Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 249
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2019
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure to recognize several people from Kamloops, North and South Thompson, representing Domtar here today. Domtar is a very major employer in the Kamloops area, their pulp mill operations. They support about 13 area sawmills with their chip manufacturing of pulp. As well, they have direct and indirect employment numbers of around 1,500 in the Kamloops region.
Today we’re joined by Jean-Claude Allaire, the general manager; Bonny Skene, the regional public affairs manager; Kristin Dangelmaier, the environment manager; Merl Fichtner, fibre procurement manager; Debbie Kirkpatrick, human resources manager; Rene Pellerin, the president of Unifor 10B; Bob Stevens, vice-president of operations for Unifor Local 10B; and Dave Luszcz, vice-president of maintenance for Unifor Local 10B. Will the House please make them all feel welcome.
Hon. D. Eby: Joining us in the House today is a group from the B.C. Notaries. With them today we have Daniel Boisvert, president; Morrie Baillie, vice-president; Akash Sablok, director; and Jacqui Mendes, CEO. There are also 13 other B.C. notaries from all over the province visiting us today.
As well as the notaries, we have retired police chief Doug LePard with us and Dr. Peter German, QC, joining us as well. Both provided great assistance to the government in preparing the most recent analysis on money laundering in the province.
Will the House please make them welcome.
M. Polak: We will be joined shortly — although looking at the gallery and how full it is, I’m not sure where they’re going to put them — by 30 grade 5 students from St. Catherine’s Elementary in my riding. They are joined by their teacher, Samantha Sheppard, and also some adults who are supervising — parents and volunteers. We want to make them warmly welcome, and I hope the House would join me in doing that.
Statements
OKANAGAN MASCOT GAMES
N. Simons: I’d like the House to know about an important fundraiser taking place this weekend in Vernon. It’s the first annual Okanagan Mascot Games, and the Powell River Kings’ very own Rocco the Lion will be there to compete against rival BCHL mascots and others from near and far.
Support the Vernon Vipers’ Sniper and other mascots as they compete in relay races, lip-syncing competitions and even a dance-off in support of the B.C. Children’s Hospital and the Kelowna General Hospital Foundation’s JoeAnna’s House.
Go, Rocco, go.
Introductions by Members
S. Cadieux: Joining us in the gallery, along with the group from the B.C. Notaries, is a local Surrey notary. Gordon Hepner is here, and I would like the House to make him welcome.
Hon. H. Bains: In the House joining us today are dozens of amazing activists from United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1518. They’re here for their annual lobby day. They’re led by their leader, President Kim Novak, and secretary, Patrick Johnson.
By the way, it’s Kim’s birthday as well. So in addition to giving them a warm, warm welcome, let’s wish Kim the happiest birthday today and many, many good ones to come.
L. Throness: I have a couple of delegations today. The village of Harrison Hot Springs — well, not the whole village. I have the mayor and council, Mayor Leo Facio; Coun. Michie Vidal; Ray Hooper; Samantha Piper; and the CAO, Madeline McDonald. Thank you for coming today.
We also have a class of grade 10 students, 24 students from Timothy Christian School, who will be here in a few minutes. They’re accompanied by their principal, Doug Stam, and teachers Daniel Van Brugge, Jody Terpstra and Bill Beeke.
Would the House welcome all my constituents.
Hon. A. Dix: Yesterday I talked about the vigil that’s taking place for ambulance paramedics at the memorial behind the Legislature, and it’s very moving. I encourage members, perhaps, to visit during the lunch-hour. The vigil is from five o’clock yesterday to five o’clock today.
I want to introduce three of the members of the honour guard — including our friend, Lynn Klein, of course. Three members of the honour guard who are with us in the gallery today: Sgt.-Maj. Terry Jessup, who’s from Kamloops; Jackie Cummings, who’s a sergeant with the guard from Victoria; and Sandra Weatherbee, a member from Salmon Arm. I want everyone in the House to make them welcome and everyone in the House to recognize the extraordinary contribution of ambulance paramedics in our province.
