maybe opening with…. I notice that about a year and a half ago the Ministry of Agriculture introduced a product catalogue of British Columbia products that were export-ready, ready to go — helping kind of get them ready. It’s my understanding that it hasn’t been updated, and new participants haven’t been able to be added to that. I’m just wondering what the status of that is and if it’s a budget issue?

Hon. L. Popham: I do have an update for the member on the catalogue. Also, I’d just like to say welcome back, Member. It’s nice to see your face again. I think you were an Agriculture Minister at one point in my term as critic. So welcome back.

The catalogue is being updated right now and will be ready to go at the end of this month. Currently it’s available on line. We’re using the catalogue from last year. Since last year, the applicants to join the catalogue…. We’ve moved it up. Fifteen products have been added and will be included in this new catalogue, and we’re having another opening for applicants in April.

I’ll just add that our trade representatives, the member will know, find it extremely useful and are excited about our new catalogue coming out at the end of the month.

[4:05 p.m.]

B. Stewart: I do want to compliment the ministry staff in terms of the first efforts in that. I know that many of them worked hard in getting participation. I think that there’s a degree of skepticism amongst agricultural producers. Export markets — they’re maybe not ready for that. And getting them prepared to take advantage of that….

I know that some people were surprised with the quality of the catalogue and the broadness of the interpretation, being that it was available in multiple languages. I think that getting their involvement is important and making certain that they are trade-ready.

I think one of the areas where, certainly, there is tremendous opportunity is in products that we actually don’t have the critical mass for in British Columbia. I don’t know if the ministry is aware of that, but one of the things that I think we hesitate on is whether we have the ability to be in competition on, let’s say, supply-managed products — dairy, for instance. You might be aware that Sanyuan out of China invested in Avalon organic dairy, purchasing it here about two years ago.

I guess what I’m really asking about…. Has the ministry — with this early indication and the increase in a supply of things like cherries, blueberries, peppers into Japan — looked at helping to grow critical mass in major industries here and being able to help expand? And if there is a program, what is that, and how much would be provided?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. As I think the member will know, we, within the ministry, have a lot of programs that support the international marketing of our products. We’ve discussed the catalogue. We have our trade representatives. We have identified key trade shows that we attend as a province, pushing our best goods that we produce. We attend a lot of trade shows in a lot of areas of the world.

I think what the member was asking was: what are we doing and what are we spending on trying to help these businesses get up and go and get out in those markets?

I can tell you that one of the greatest things — which is in our platform — is being involved with the Food Innovation Centre. We were one of the only provinces that hasn’t had a food innovation centre. These are really incubators for people to bring in ideas for products, to bring in primary products and to create products that we can market domestically and internationally.

[4:10 p.m.]

These food innovation centres are able to walk people through — from the start, right through to the finish. That would include looking at specific packaging that’s accepted overseas and different types of varieties that will last while they get to international markets. There are opportunities within these food innovation centres to not only support our own innovators but also to attract R-and-D money from other countries, other jurisdictions.

We’ve spent a lot of our R-and-D money in food innovation centres in other provinces, so we’re looking to capture that money back in our province and have cutting-edge equipment and technology here that would attract other countries. But really, the whole idea is to have food innovation centres and food hubs around the province that support getting products to market.

B. Stewart: One of the things that I think is pretty obvious when you go around some of the different sectors within the agricultural industry is that many of them are aging out. We’re not doing enough to bring young people into agriculture, and I think that some of that may be addressed by your food innovation centres, provided that we show people that there is this opportunity.

On the flip side of that, I’ve met with companies that, frankly, have been propositioned for investment to go on a scale that I don’t think British Columbia really sees itself in, trying to provide for a market of, well, literally hundreds of millions of people, not just the size of the particular market here. I guess I’d be interested to know the budget that we have for these food innovation centres and maybe how that can help to grow what I think is already well established.

Take dairy, for instance, okay? There was a good example with Vitalus in the Lower Mainland, with an opportunity to do infant baby formula. Of course that takes a number of ingredients — powdered milk, as well as the palm oil to blend in — and agreement from the CDC, I think it is, the Canadian Dairy Commission. The British Columbian or Canadian brand is so powerful and so important, but the size and the magnitude is like in the hundreds of millions of dollars for this type of operation.

Anyways, those types of operations are there, but it’s not really getting to the primary producers that could benefit from this, not necessarily. I mean, we’re looking at the U.S. and the market, and we know that they’re talking about the trade issues, etc.

The innovation centres. Is that going to address these types of people that are sitting there — young people in a lot of cases? Is it a case that we’re going to bring them out of universities or colleges and bring them up and then have capital, or if we help them find capital, to be able to take advantage of these things, not just a kind of market gardening?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I love this topic, because I think that the member and I are on the same page with the opportunities that are presenting themselves here in the province.

[4:15 p.m.]

As far as the funding for food innovation centres, we have just under $3 million over three years going to UBC to make sure that they have the equipment that they need within their centre. Then we’ve got an idea for regional food hubs, smaller-scale food innovation centres around the province and throughout rural B.C. We have almost $6 million going towards those food hubs.

This is just the beginning. We’re not rolling it out all at once. We’re going to be growing as we see what’s needed.

The idea of the food innovation centres and the opportunities…. The whole mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture is grow, feed and buy. Grow B.C. has a lot of focus on getting new and young farmers onto the land. It’s everything to do with the land base. We have a lot of land in the province that is in the ALR but is not in production. We’re trying to match the land with new farmers that want to be doing what they’re doing.

Once you’ve grown those primary goods, though, I think most of us understand that value-added is where it’s at as far as expanding your businesses. That’s where Feed B.C. comes in. The innovation centre falls under Feed B.C. We also have a policy direction around supplying our hospitals and long-term care facilities with more B.C.-grown-and-processed goods. That’s an opportunity for institutional processing to be established, which we don’t have much of here now.

Then, of course, Buy B.C. to finish it off, which is to get it out into our own province, across Canada and around the world. It’s a three-part platform that I think hits all the same marks that the member was talking about.

Just as a point of interest, the Vitalus company has done amazing work. I’m going out there to help them to cut the ribbon in the next couple of weeks.

B. Stewart: I promised that I was going to keep it brief and short. I’m going to limit my question to a couple of other things. I don’t want to repeat what other members may have asked you about.

I know that one of the areas where we lack critical mass, especially after the wildfire season we’ve had in the Cariboo, has been in the cattle industry. I think that there’s no reason why we have to be subservient to other provinces, which will remain nameless, in terms of the size of the herd and the opportunities — processing and some of those things. I think that because there are limitations in terms of the size of the herd here, and the critical mass, that’s one of those missed opportunities.

The second one — and I know that you have supported it in the past — is the British Columbia Seafood Expo. I’ve personally attended it a couple of times with buyers from around Asia — well, actually, around the globe, I would say. I know that there’s a lot of effort that goes into Boston and other places like that. However, I just want to make certain that….

The things that are limiting factors in terms of the immense opportunities, obviously, would be tenures, which I know is FLNRO. However, I think that the opportunities with the seafood and shellfish producers are certainly working hand in hand. They create incredibly good jobs in terms of First Nations and coastal communities.

I guess, really, one of the things that I look at when it comes to critical mass…. A lot of the producers that we have here are almost overwhelmed by the interest in that. I think that the food innovation centre is a start, but I think that on core products that….