S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Maurits Freybe, who’s in the gallery today. He’s a student from Brentwood College in Mill Bay in Mark Wismer’s comparative government and politics class. Maurits is in grade 11. He’s interested in politics. He wants to study politics, philosophy and economics in the U.K. He’s a squash player, downhill skier, cross-country runner.
When I asked him about what he thought the most pressing issues were in the world today, he said three things: climate change, corruption and the health of democracies.
It’s a real pleasure to have Maurits here today. Will the House please make him welcome.
B. Ma: In addition to the introductions made by the Minister of Labour, I’d also like to make special mention to Abby Leung from UFCW, who was instrumental in my campaign, and Kate Milberry from UFCW, who currently serves as an executive in my local riding association.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to introduce the grade 11 global perspectives class from Sutherland Secondary in North Vancouver. They are led by their teachers Jeffrey Aw-Yong, James Nevison, Claudia Panton. I’m going to read only their first names really, really quickly. I’d like to introduce Meena; Rheanne; Quinn; Emma; another Quinn; Amy; David; Kaya; Jose; Graeme; Camille; Frances; Paige; Natalia; Quinn — Quinn is a very popular name in this class; Tara; Suhayl; Maya; Lea; Harnoor; Ghazal; Ana; Hannah; Miranda; April, Jackson; and Amber.
I’d also like to make a special mention to Grade 11 student Nikolas Montecalvo, who sits on my youth leadership council for climate action.
Tributes
PRINCE GEORGE SPRUCE KINGS
S. Bond: History was made in Prince George on Saturday night when the Prince George Spruce Kings continued their winning ways. I know it’s been an epic journey here in the Legislature as they defeated a variety of teams. Prince George now goes on to represent not only British Columbia, but they are now the British Columbia–Alberta champions, having won the Doyle Cup for the first time in franchise history.
I wanted to thank the members of this House, including the Premier, for their good wishes to the Prince George Spruce Kings and especially the member for Vernon-Monashee, whose very sincere congratulations and best wishes were appreciated by the people of Prince George.
Spruce Kings now go on to play in the national championship. I can tell you Prince George is excited, and I hope every member of the House will cheer on these British Columbia champions. Go, Kings, go.
Introductions by Members
G. Kyllo: We’re joined today by a man who is no stranger to this House: Lynn Klein, one of the biggest B.C. ambassadors for the B.C. Ambulance Service. Would the House please give Lynn a very warm welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
MUSTARD SEED DENTAL CLINIC
T. Stone: The Mustard Seed dental clinic is a life-changing space in Kamloops that provides compassionate dental services to low- and no-income adults, our community’s most vulnerable members. This dental clinic changes people’s lives every day.
The simple idea that sums up their mission is this: a confident smile can be life-changing and can break down the social barriers preventing employment and healthy support networks. Someone who changed a lot of lives at this clinic is Dr. Bruce Tucker, the clinic’s primary volunteer dentist, who recently passed away.
Dr. Tucker spent the last six years volunteering nearly half a million dollars worth of billable hours, performing essential dental services for those who had no other avenue to access much-needed dental care — 4,376 dental appointments, to be exact, all volunteered by this generous man with a big heart. Dr. Tucker also contributed thousands of dollars out of pocket for equipment and gave extra time to mentor students and dental residents. He will be sorely missed.
Operating in Kamloops since 1999, the Mustard Seed dental clinic was the first of its kind in B.C. and was championed by a handful of dedicated dental professionals, like Dr. Tucker, who focused on giving back to the community. The clinic has served over 2,600 patients in the last four years alone, ranging from 16 years of age to 100 years of age.
Two weeks ago, the Mustard Seed dental clinic launched its new awareness and recruitment campaign, known as “Give a day, change a life,” in recognition of Dr. Tucker. As the Mustard Seed dental clinic mourns the loss of Dr. Tucker, this campaign is a call to action to all Kamloops dental professionals, urging them to step up and volunteer at the clinic for one day this year. Here’s hoping that lots of these professionals heed the call so that Dr. Tucker’s legacy lives on and many more lives can be changed.
CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH
B. Ma: They’re just acting out. They’re not focused. They’re being difficult. They’re just going through a phase. They’re looking for attention. They’re not applying themselves. Sometimes the way that adults describe the signs of child and youth mental health challenges are not the way we should describe the signs of child and youth mental health challenges. By the time we realize what’s really going on, they’ve already been living with these challenges for years, with lasting impacts.
They or their parents reach out for help, perhaps. But the system is fragmented, and they’re not sure where to go. Maybe they’re too sick to be helped, or maybe they’re not sick enough. Maybe they get sent from door to door to door. “We can’t help you here,” they’ll hear. “You’ll need to go somewhere else.” How many tragic deaths by suicide or substance use could we have prevented with early intervention?
Today is Child and Youth Mental Health Day, and this day is important, because we know that most mental health challenges start early in life. One in eight youth will experience a significant mental health challenge, yet only one in three of them will get the supports they need when they need them. Which is exactly why the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions works so hard to resolve the desperately fragmented system of mental health supports in our province, with a strong focus on child and youth mental health.
Today, on Child and Youth Mental Health Day, while there have been many accomplishments from her ministry already so far, as a North Shore MLA, I’m particularly grateful for our province’s two-year project with the North Vancouver school district and Mountainside Secondary School to expand classroom-to-community mental health and addictions connections.
There is still so much more to be done, and I think everyone in the House understands the urgency of this work and the importance of working together to build a strong system of care for all of our young people in our province.
CHILLIWACK BOWLS OF HOPE SOCIETY
J. Martin: On Friday this past weekend, I had the distinct pleasure of attending the 14th annual Chilliwack Bowls of Hope Society fundraiser. It was a combination of a dinner and a silent and live auction, and it was just a spectacular evening all around.
This event was a sellout, once again — 320 generous supporters from throughout Chilliwack. In fact, this is the Bowls of Hope’s sixth consecutive sellout in a row. How generous were the attendees? Well, for instance, they raised ten times the amount the original event accomplished some 14 years ago. What they raised this weekend will assist in covering almost 50 percent of the cost to feed needy children throughout the Chilliwack school district.
The Chilliwack Bowls of Hope Society is headed by the leadership and its president, co-founder Mike Csoka, as well as the tireless efforts of the executive director, Cindy Waters, the program coordinator, Shelbie Daase, and their chef, Michael Leduc.
The society started in 2005, feeding 17 students in one single school. They now feed up to 850 hungry children every day in 21 different schools throughout Chilliwack. Do the math, and that is over 136,000 hot meals per year. Early in 2018, the Bowls of Hope Society celebrated the serving of their one millionth hot lunch in Chilliwack — just spectacular work.
Chilliwack Bowls of Hope Society is all about helping Chilliwack children in need reach their full potential by fueling their minds and bodies, one mouthful at a time. Bowls of Hope is just one of the many outstanding non-profits that we have doing the heavy lifting in my community, and they’re one more reason that Chilliwack punches above its weight.
NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSES
M. Elmore: I rise today to acknowledge the fifth annual Neighbourhood House Week. Neighbourhood houses are non-profit organizations that function as resource centres and community hubs. They’re safe, welcoming spaces for people to find or lend a helping hand in their community.
Neighbourhood houses support people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities and provide low- or no-cost social, educational, cultural and recreational programs. They offer thousands of licensed child care spaces, provide community food programs, reduce social isolation for seniors and run settlement programs to help new Canadians find their footing in a new place.
Neighbourhood houses are building their communities up and growing alongside them, helping people cultivate skills and confidence, take on leadership opportunities and forge relationships close to home. There are currently 16 neighbourhood houses in the Lower Mainland that are strengthening individual, family and neighbourhood life for people, and I’m pleased to welcome a 17th on May 22, when Marpole Neighbourhood House hosts its grand opening.
Social inclusion, reducing isolation and increasing opportunities for community participation are important parts of this government’s commitment to reducing poverty. It is why I was happy to welcome submissions from neighbourhood houses as part of my work on B.C.’s poverty reduction strategy.