The beef industry and the cattlemen have for a long time wanted to expand their herd and be able to have an export-ready facility, which I know that they have talked about and done an extensive amount of research on. And the fish industry, which actually really needs to have a partner…. What I would think is that it would be great if the minister and her ministry would champion those two areas. I think that we’d see significant benefits both on the coast and in the Cariboo.

I guess, really, to my question, which is: is there an opportunity — or is the ministry willing to look deeper at some of those industries — to try to provide more targeted, specific areas where we can grow things that I mentioned — dairy, beef, seafood?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Well, the member said he’s hoping that we can. I can tell the member that help is on the way, because we absolutely are going to support those things.

I’m not sure if the member has…. Well, the member is quite new here, again, so he might not have heard me go on about my support and interest in the Prince George meat processing facility. This will allow our B.C. Cattlemen’s Association…. They’re looking at a co-op model to grow their herds and have the processing done in our province, in Prince George, which would allow them to supply our domestic market and also open up opportunities for our export markets. That is something that I’m very keen on.

As far as looking at supply management and the critical mass and how we support them, I know that supply management is very keen on looking at new value-added products as well. We’re in conversations with the dairy industry and others regarding how you create a value-added product in a supply management world. They’re excited about that. I’ve been excited about it for years, so I’m glad that we’re at this point.

As far as the Boston Seafood Expo, I haven’t been there, but it sounds like it’s fantastic. I’m not sure I’m going to be able to go this year, but I’m planning on it next year. We will have ministry staff there, of course.

I really like your point about how do we grow our seafood industry. One of the things that I have had a lot of pleasure learning about over the last while is the shellfish industry and that we’re only at 25 percent of production with the shellfish industry. A lot of that has to do with the availability of processing that shellfish. Focusing on the processing side will allow us to grow that industry to what it could be.

The thing is, with our platform of grow, feed and buy, it’s like building a house. If you don’t have the policies that support the actual primary growing, if you don’t have the land base, you can’t really have the processing sector and you really can’t have the marketing sector. It’s got to have a solid foundation. We’re trying to make sure that we get our land into production in a way that it hasn’t been before, which will lead to more processing opportunities, which will lead to more marketing opportunities.

The Chair: We’re going to take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:22 p.m. to 4:31 p.m.

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

I. Paton: I’m going to try and wrap up here by 5:15 or 5:30. I haven’t had a chance to do too awfully much, but I’ve had lots of help from lots of MLAs that have helped me out here today.

This may come as a complete shock to you, but as the Ag critic and as the B.C. Liberal Party, we’re certainly not too happy about the employer health tax when it comes to agriculture.

As we know, farmers are price-takers. Farmers have a very difficult time moving the value of their sold goods up with everything else that goes up. The cost of trucking goes up. The cost of labour goes up. The cost of corrugated boxes goes up. Everything goes up, but usually the farmer…. The price he’s getting for his milk, his peppers or his potatoes basically stays about the same.

The greenhouse industry has a great number of employees, probably the biggest in Delta by far. I’d just like to quote, from Westcoast Vegetables in Ladner, my friend Ray and his brother Ron. “Our labour contractors will have payrolls of more than $1.5 million per year. Therefore the contractors will charge an extra 1.9 percent to cover this. For our business, this new tax is almost $100,000 per year and will only go up as wages go up each year. Our farm is 53 acres of greenhouses, and we have an approximate payroll of just over $4.9 million per year. Based on this, I estimate that any greenhouse over approximately 15 acres in size will exceed the payroll limit of $1.5 million. This would be almost every vegetable greenhouse operation in the Fraser Valley.”

To sum up, Westcoast Vegetables in Ladner…. Just to add to this, with the costs of doing business, the increases for 2018: the carbon tax increase, over and above the 80 percent rebate, will be $14,000. The employers health tax will be $96,000, and the uplift in minimum wage will cost them over $450,000. His estimated math is $565,000 of added fees in 2018 alone, coming up for Westcoast Vegetables.

I’m quoting from Ron: “We have seen slight decreases year after year on our prices due to increased competition from Mexico and California. We have also seen costs of our packaging corrugate and greenhouse supplies increasing due to exchange rate, resin costs, etc. Unfortunately, we are unable to pass on these cost increases to our customers. It is no wonder that vegetable greenhouses are switching to marijuana.”

[4:35 p.m.]

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture: could the minister tell me how many B.C. farms will be impacted by this payroll tax? Has there been any assessment done on this?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I know that it’s a concern, so I’m just trying to assess the effects of the tax on the agriculture industry. But questions specifically around the tax will have to go through the Ministry of Finance.

I. Paton: Thank you for that answer. I may get the same answer for the next question.

Most farmers in B.C. do not pay MSP for their employees. This will be a new tax. Is there any money in the budget to offset this impact?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes, it’s the same answer. That’ll have to go through the Ministry of Finance.

I. Paton: The greenhouse industry is particularly labour-intensive and will be hit hard by the payroll tax. Will the minister be preparing any targeted relief for the greenhouse industry from this tax hike…? Already been answered. Thank you so much.

Payroll tax is structurally designed to prevent business growth. Can the minister guarantee that the payroll tax will not slow the growth of small producers in agriculture?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, the questions specifically around the tax will have to go through the Ministry of Finance. What I can say is that the mandate that I have is to increase production in the province and bring new and greater opportunities for our farmers in the marketplace, both domestically and internationally. That’s what I am focused on. The Minister of Finance will be able to answer the question the member had.

I. Paton: To the Agriculture Minister: I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm that your government wants to make agriculture as great as it can be in the province. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you, with all due respect. Agriculture is going to be hurt very, very badly by the increase in carbon tax, by the increase in minimum wage and by this employers health tax. I certainly think we should be able to agree on that. I don’t think we’re going in the right direction in agriculture in B.C. with these programs the way they are.

I see this affecting not only the farmers, the actual producers. Think about the payrolls of BCfresh, where all our vegetables go. Think of their payroll, which is well over $1.5 million. Think of the payrolls of Vedder Transport, which picks up and delivers our milk from all our dairy farms. Think of all the processing companies that take in the berries — the strawberries, the blueberries. Ocean Spray — their payroll, at Ocean Spray cranberries, is certainly going to be well over $1.5 million a year.

When the tide comes up, it comes up everywhere in the province, when we speak of agriculture. I believe, Minister, that these three things are certainly going to be hurting agriculture in B.C. and not helping agriculture.

[4:40 p.m.]

One little last question on this employers health tax. To the minister: can you explain how this payroll tax…? Will it reduce the productivity of farms that pay the piece rate, and how will the piece rate be affected by the minimum-wage increase?

Hon. L. Popham: For the tax questions, I will direct the member to the Minister of Finance. I can say that we’re waiting for a report from the Fair Wages Commission that specifically deals with agricultural wages.

I. Paton: Speaking of the Fair Wages Commission, was there anyone from the agriculture industry appointed to the Fair Wages Commission talks?

Hon. L. Popham: No, there was no one specifically from the agriculture community, but there was a reach-out to the agriculture community. Many, many agricultural businesses have given input to the Fair Wages Commission. They decided, because there was so much input, to do a separate report specific to agriculture.

I feel that agriculture was very represented. I know the B.C. Agriculture Council also made a presentation. So I think that there was a fair representation from agriculture.