Today I want to recognize these grassroots organizations that have been leading by example in providing people with support, empathy and a sense of belonging for all these years. I encourage people to seek out their local neighbourhood house, find out what kinds of events are happening to celebrate this week and learn how you can be part of this movement to support safe, happy and healthy communities.
YOUTH SUICIDE PREVENTION
AND MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES
J. Thornthwaite: On March 23, a 17-year-old male took his own life in the emergency department of Lions Gate Hospital. According to the coroner, there are between 500 and 600 suicides annually in B.C., with 20 to 30 being under the age of 19.
More and more kids are visiting the emergency room for both attempted suicide and suicidal thoughts. According to a study released last month in JAMA Pediatrics, the number of suicide-related ER visits for children and teens aged five to 18 in the U.S. has doubled since 2007, from 580,000 to almost 1.2 million in 2015. Evidence suggests a similar trend in Canada.
In addition to the rising rates of visits, they found that the average age admitted was 13 years old and that half of the visits were for children between the ages of five and 11. What is going on? We’ve got a big problem here, and there are lots of reasons that experts have brought forward as to why suicide ideation — attempts or, sadly, those completed — are going up.
One thing we do know is that more needs to be done for children and youth: identifying them early, treating at-risk youth in elementary school or earlier. Prevention and mitigation of the early signs of mental illness needs immediate attention by those in the education system, and more resources in schools are vital.
Ask any teacher, and they will tell you which kids appear to be struggling or present with symptoms that need support, but they’re not getting it. Often these kids can struggle for years or even decades before anyone gets them the help they need, and sadly, this results in too many of them falling through the cracks into adulthood.
The Foundry one-stop shops are a great first step, and I’m happy this government has continued on the initiative that we started. We also instigated the new school curriculum that encompasses social and emotional learning. But more needs to be done.
This week the Canadian Mental Health Association’s annual campaign, “Celebrating everyday victories,” encourages youth and young adults to pause and acknowledge their small daily wins and celebrate their journey towards positive wellness. CMHA estimates one in seven young people will experience a mental illness at some point in their life, and anxiety and depression are some things that they should seek help about. With the right tools and practice, they can bounce back and reclaim their mental health.
Check out mentalhealthweek.ca. Let’s get loud this week and inspire our youth and young adults to celebrate their everyday victories.
BURNABY FESTIVAL OF LEARNING
A. Kang: The 2019 Burnaby Festival of Learning celebrates a week-long series of free events from May 4 to May 11, featuring a wide variety of unconventional, life-long learning. This fantastic festival has something for all learners of all ages, interests, learning styles and all stages of life. Activities range from art exhibits to hands-on workshops to sign shows to PechaKucha Night. Other festival features are performances, lectures, discussions, tours and more, all designed to inform and engage and to spark creative conversations among Burnaby’s vibrant and diverse audience.
As a teacher by trade and lifelong learner by passion, I believe in celebrating life-long learning. Learning allows you to contribute to society. Learning allows you to be who you want to be. Learning makes you stronger. Learning new things helps bring out the genius in you, and learning makes you more open-minded. Learning never ends, and that is awesome.
It seems like there’s something new to learn every day. New technology, new world events, new cultural lenses to explore. The world is always changing, and we keep on learning. Studies have shown that active participation leads to better understanding. That is what the festival is all about — learn, grow and thrive.
The Burnaby Festival of Learning is co-presented by Simon Fraser University and the city of Burnaby, in participation with so many local Burnaby organizations. Events and activities take place across the city, inviting the community to enjoy Burnaby’s rich variety of civic spaces, including Burnaby libraries, Burnaby Village Museum, Burnaby Art Gallery and various parks and community centres and more.
The Burnaby Festival of Learning is hosted by the community for the community. For more information, you can check out festivaloflearning.ca. Many thanks to all the members and the organizations that make up the festival team. Thank you for your dedication to making this event successful year after year.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON FOREST
INDUSTRY AND SOFTWOOD
LUMBER TRADE
A. Wilkinson: Today Canadian lawyers are appearing in Washington, D.C., as they seek to find relief from the American softwood lumber tariffs.
Now, most of us remember the grand statements made by the Premier exactly two years ago when, before the election, he said he was going to solve this problem. Then within days after the election, he scooted off to Washington, D.C., and accomplished nothing at all.
Not only has the Premier failed on the softwood lumber file, but he has failed to keep any commitment to consult with the forest sector. We’re now faced with a high-handed, top-down Forest Amendment Act. Rather than working with the forest industry, the Premier has decided to ignore the communities, to ignore the industry concerns in the middle of the highest lumber costs on the continent. This is the attitude taken by the Premier.
Will the Premier do the right thing, as he did with the caribou file: pause, admit the blunder made by his Forests Minister and go to these communities and accept that he has to listen to the communities before he comes in with this heavy-handed legislation?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It’s a shame that he hasn’t been following the file more closely. He would know that I wrote to major forest companies just a month ago, encouraging them to sit down with local communities, to sit down with Indigenous leaders, to sit down with labour leaders.
Almost uniformly, those companies have agreed because we need to do a timber supply area review, area by area, to ensure we’re protecting the very people that the member raises.
I’ve talked to leadership at Interfor. I’ve talked to leadership at Canfor, at West Fraser, Kalesnikoff and Tolko. All agree that there is going to be a falldown in allowable, available timber and in annual allowable cut. That requires cooperation, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.
Had we not brought in Bill 22, we would have been in the same situation the former government was in 2013 when West Fraser and Canfor just swapped tenures, closed mills, put people out of work and left communities stranded. We’re not prepared to do that. We want to work with companies, but in the interests of the people of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Well, we only need to look back on the track record of this Premier in the forest industry. Let’s take April 26, 2017. The Premier made the ultimate empty promise to the forest sector: “I’m going to directly involve myself in the softwood lumber negotiations and make sure that we get a deal.” Result: total failure.
On April 1 of this year, the Premier wrote to the forest industry, and he said, “You’ll be consulted. We’ll be fully engaged. The communities will be part of the story. We’ll introduce the right kind of amendments to the Forest Amendment Act,” and then a week later: “There’s the act. Take it or leave it.”
That’s the Premier’s idea of consultation — an empty promise; a top-down, high-handed approach. This is after the Premier has totally failed on the softwood lumber file — has nothing to show for two years of effort.
Was this another empty promise, Premier, or was this just a high-handed NDP approach to the forest sector?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, it’s always rich when the official opposition brings up forest policy — 100 mills closed, 30,000 jobs lost.
I know this is a particularly sensitive issue for one member on that side of the House, but there was a thing called tree farm licences that was created in the 1950s to ensure that communities had access to lumber that was being felled and manufactured in their community. What did the B.C. Liberals do in 2008? Arbitrarily — without consulting First Nations, without consulting workers, without consulting communities — disbanded tree farm licences, giving massive windfalls to corporations with no benefit to people.
We’re not going to repeat their folly. We’re going to go step by step, working with all of the stakeholders to get a positive outcome for our forest industry and the people that depend on it.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Here we go again. The Premier sat and watched as his Forests Minister completely botched the mountain caribou file, and the Premier rode in to his rescue. Now we’re on the same pathway — this poorly developed, ill-advised Forest Amendment Act. The Premier says: “Don’t worry about it. We have an ideological, top-down answer. You’ll like it. Just learn how to suck it up.”
Well, Premier, that doesn’t work in forest communities. When are you going to admit the blunder by your Forests Minister and ride to the rescue and tell him to slow down, listen to communities, listen to the industry and avoid another fiasco like mountain caribou?
Hon. J. Horgan: I hate to do this. I’m usually a charitable marker, but that’s going to be an F-minus for mixed metaphors on the other side of the House.
We’ve reached out in an unprecedented way to the forest industry. I spoke with them directly at COFI. I’m available to them all the time. They don’t have to give massive campaign donations anymore. They just have to talk about good policy.
I sat down on the break week with the CEO of Interfor, one of the biggest forest companies in British Columbia, and we talked about the future.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. J. Horgan: We talked about the future of communities, about forestry and about workers — about workers that they can only remember in a derogatory way. Here’s a news flash. If you stop denigrating workers for five minutes, they might listen to you.