I. Paton: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

I’d like to now talk a little bit about the AWP, the agriculture wildlife program. Where I live in Delta, we’re on an extremely busy and important flyway for migrating waterfowl heading south. It is probably the most — would you say “popular” for birds? — popular as a stopover resting area, especially in South Surrey, parts of Langley and, of course, Delta, including Westham Island, which is famous for the Canadian Wildlife Service and the Alaksen bird refuge.

A lot of people really don’t understand the foraging ways of ducks, geese and swans in the wintertime when they come into farmers’ fields. When you’re a dairy farmer or a hay farmer that relies on very expensive grass seed that you plant each year…. People don’t believe it when you tell them: their favourite food is grass. You’ll plant a beautiful field of grass in the spring. You’ll get a nice crop off in the summer. Through the winter, the fields fill with widgeon, geese and swans. By February, your field is almost black. They’ve pretty much eaten you out of house and home.

As we know, we do have this program which does compensate farmers for forage crops that are eaten by the migrating waterfowl. Can you tell me if the program is still in place? Have we added to the program? Is it still up and running for the upcoming year?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The program is in place, and it’s going to continue. We completely understand how important it is. There’s maybe been a bit of a shift in focus, just from compensation to mitigation. But the program is there, and it’s continuing. I know that the member has used the program as well.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

I. Paton: Thank you for that answer. I have talked recently to farmers on Vancouver Island, of all things. I didn’t even know this. Under the same program, they are extremely affected by elk and deer that go into their fields and do whatever in their fields, in alfalfa fields, even on Vancouver Island. Could you confirm that damage by elk, deer and bears are a part of this program as well?

Hon. L. Popham: The program eligibility for elk, deer and bear on Vancouver Island is so.

I. Paton: I see we have a member of FIRB here, and she’s been waiting patiently for a long time — Kirsten. I know Kirsten is involved with FIRB, and Mr. Les is a fairly good friend of mine.

I think last fall I asked about the new entry program for a poultry industry and for the dairy industry. I’m not sure we knew if it was still in place or not or if it was up and running, but I believe it is up and running.

I’m just wondering if you could give me a bit of an update on both programs — how that’s working out with supply manage, the checkoff system of quota transfers and a percentage of that quota transfer that goes to new entrants. How many new entrants per year are we getting in the dairy industry and the poultry industry with the poultry lotteries?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Getting new entrants into supply management is very important. I can give a bit of an update on where dairy, eggs and chicken are, but this is not going to include numbers. We’re going to get the numbers for the member. We’re going to follow up with those.

With dairy, the new entrant program is being reviewed right now. They’re still consulting with producers. That’s where they are. So there isn’t a new entrant program as of yet, but it will produce a new entrant program at the end of that consultation.

Eggs is also doing a review. They don’t have a new entrant program on the go. They will do new entrants regionally, as needed, lotteries as needed, but there isn’t an active program.

Chicken is not having a review, but they continue to do new entrants as needed regionally as well.

We’ll get the numbers on all of those industries.

Sorry, I actually misspoke. There is a new entrant program with eggs, but they’re doing a review. Right now it’s a lottery, and that’s it.

I. Paton: We’ll move on. Well, no, we won’t move on. We’ll stay on supply management. We all read the media. The United States right now is throwing tariffs on everything from steel to lumber to aluminum. As I think you heard me speak the other night, supply management goes way back into my family and my dairy farming days, and I think it’s important to you, I’m sure, Minister.

My question to the minister is: what could your ministry do — even though this is a federal issue at NAFTA talks — to provide incentive or whatever to our federal government to keep fighting to save our supply management system that we have in Canada that works so wonderfully well?

Hon. L. Popham: It’s a great question. I think that our government has always been very clear in its support for supply management and the value it brings to our economy in British Columbia and across Canada.

[4:55 p.m.]

As trade negotiations happen, we have representation at the table, working with the federal government to make sure that our provincial interests are represented. In July, I’ll be hosting the federal minister here in British Columbia, along with all of the other provincial ministers, and we will be discussing trade as a priority.

I. Paton: Thanks for that response from the minister. We’re getting near the end. I want to just bring up one or two more things.

I know it’s probably not in the purview of the Agriculture Ministry. But to the Minister of Agriculture, we have an area in Delta known as Brunswick Point. It’s been such a controversial piece of absolutely beautiful, class 1 soil, farm property. Again, it is one of the number one stopoff points for ducks, geese and swans. And as we know, it’s been an ongoing battle with that land that was expropriated for the expansion of the Deltaport back in 1969. Most of that expropriated land got sold back to the farm families in Delta, except for the five farm families on Brunswick Point — the Montgomerys, the McKims, the Swensons, the Gilmores, etc.

I’m not expecting a direct answer. It’s more of an ask. Can we continue to work with FLNRO? I believe it’s their department. But we have to somehow save this piece of agricultural land, not let it get into the wrong hands for the wrong purposes of economic development. Somehow put a covenant and have it run by the Nature Trust of B.C. or Ducks Unlimited or somebody. Do you have a comment on that, please, about Brunswick Point?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for bringing this up. I’m very familiar with the piece of property as well. I was very grateful to get a tour of that area from some Delta farmers. It is not in the purview of this ministry, as the member has alluded to. It goes through FLNRO. But my staff are in communication with the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Ministry, and would be very happy to have a meeting with the member to sit down and discuss his personal views on it.

I. Paton: I’m going to bring up just one or two more things.

I have some notes here from the B.C. Agriculture Council. It’s regarding PST for bona fide farmers. I’ll just read out a point by them. “By exempting bona fide farmers from PST, B.C. could significantly increase investment and productivity in the agricultural sector. This would reduce administrative costs, encourage innovation and help young farmers grow their businesses.”

I’m sure we’ll shuffle this to another department, but would there be any interest in taking away the PST for bona fide farmers?

Hon. L. Popham: Because I was a farmer myself, I know the complications of the PST and agriculture. But the member is absolutely correct. It needs to go through the Minister of Finance.

I. Paton: Hon. Chair, we’re just waiting for one other member. He’s on his way. So if we could just take a quick…?

The Chair: This committee stands in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5 p.m. to 5:02 p.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

The Chair: I recognize the member.

I. Paton: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thank you to everyone that participated in the chair over the last day or so, or the last 24 hours, to our Clerks that have helped out. And I certainly thank the Agriculture Ministry and the staff that have been here to answer a lot of questions for us.

I’m gratified that I had so many of my fellow members that wanted to be a part of the Agriculture estimates debate and questioning. I appreciate the minister’s forthright answers that came through and all the help from her staff.

As I said the other evening at a banquet we were at, Minister, you’re extremely energetic and enthusiastic. I’m sure you’re going to do your absolute best to improve and make agriculture great in British Columbia.

However, from my side as the Agriculture critic, I think we have many obstacles to overcome with agriculture in British Columbia for the next three or four years — everything from the cannabis movement on farmland to carbon tax increase, minimum wage increase and the employers payroll tax. These are going to be challenges for all of our farming community. I certainly hope that we can come to some agreements and work with our farming community throughout B.C. and try and solve some of these issues and make life and profitability as good as we can for farming in British Columbia. Thank you.

Hon. L. Popham: I also would like to thank my staff who supported me. I would like to thank the opposition and everybody who came in and represented their regions and their interests within Agriculture.

I’d like to thank my critic for his passion around agriculture as well. I have always believed that an Agriculture Minister is made better by a good critic, and I think the critic is doing a great job. So with that, I think we’ll wrap it up.

Vote 12: ministry operations, $75,359,000 — approved.

Vote 13: Agricultural Land Commission, $4,584,000 — approved.

The Chair: The committee will now recess until an additional ministry has been called for debate.

The committee recessed from 5:05 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $6,302,620,000.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll just make a brief opening statement before the opposition critic has an opportunity to ask questions.

Budget 2018 is a very exciting document for many reasons. A broad agenda of affordability for families in British Columbia. Record investments in affordable housing and child care. I’ll have a bit to say about how that links to the K-to-12 ministry maybe in a moment and anticipate questions in that regard.

We’re in a very good place, having just been in estimates not too many months ago, debating the budget update of 2017-2018.

Today, we can report that in British Columbia, we have the lowest teacher-per-pupil ratios in 30 years in the province of British Columbia. Record hiring of teachers in every part of British Columbia, 600 new education assistants in B.C. schools, and the lowest ratio of adults in the school system, if you will, to kids in learning environments in every part of British Columbia.

That’s critically important to address some of the disappearing choices and pluralism we might have seen in our system in recent years. It’s critically important to school districts in terms of their plans for student success.

The budget before the House today features the largest capital investment in B.C. school construction in generations — $1.8 billion over the next three years.

Also, this budget before us has record levels of operating funding for school districts. It features and funds a long-awaited K-to-12 funding review in the province of British Columbia, something that school trustee organizations and other advocates for public education have been asking for from the province for years — in fact, going all the way back to 2002, when the current funding system was imposed at that time.

Our ministry is focused, with our education partners, on an agenda of student success. We’ve put the challenge out to our 60 school districts right across British Columbia to work together on boosting student outcomes and achievement. We have continued in this budget the work on curriculum change, focusing on grades 10 to 12, which is very exciting and also challenging in terms of how we gear up in every part of the province to manage that.

I mentioned earlier that there is a $1 billion investment in early childhood education in this budget. While that’s not a feature of the estimates today, I think it’s worth mentioning that when we focus on an agenda of student success, one of the things we want to do and make an investment on — and track this investment over time — is reducing student vulnerabilities for kids coming into the school system for the first time, in kindergarten.

We have something in the education system called the early development index, where kindergarten teachers assess kids and look at them on a range of indicators of how vulnerable or how ready to learn they are in the school system. Unfortunately, far too many kids are deemed by professional teachers not to be adequately ready to learn. That puts them at a disadvantage for student success right at the outset.

The investment that we make in early childhood education is indeed about affordability for families. It’s indeed about responding to the calls from business organizations and chambers of commerce that want to have a transition of their employees to come back into the workforce and retain skilled personnel. But it’s also about driving the agenda around success and boosting student outcomes. So that, I think, is a critically important feature of this budget.

There’s an additional $9 million for this ministry in this year on the child-care piece that relates to the early learning framework that is being revised by the ministry currently.

[5:20 p.m.]

Other areas, and I’m sure the opposition members will want to inquire about this — an emphasis on Indigenous education. That’s one of the areas where our government has focused considerable resources, energy and attention and put the challenge out to our education partners on how we can make improvements that will benefit Indigenous students and our province over the long term.

We’ve also been working with the Representative for Children and Youth, who delivered a report, not too long ago, on children in the care of the ministry. The government, in its last budget update, abolished tuition fees for children in the care of the ministry as they become adults — to be able to transition to post-secondary education and be successful adults and contributors to the economy in our society.

We need to graduate more kids in the care of the ministry to be able to take advantage of that program. I’m happy to say that interest in that program has already increased by 30 percent. We know that if it’s done right, we can significantly help the most vulnerable student population in our school system.

We’ll continue this year to focus on inclusive, welcoming schools — things like SOGI 123. I’m happy to say today that all 60 school districts in British Columbia have adopted policies that the ministry has helped to develop. Anti-bullying initiatives will also be a feature of promoting safer schools that promote a culture of respect among students and peers.

There’s also going to be an emphasis, in 2018 and beyond, on improving student mental health. We’ll have more to say about that, perhaps, outside of the estimates process, but I can also answer questions about it. We have, though, begun to engage all 60 school districts on how we can help address the issues around student anxiety and improve coordination with other agencies, ministries and non-profit organizations in the community to have a better student mental health supply of services in our communities.

We have restored the trustee voice and representation at the B.C. Public School Employers Association, which I think is critically important, as we are in the pre-bargaining phase for 2019. It’s something that was called for and well received by the B.C. School Trustees Association. That also has funding attached to it in this budget.

I know the members will have specific questions. I won’t break down the capital budget right now, but I am pleased that, in addition to the $1.8 billion that I mentioned as a global figure that has many capital projects within it, there are a couple of persistent things that I can remember, back to my time as critic, inquiring of the government of the day about, where I’m happy to say that the first funding increases are included in this budget.

One of those is the annual facilities grant program, which will help address some of the deferred maintenance in our school system. We have seen the first increase to the AFG program since 2004-2005 in Budget 2018.

Also, some more money in there for school districts wanting to replace their bus fleets. The bus replacement program has seen a significant increase that may, at first glance, not be part of the line item and the ministry individual votes in this budget, but it is included there. It’s a response to listening to school districts directly.

With that, I will thank the critic. I know he’s availed himself of a briefing from the Ministry of Education, and I look forward to his questions.

D. Davies: Thank you to the minister and staff that will be participating in these estimates over the next couple weeks…. That’s a joke.

I also want to take a moment just to thank my staff as well — my research staff and everybody that is helping us out to prepare, help me be a better critic and make sure that we are upholding our job as the Education critic, to make sure that we are holding the government to account.

Myself, as a former teacher in our education system, I’m honoured that we have such an incredible education system in our province — in fact, one of the best in the world. Many other jurisdictions around the world look at our province and how we deliver education in this province.

[5:25 p.m.]

I want to take the opportunity to thank all the teachers out there and our education assistants, principals and school trustees around this province that are working so hard for all of us to make sure that we are continuing to deliver an incredible education system to our children.

With that being said, I want to thank the staff for the briefing yesterday morning. It seems like it was a little while ago, but it was only yesterday morning.

Just a small little switch where I’m just going to start with some questions around the rural education report. I’m a little confused around the rural education report. I know I asked this question in the estimates in the fall. I was at a BCSTA conference in Prince George, and I know that the question came up as well. There seems to be a little confusion around this report and the report that’s floating out there.

First of all, it sounds like yesterday the minister had mentioned in a media interview that the report wasn’t ever completed. But then I was just reading in the Penticton newspaper that, indeed, it sounds like the report could have been completed and is possibly being distributed in pieces. If the minister…. If I could maybe get kind of where you are with releasing this report.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the critic for the question. I’m happy to report that there is a large number of documents, including a discussion paper that outlines the parameters of the K-to-12 comprehensive education review that the province is doing right now. There are dozens of documents, including the report that he references, that are on the ministry website.

D. Davies: Is the entire report that was completed by the previous government on the website? I’m not sure if I heard that.

Hon. R. Fleming: The document that the member is asking about is posted in the form that it was left by the previous government to the current government. It was not released prior to the writ period in April. It was not released in June, when British Columbia had a different government. It is released now.