I, on the other hand, have decided to work with industry, to work with communities, to work with Indigenous communities and people who get paycheques from forestry to make sure there is an industry after tomorrow, unlike those guys who just said: “Let ’er rip. Just keep the donations coming.”
S. Bond: Well, let’s talk about donations. The only success that this Premier had in his trips to Washington was picking up one big fat cheque from the Steelworkers.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.
S. Bond: On April 5, this Premier gave a speech to the Council of Forest Industries. Here’s what he said. He said that solutions “will take trust, commitment and goodwill from everyone at the table.”
The members can clap, but you can imagine the surprise when less than a week later his Forests Minister sandbagged the industry with a bill that creates massive uncertainty in a sector, with zero consultation. So much for trust and goodwill.
The Premier has a chance today to do what he said he would do. Will he press pause and conduct meaningful consultation with industry and communities?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’m glad that the member was able to read portions of my presentation to COFI, because that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re asking everyone to come together and figure out where we go from here — Indigenous people, community leaders, First Nations and workers.
Now, the companies that I’ve talked to…. I guess they’re not returning the calls from the official opposition anymore, but the companies that I talked to understand that the government’s responsibility is to protect the public interest.
I’ll remind the member that in 2013, when West Fraser and Canfor flipped their tenures, people lost their jobs. The shareholders — the amorphous shareholders — did just fine, but the people of British Columbia did not. The province has a responsibility to protect the public interest. We’re doing that. Forest companies understand that.
West Fraser’s CEO is departing into retirement. He wanted to take a pop at the government before he left. Fair enough. Everyone else who’s left — Interfor, Canfor, Tolko — are more than willing and prepared to sit down and work with government in the best interests of their industry and the people of B.C.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order, please.
The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, the Premier is simply wrong. It is absolutely clear that the forest industry does not believe that this Premier and his government have one clue about how to create a globally competitive forest sector. In fact, we have been bringing their concerns to this chamber day after day after day, while the Premier ignores them.
The Premier sat on the sidelines and watched the handling of the mountain caribou file that caused anger and frustration all across this province. He was finally forced to admit it was a mess, and he called in help, by the way, from someone who used to sit with this side of the House.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, you are being disrespectful to the member.
S. Bond: Key leaders in this sector want to have consultation with this government about forest policy that is impacting their sector. Will the Premier, for once, stand up and do what he said he would do?
Talk about trust and the lack of trust. It’s time for the Premier to do the right thing, take a pause and consult.
Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just go back to the caribou question because, as most people know, the caribou challenge didn’t happen last week, last month, last year. We were advised in 2003…. I think, if I’m not mistaken, that those guys used to sit over here in 2003, when we knew that we had a problem with caribou. They were declining in numbers. In 2014, a decade later, we heard again from the federal government: “You have a problem. Species-at-risk-legislation requires action.” What did they do? Bupkis.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: Not a darn thing. So I will not take advice from any Liberals, save and except Blair Lekstrom, on this question, because he’s got common sense.
On the question of sitting down and working with the forest industry, the CEO of Tolko…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: …wrote to me — after the tabling of the legislation, after I presented at COFI — and said the following, “Tolko would like to seize this opportunity to work with you in,” as he said at the end of his letter, “the interests of competitive forest industry and opportunities for local workers, real partnership with First Nations and a secure forest industry.”
That’s what we’re doing, and I know that troubles the people on the other side, because they had it their way for a decade and a half. What did they do when they had it their way? Not like Frank Sinatra. They broke up a tree farm licence and put hundreds of people out of work. They put hundreds of millions in the pockets of shareholders, and they put 100,000 people out of work.
I’m not following their lead. Not a chance.
CARIBOU PROTECTION AND HUNTING
A. Weaver: I’ve just been walking around with a smile on my face today from ear to ear, and I continue to ask that question in that spirit.
There are 54 caribou herds in British Columbia, 30 of which are at risk of extirpation. Fourteen have less than 25 animals, and the B.C. government website lists that one of these herds has precisely one individual, whereas another has three. Since the information was posted on the site, it’s likely that they’re gone as well.