D. Davies: I’m a little confused regarding the release of the document. In fact, it was released while there was still a serving government. It was actually mailed and submitted to government at 7:40 p.m. on June 27 — in fact, 48 hours prior to government falling due to the non-confidence vote. Will the minister, then, confirm that this report was completed and submitted during a term of government and that you do in fact possess the completed report with recommendations?

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll let the critic recount those halcyon days — better than I could. I do know that the Minister of Education never released that report, and it is available now on the ministry website.

D. Davies: Okay. Just to confirm again to make sure that we have this completely right, the report that was done by the former government, in its entirety, with all the lead-up as it was given to this government, has been fully released and is now on the government website.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll just take a moment before answering the member’s question to introduce the staff I have around me. I neglected to do that earlier. To my right is Deputy Minister Scott MacDonald, and to my left is Assistant Deputy Minister Reg Bawa. Behind me, now joining us, is Kim Horn, who’s the executive director of resourcing services in the ministry.

[5:30 p.m.]

The question, I think, was about the report in its entirety being available. It is on the website in its entirety.

D. Davies: Okay, that’s good.

I’m just curious as to why, then…. Since, I believe, about August, when the report was served…. Toward the end of August or early September, the report was first being asked for, and asked for again in estimates — were withholding it — and many requests by the BCSTA and school districts from around the province. Right up until just recently, there seemed to be a refusal to release this document. I’m just wondering why the change. Why did you release now?

Hon. R. Fleming: I think I’ve been consistent with the critic and with the stakeholder groups I’ve spoken with, including the B.C. School Trustees Associations and the various regional sections of that organization, over the last number of weeks and months that that report would not be lost in any way; that we were utilizing the opportunity, and we, in fact, began in October to develop the province’s first comprehensive K-to-12 education funding review in 25 years or more; that we were going to name an independent expert panel to do so, to lead that exercise.

We have now appointed that panel. They’ve begun their work. We’re in phase 2 of what is a very exciting and rare opportunity to have a very deep look at education funding not only in British Columbia, through its long history and recent history; also to compare with other jurisdictions.

The consultations or the engagement that was done with the school trustees and others in that rural exercise of the previous government — I committed and I said consistently that that would inform the panel’s work and also the engagement that is yet to come on a much more robust and comprehensive review that is currently underway.

The independent panel has reviewed that document as well, and they have added a number of documents to the ministry website now to begin to raise the literacy and engagement of all those who will wish to participate in the K-to-12 funding review.

D. Davies: I’m glad that this report has been released, finally. As you kind of said as well, a lot of people put a lot of work into this — a lot of time, a lot of commitment. I’m certainly happy to see that report released.

Moving along, then. You kind of already gave a good segue onto the funding formula review. I know that it’s been talked about for some time now.

One question around…. We initially saw an earlier draft of the principles that were underwriting this review. One of the terms that was initially in the draft was that this would be a “fiscally responsible” piece, and that term has been dropped out of the principles, leading up to the review. I’m just wondering. Is there a plan to have this “fiscally responsible,” or is that being removed for some reason?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: He’s correct. There are six principles that were co-developed with the B.C. School Trustees Association to sort of give a scope and highlight the key features of the K-to-12 funding review. We thought, as co-governors of our education system, that it was really important to co-develop this set of principles as the first phase of beginning our K-to-12 education funding review.

There are a number of principles that are now in finalized form. He may be quoting a draft, but hopefully, he’s been able to see the final version. If he wants a copy of that, we’re happy to provide that for this set of estimates.

The principles of the funding model are, in no particular order…. Responsive. The funding allocates “available resources among boards of education in consideration of their unique local and provincial operational requirements.”

Equitable. It facilitates “access to comparable levels of educational services.” So the principle that in a school in one part of the province, a student can expect and receive the same quality of education as another student in a different part of the province.

Stable and predictable funding is another guiding principle in this exercise.

Another principle is flexibility — something that both the ministry and school trustees felt was important to highlight.

Transparency around the funding — to come up with a funding model, however it may be recommended in its final version, that contains the principle of transparency.

Finally, and maybe this is where the member’s question relates most directly in terms of language that may have changed or shifted during different drafts and iterations of the set of principles, accountability. The text now reads, and accountable is a principle: “Allocate resources to boards of education in the most efficient manner and ensure that resources provided are being utilized as intended.”

I think there’s a joint shared commitment to the efficient use of tax dollars by both boards of education and the Ministry of Education. The principle of accountability, which will guide the K-to-12 funding review, is where the sentiments or the earlier versions of drafts now reside in terms of an agreed-upon set of language.

D. Davies: The formula panel that we’re talking about. Why are there no trustees on this panel?

Hon. R. Fleming: To the critic, I would just say a few things about his question.

The review will have a very technical focus. There’s no question about that. The panel that we have appointed, which includes school board officials, both superintendents and secretary-treasurers…. People with a public finance background as well as private sector experience were selected for a breadth of experiences and knowledge.

[5:40 p.m.]

There are no elected officials from any level of government on the panel, but trustees play a critically important governance role. I don’t have to tell the critic that. He knows as well as I do what that unique and important function is in communities.

That governance role has been respected from the outset of this process. That’s why trustees were involved in establishing the principles that will guide the exercise. It’s also why trustees will play a critically important role through the various phases of this review.

Every board member will have an opportunity to be involved in one-to-one engagement meetings that are going to be held in every region of the province. As well, the B.C. School Trustees Association’s executive board will be engaged by the expert panel.

These are sessions that will have a sufficient amount of time for submissions to be made, direct presentations and dialogue with the expert panel. The role that trustees will play has been important from the outset and will continue through each phase of the review.

D. Davies: I sit there and, certainly, am well aware of the role that school districts play. Knowing that school districts are the ones that are going to be dealing with the outcomes and having to manage the costs and such, I’m still confused at why….

We talk about this as a technical focus, but it’s much more than a technical focus. At the end of the day, the results of this panel — the conclusions of it and the recommendations of it — are going to be the ones that are directly affecting school districts.

I’m still a little bit bewildered why there would not be, first of all, school trustees, but even school teachers on it — who are going to be the front-line people working and delivering the end result of this. Again, I didn’t really hear a specific reason why trustees, and even teachers, are not on this panel.

Hon. R. Fleming: I guess what I would say in response to the member is that the trustee voice is going to be throughout this process. It has been involved from the outset.

The majority of the panel are people who work in the school board sector; four out of seven are currently employed by school districts. We’ve got superintendents, who, of course, report to elected trustees, as well as secretary-treasurers. So that’s the majority of the panel, and they’re deliberately picked for their skills and expertise and their regional diversity to be participants in this panel.

Trustees, as I mentioned, will be engaged directly by the expert panel in a series of regional meetings. They’ll have an opportunity — individually, if they wish — to write submissions with their own experiences as trustees.

With regards to teachers, the B.C. Teachers Federation, in my understanding, has engaged its entire membership, and that, presumably, would include local teachers associations in different parts of British Columbia. They will also be engaged in a one-to-one meeting with the panel later on in the process.

[5:45 p.m.]

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister.

The BCSTA had at one point directly requested to sit on this panel. Obviously, their request was denied. What were they told?

Hon. R. Fleming: What I would say is that throughout this process and contemplating what kind of review model we should have, we wanted to have a high degree of independence from elected politicians at the provincial level, and we wanted a direct relationship with the school board sector, including elected officials there. But we wanted to have a panel that were picked not as delegates of different stakeholder interest groups but people who were picked based on their background. This is a very technical exercise. It’s going to take a lot of back-of-house time, if you will, for both the chair and individual panel members.

What we did do with trustees and what I told them we would do is have them co-design the review, which they’ve done. They’ve drafted the parameters of the set of principles. Those have been adopted. Those are now guiding the funding review. Also, that the regional meetings would be about direct engagement that will capture the experiences, views and interests of elected trustees in every community in British Columbia. The regional meetings have been designed and actually are funded. There is some travel funding there for trustees to be able to participate in the funding review’s regional engagement.

Trustees are probably going to provide — I can’t put it in percentage terms — the most significant amount of input into this exercise, as one would expect. This is going to be a process very much geared towards tapping into that knowledge and expertise, engaging them, getting their views. Not all trustees think alike. They represent different regions and different sets of challenges, historically, in British Columbia. We want to get that range of diverse views on what the review should seek to both acknowledge and make recommendations about.

I think we have achieved the right kind of balance. We’ve got excellent people who enjoy a high professional reputation, both from the school sector and, more broadly, in the public sector and the public realm to sit on this panel and to chair it.

D. Davies: I would honestly hardly call the trustees a special interest group, as they are playing a large role in this. Again — I’m staying on this — why would the minister want to limit the BCSTA’s involvement to just helping draft the principles that are leading into this, as opposed to direct involvement in developing the final outcome? It seems like there’s a disconnect.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’d ask the member to maybe listen more carefully or go back and review Hansard. I did not call trustees special interests. I called them stakeholders, which they’re called throughout the documents and even the service plan of our government. Trustees call themselves stakeholders in the education system. I think, respectfully, I show the same respect for elected trustees as I know that member does.

Let me just reiterate the point that I tried to make him understand earlier, or persuade him, that this process is about school trustees. This is about elected leaders and their experience. That’s why they developed the entire scope and set of principles that will guide the exercise. That’s a high degree of control and influence over the province’s first review of K-to-12 funding in 25 years.

[5:50 p.m.]

Now, if you want to contrast that with something that happened in 2002, when the current funding model was not consulted upon, not co-devised or co-developed by school trustees but imposed on the entire education sector, I’d ask him to look at the record of his own government, when that model was brought in, in 2002, which led to the closure of hundreds of schools in rural communities like the one he represents — millions of dollars of cuts. It set us on a road of court disputes and fights with teachers that lasted 16 years.

A lot of that flowed out of the so-called funding review that was done by that government in 2002. We’re doing this on an entirely different footing, one that respects trustees, puts them at the core of developing this process and at the heart of all the consultation and engagement that is going to go on for several months to capture the ideas, thoughts, tensions and experiences of school trustees.

D. Davies: I look forward to the minister talking about what his government is going to do moving forward into Education through this estimates period.

Having examined the principles underwriting the funding formula review…. And again, I appreciate the trustees and the role they play in developing these principles. Looking at these principles, the six principles that were read off earlier by yourself, it seems like these might have the potential, as we move forward, to be promising all things to all people.

Can the minister tell us if the panel is considering eliminating student funding all together, or will a hybrid funding model be developed moving forward? This is interesting, as I believe that there was some discussion today in the media from the Surrey school district as well.

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a difficult question to answer, in the sense that he’s asking me — I think, essentially — whether there’s a preordained outcome to this process. I can tell him that there absolutely is not. There is a high degree of independence. There is a significant amount of influence and control by experienced people who come from the school board sector, our co-governors in the education model.

We’ve arrived, I believe, at the right set of principles, but we don’t know what the funding model will look like at the end of the day. I can’t speculate or say. What I do know is that the principles that we’ve outlined, and I think they’re the right ones, are going to inform recommendations around a new model.

There are lots of jurisdictions around the world that have reviewed their funding models in recent years. We’re doing comparisons around that. We’re looking at other provincial jurisdictions as well. I think this is going to be an incredible exercise in terms of the kinds of information that is gathered and the kinds of submissions that we receive — both within the province and outside of the province.

By the way, anybody who wishes to, can participate and make a submission in the process. It’s not just the organized stakeholder engagements that we have scheduled and the regional engagements. It will be open to anyone.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’ll leave it there. But I think that the principles are the most important part of the exercise right now. We’ve arrived, I believe, at the right set of principles that will inform a funding model that will better serve British Columbia in the years ahead.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for that. I certainly agree that the principles are a good piece of guiding this process.

That said, can the minister say if there is a leaning or a thought toward the end of this process that there will be some sort of a formula component? Or is it wide open, at the end of the day, with how this funding is going to be looked at in the school districts?

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, I think my answer to the previous question…. I can’t prejudge what the expert panel is going to recommend, but I would go back and maybe just discuss briefly, if this is helpful, the principles.

The concerns raised by Surrey or anyone else, I think, are covered by the principles. When you look at the first principle around being responsive, it means that the expert panel is going to have to look at how we look at the different set of challenges for a fast-growing district like Surrey, where they find themselves currently way behind the eight ball in terms of school construction, for example, under the current model. They’ve got 7,000 kids in portables.

How do we make sure that the province can more responsively work with a district like that — as well as rural and remote districts that represent students where there are certain cost pressures, of necessity, in very small schools with a certain amount of overhead? Or in remote communities or in rural communities, where there is, for example, a different set of transportation challenges or, again, a different set of costs based on the setting of that district?

We have to have a model that’s responsive. That’s in the set of principles. You can go through the list in terms of equity. We put a premium, I think, on having an equitable education system in British Columbia. It’s why we made some changes as far back as 1990 in terms of how education is funded in this province. An equitable formula, again, is something that I think anybody looking at the exercise and what the panel will be asked to consider will consider a very good guiding principle.

Stable and predictable, I think, is important. We’ve certainly heard that from school districts over the last number of years. They can’t be asked to absorb cuts or plan for a school closure based on sudden policy changes. They want to have something that’s stable and predictable so they can look at, for example, their enrolment situation and plan accordingly into the future.

Flexibility is important. Different districts have different local priorities, where they want to be able to use district teaching resources, for example, in a way where they have some autonomy and control and flexibility.

Transparency. I know that the member will agree that transparency, in terms of being able to understand how the funding formula works, that it’s not overly complicated but is something that can be…. Again, going back to predictable. Transparency and predictability are critically important principles.

[6:00 p.m.]

Accountability, I think, finally, is the one around fiscal responsibility. That is important as well. We have a record number of resources going into the school system now. Further investment is happening over the next three years in this budget. But always, school districts, even in times when there are expanding resources in their districts, have to be absolutely accountable for how that money is spent.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

Going back to, I guess, Surrey, being one of our largest school districts in the province — and Vancouver and such…. Can you give any guarantees that these school districts will not be facing any funding cuts as a result of whatever comes out at the end from this panel?

Hon. R. Fleming: I think we might be getting into a line of questioning that’s maybe not very productive. As I’ve said earlier, you can’t prejudge what the review is going to look like. There is no outcome that’s predetermined here.

We have decided to work very closely with our co-governors in the education system to have an expert panel, which has a majority of people who come directly from and are employed in the sector, to devise a better funding formula model. We can go through the set of challenges that are well known, I think — to that member as well — over the last 15 years. Those need to be addressed by a better funding model.

We also need to look at some of the new conditions in British Columbia that are different. We have enrolment growth predicted annually for the next number of years — more than a decade, I should say. We have a different situation in terms of contemporary pedagogy, learning techniques and the kind of curriculum that we have now in British Columbia.

This is really an exercise in seeing how we can align what we know is happening now and will continue to happen in the future with a better funding model. It’s not about cuts at all. It’s about sustainable, predictable resourcing for the education system of British Columbia.

I like our record so far. We’ve added hundreds of millions of new dollars into the education system, in Surrey, in Vancouver and every district in the province — record levels of funding both on the capital on the operating side. We’re going into this funding review with all of that record level of funding as momentum, into assessing where we are now, where we’ve been and where we need to go in terms of 21st-century education in British Columbia.

D. Davies: I’m sorry the minister doesn’t like my line of questioning, but these are important questions. I know there are many people in my riding and throughout school districts around the province that are interested in these questions.

[S. Chandra-Herbert in the chair.]

You kind of tied it into leaving it open. You don’t want to prejudge what the end result of this formula is. To what extent, then, do you, as the Minister of Education, have to veto any of these recommendations? Do you have no goes? Is there something in the mechanism that allows you to do that?

[6:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Chair. There are two welcomes I should say here, to you and your son. Lovely to see baby Dev. Very distracting, I might add, though, to the Education Minister.

The Chair: He’ll only be here for a minute.

Hon. R. Fleming: This could make world peace break out here in estimates.

Let me just try and answer the member’s question simply, to start with. Then, if he wants to get into more details, that’s his prerogative.

I think that this review is in many ways no different than any other review where government would consult broadly and, perhaps, as we are in this case, use an expert panel, do a series of engagements, ask them to make recommendations. It gets reported back to government. Government makes decisions as a cabinet and through Treasury Board and all those sorts of things. I don’t think it’s any different than those sorts of other exercises that the member could easily cite as examples.

What I will do, though, as the Minister of Education, is very eagerly await those recommendations and then compare them back to the set of principles that we agreed upon. The lens I will be looking at, in terms of discussing and reviewing any recommendations that come from the expert panel, and also discussing it with those who participated in the process, is around this set of six principles. Is it responsive? Is it equitable? Is stable and predictable funding a key component of what is recommended to government? Is it flexible? Is it transparent? And finally, is it accountable?

I think that’s my answer to the member in terms of how the recommendations may influence government moving forward once we receive them.

D. Davies: That kind of answered some of my question. At the end of the day, we talked about autonomy of the panel and recommendations coming back to you and/or cabinet. You don’t want to prejudge, yet at the same time, it sounds like you’re saying that recommendations coming out will be, at the end of the day, by the ministry and cabinet. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Fleming: The panel makes recommendations. The government will consider them and act upon them, and the government makes the budget. I think that’s how this historic review…. Again, it’s the first time in 25 years we’ve done something like this, but it’s not unlike other reviews we’ve done in different ministries or Crown corporations or agencies. That’s how it will influence, potentially, any change in the funding model.

As I said earlier, the thing I’ll be looking at in the early days of receiving those recommendations, as the minister, before it’s considered by government, is whether those recommendations meet the parameters and the set of principles that we’ve co-developed with the boards of education through the B.C. School Trustees Association.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for the response.

Moving on now to some questions around capital. There was money that the former government had allocated to projects for this year. Since the transition of government, it seems that this has been underspent by $121 million. Can the ministry confirm this?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m glad the member asked this question. We would like to have spent every single capital dollar available in this current fiscal year, but as the member, I think, knows, the way that capital dollars get booked is when construction commences. So it’s not in the announcements or the approval stage or even the procurement stage.

Our government has had 2½ fiscal quarters in office. We expected to find a lot more projects that had gone from the announcement stage into something that was significantly along in the business development case, which would then be able to begin construction this year.

We have announced a record number of projects since Labour Day or so, close to $300 million in projects and growing — we’re still a few weeks away from the end of the fiscal year — in order to have, over the next three years of this capital budget, more projects in the ground, with hard construction costs and actual dollars being spent.

There is a long record of underspending in the last 15, 16 years of capital budgeting. We are aiming to spend 100 percent of what is in the capital budget. We were not able to do that in our first year in office as a new government because there simply wasn’t the kind of work done to be able to back up groundbreaking announcements and the spending of capital dollars on projects.

We’re working on that right now. That’s why you will see in this three-year capital budget a significant ramping up, an increase in the capital budget. Years 2 and 3 are simply the largest single years of school construction budgets we’ve seen in the history of the province. So we’re getting to that stage. In this year, we weren’t able to spend all the dollars because the previous government left us with a number of projects that weren’t construction-ready.

[6:15 p.m.]

D. Davies: I’m going to come back to that here in a little bit.

Formerly there was a performance measure that was used as a key metric to move its projects forward — for instance, 86 percent for 2016-17, a 90 percent target for ’17-18, a 92 percent target for 2018-19, and so on, and so forth — from the capital project performance. Looking in the budget for this year, that’s been removed. Can you clarify why?

Hon. R. Fleming: There have been some changes in the service plan, mainly related to gearing the set of measurables and accountabilities, for the ministry and for school districts, around student success. He’ll have noticed that student outcomes are featured more prominently in the service plan.

In terms of an indicator around projects being on time and on budget, it’s not that we don’t track that any more. I think it’s worth mentioning that when we make funding announcements and when we advance funding to school districts…. The boilerplate agreement on capital projects with school districts is that we transfer funds and we transfer risk for having a project be on time and on budget.

On any cost overruns, typically — by typically, I mean in every case that I’m aware of, but I could stand corrected — those cost overruns are on the local school district. They’re the ones, ultimately, that have the incentive and hold themselves to account for making sure that projects are delivered on time and on budget.

D. Davies: Staying back with the capital project performance rates, I know that you and the ministry have talked about expediting these capital projects. I just find it interesting that this would be taken out of the budget — having these targets for everyone to see, to reference and to look forward to. Does the minister have any targeted performance rates that he can share today for capital projects to meet their approved schedule and budget through 2020? What are those rates?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I think what we spend a lot of time doing, in our very brief amount of time as a government, is working on accelerating capital projects. We’re very interested in working with school districts on accountability results.

In the last full year — just to look at the seismic mitigation program, for example — 2016-17, the previous government approved just nine projects. In the last five months since Labour Day, as government, we’ve already approved 13, and I would invite the members to stay tuned for some others.

We committed in the last set of estimates to approve 50 seismic projects, to get at the backlog that was left to us by the previous government, over the next two fiscal years. We have worked with a number of districts on ways that we can accelerate construction. We’ve had, in the case of some districts, a gathering of minds in terms of getting municipal officials, school boards and our ministry staff together in the same room to identify barriers that are making the timely completion of projects more difficult.

How do we get permitting done quicker? How do we buy land for new sites for new school construction more quickly? How do we work with city halls to get all of the transportation requirements for a swing-space scenario where a seismic mitigation project is being started? Those are the kinds of things that we’re talking about.

We’ve also funded, fully, project offices — in some of the districts that have the largest amount of capital investments — in the budget that’s before the Legislature right now. Vancouver has a project office fully funded by the provincial government. Surrey has one as well. We’re looking at that model for other districts.

It’s really been about getting expertise on the ground and working with — instead of working apart from — local government. I’m happy to say that mayors and board chairs are very appreciative of that. It seems to be paying off in terms of the results: $292 million worth of new projects were announced since Labour Day, to address the fact that not enough projects were left for us that were in some form of process to become real financial construction costs in the fiscal year. We’re taking care of that as well.

D. Davies: Thanks, Minister. Thanks for pointing out, also, the project offices. Actually, I believe that the project offices were opened by the former government that was prior to the NDP government. The nine projects as well — I believe there were more than that, with one of them being in excess of $100 million. But again, we’re here to talk about moving forward, and what the government now is going to be doing in moving forward to improve education.

[6:25 p.m.]

We kind of got a little bit around the capital project performance. We talked about expediting projects, but it doesn’t sound like there is a commitment to a formalized target that we’re looking at to meet your objectives, to meet the goals. That’s what I’m getting at — if there is a solid number that you’re working toward to show success.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would say to the member that the capital budget itself is the target, the $1.8 billion worth of capital that is allocated there, which, by the way, will be a bigger capital budget when local contributions are also added.

The mandate letter, I would also say, is the target for me as a minister to fulfil. That includes references around and very specific instructions, in fact, around building new schools in all parts of the province; reducing portables, specifically, in parts of British Columbia. I’ve committed — and mentioned to the member, on a number of occasions, and to our school partners — 50 approvals in the next 18 months on seismic projects to get at the backlog. Those are the targets that we’re working with at an accelerated pace in every part of the province.

The member can maybe review the mandate letter, too, if he wants to get into this a little further. I think it’s pretty explicit in terms of the mandate around acceleration, the mandate around creating a capital fund for playgrounds, the mandate around the elimination of portables and building new schools in every part of the province. So that’s the area that maybe is of the most interest to him.

D. Davies: The former ten-year capital plan had assumed a 20 percent cost-sharing with school districts. Has this remained unchanged?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I would say this. Cost-sharing is really done on a case-by-case basis. School districts have different capacities to be able to contribute to projects. In some cases, school districts don’t contribute anything. In some cases, it’s very modest amounts. It really is on a case-by-case basis, as I mentioned. That’s how we’re proceeding, because we’re working with so many different districts that have different financial situations and the ability to contribute or, in some cases, not at all.

D. Davies: Actually, just to go back. I’d missed a note here. You mentioned about the seismic upgrades. I do mention it later, but I wanted to capture it here about setting targets. It kind of all ties in.

The former government had set targets on the seismic upgrades — 2025 for outside of Vancouver and 2030 inside Vancouver. Again, you talk about getting this all done. Do you plan to meet or beat those targets as laid out?

Hon. R. Fleming: I would say a couple things to the critic in this regard. So 2020 was the target that was reiterated so often. Every school in the province would be seismically mitigated. The construction would be complete. That was originally promised in 2005, 2009 and again in 2013 by former Premier Christy Clark. The target that he’s cited most recently is one that was changed relatively recently by his government.

Interestingly enough, and I’ll make this as a general comment, targets are one thing. It’s how well the completion is that’s important to parents and others and staff who have to work in unsafe buildings where the building was promised to be remediated and never was. One of the most colossal missed targets that I can think of is the one that the government put out on the eve of the 2013 election.

[6:35 p.m.]

April 2013, the then government and then Premier promised 45 projects would be completed within three years. We’re now talking in March of 2018, and only 16 out of those 45 projects were ever completed.

We’ve done our best, as I mentioned, to expedite and accelerate a whole bunch of broken promises that were made by the previous government. I think on the seismic project list that was promised all the way back in 2013, this is where we’re working the hardest. We’re actually, in 2018 and years forward, trying to get caught up on projects that the previous government promised but never even began, let alone completed. That’s the bulk of our work right now, or a significant component of it.

I could go through the list of the ones that were promised by the previous Premier and the previous government that didn’t even make it into the planning stage, if you would like. But I think the most important thing, if we’re going to have a discussion about targets, is to look at the history of missed targets and to look at the kinds of targets that we’re setting, going forward, with the different school districts.

It’s really about changing processes, getting everyone bought into an acceleration agenda and working with local government. I think it’s a critically important partner in being able to do that.

Again, I would say to him that we are aiming to do 50 approvals on the seismic mitigation program in the next 18 months. We use that as a target because we know it’s doable. We’ve already got significant momentum. We’ve announced more than a dozen of them, and I’d ask him to stay tuned because we’ve got some more in different parts of the province to announce very shortly. But those 50 projects will go a long way to addressing the seismic backlog that we inherited.

D. Davies: I disagree with how your response was on the last one. I mean, we’re talking having targets set — you know, having goals that were being worked toward. But again, we’re looking at now. We’re talking: “We’re going to expedite this.” Well, what does expediting look like? You’ve talked 50 approvals in 18 months. Approvals and having the money and completion — that’s a different thing. What is the time frame that we’re looking at having these completions done? That is what we didn’t get an answer for in September, and it doesn’t sound like we’re getting one now.

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, I want to assure the member that I think what the most important thing is right now — and certainly this is a conversation we’re having with school districts, who agree — is getting as many projects green-lit as possible.

I’ve given him information about how useless the targets that were set by the previous government were when it came to actually delivering projects. The important thing is to deliver projects, and that’s what we’re hearing from school districts. So when I say that we’re committed to 50 approvals for seismic investments in the next 18 months, that means asking the school districts to do the business case, approving it, funding it and getting it done.

It’s not photo ops. It’s not targets being released on the eve of an election or whenever. It’s about getting to approvals and getting projects actually on the ground and done. That’s what the school districts have told us is most important to them, and that’s what we’re working on.

[6:40 p.m.]

D. Davies: Again, I guess we’ll have to see what this looks like as a delivery. We’ll obviously all agree in this room that we do want to see these projects move forward. But when we’re looking at setting the targets, setting goals, I think that it is important to have those. I guess we’ll see what the next 18 months look like as we move forward with these seismic upgrade approvals.

Now, I digress a little bit there, going back to when we just talked a moment ago about the 20 percent cost-sharing with school districts. As an example, Surrey, I believe, was one of those. You had mentioned that it was going to be looked at case by case around the province, which I believe could get a little sloppy.

Is there some sort of formula or some sort of look on reasonable cases that the government is going to be looking at for cost-sharing these capital projects?

Hon. R. Fleming: I would say that we work on a case-by-case basis because that is, practically, how it has to be done. I mentioned earlier that each school district has different capacities to contribute, out of reserve funds, to projects. Some have a very limited capacity; others have a higher capacity. If we want to see projects get built, then I think the best way to proceed is to do it on a case-by-case basis, not to set a policy that’s unattainable or unachievable and has a universal application but doesn’t respect the diversity in different parts of the province and the differing capacity, quite frankly.

We also have to be flexible and responsive in the sense that the school district’s financial situation changes from year to year in terms of when they’ve contributed to a project, whether they have more money to contribute to another project. So that’s why it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis, and that’s why it is done as such.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. Obviously, there have been variances when looking at cost-sharing models. A simple question: is there a list that could be shared of the different funding cost-sharing models that have been done recently?

Hon. R. Fleming: I could pull out some press releases — maybe just from the last few months — on different announcements that we made. It usually mentions what the provincial contribution is and what the local contribution is — if any, if there is a local contribution. As I say, it varies because the capacity of districts varies significantly from district to district. And these are negotiated, in fact, on a case-by-case basis.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Agriculture and report progress on the Ministry of Education and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:45 p.m.