British Columbia’s caribou herds are in crisis, and scientists have been raising the alarm for many, many years. After nearly managing the species into oblivion, we’re now desperately trying to save them by any means possible. Yet at the same time as we try to avoid extirpation in one area, in a neighbouring area, the government endorses and permits a legal caribou hunt.
To the Minister of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, aside from the First Nations food, social and ceremonial hunt, how many caribou is he permitting to be hunted in British Columbia in the 2019-2020 limited area hunt and general open season in management units 617 to 620 and 622 to 627?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question to talk about an important animal, an iconic species in B.C. and across Canada and internationally. That is the caribou.
I think it’s been pointed out already in question period so far that unlike the old government, we take the decline in caribou populations very seriously. Going back to 2003, the previous government ignored calls for action to protect caribou habitat for over a decade and kept in place a patchwork of measures that don’t meet federal standards, putting jobs at risk and caribou at risk.
As far as the hunting of caribou that the member asked about, we know that the Chase, Wolverine and Itcha Ilgachuz herds are classified as threatened, and the herd populations continue to decline. That’s why we closed the caribou hunt for these three herds this past March, and this hunt will remain closed until further notice. There are some herds that are still available for hunting, and those are the Carcross and Atlin herds in my constituency, in the northwest corner of B.C. Both herds have in excess of 800 animals.
The member is right. Based on the best available science and once conservation is the top priority, followed by First Nations food, spiritual, and ceremonial needs — only then is hunting allowed. There are very few animals available for hunt, approximately ten.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS
A. Weaver: Well, that’s inconsistent with the information I have here, where it looks like 268 permits have been issued for caribou in Skeena region 6, which would be ironic in light of the fact the minister just mentioned 800-some animals in and around that area.
The point I’m making here is we’re hunting caribou while we try to save caribou. There’s no overall strategy. Caribou, as we know, are dependent on old-growth boreal and mountain economic systems. For many herds, their main food source is lichen that grows on old trees, and cutblocks and logging roads make them much more vulnerable to predators, as we all know.
Yesterday the United Nations released a landmark study reporting that over a million species are now at risk of extinction, and habitat loss is the driving factor. In B.C., we only act when it’s already too late. For example, our invaluable Vancouver Island valley-bottom old growth is globally rare and is an essential habitat for many species.
My question is again to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Will this government stop its Loraxian approach to resource management and step in to protect the last intact, productive, valley-bottom old growth on Vancouver Island?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I understand we were talking about caribou. There are no caribou on Vancouver Island. I’m sure the member knows that. As far as old-growth forests go on Vancouver Island, we’re committed to creating an old-growth plan in consultation with industry, in consultation with environmental NGOs and in consultation with communities.
We know that old-growth forests provide incredibly important habitat for biodiversity. There are over 500,000 hectares of old growth already protected on Vancouver Island through protected areas and parks. We also know that old-growth forests provide important revenue for communities and important jobs for forestry workers. We’ll continue to manage old growth in a sustainable way, and we’ll continue to work on the caribou file to protect jobs and to protect caribou.
GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON
FOREST
INDUSTRY
M. de Jong: Almost two years into term, the Premier seems to have developed quite a talent for, quite frankly, making things up. He said he was developing options to address high fuel prices. No options. He said he was going to get a softwood lumber deal. No softwood lumber deal. He said he was going to consult with the forest sector, the forest industry. Then a week later his government and his minister table legislation that is the product of zero — zero — consultation with the forest sector.
If you ignore the people that sign the paycheques, they’re going to eventually stop issuing paycheques. If you ignore the people who are making decisions about investing in our forest sector, they are going to eventually stop investing and creating jobs. Surely the Premier understands that with this latest legislation, he and his government are imposing a massive additional amount of uncertainty upon an industry that is already suffering from a tremendous amount of uncertainty.
Will he do the right thing and order his minister and his government to take a break and consult with the people that employ the majority of forest families in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Horgan: We are consulting with the forest industry, and the vast majority are very excited about sitting down with leaders in the communities they operate in and talking about how their workers and Indigenous communities can find a way forward with a decline in annual allowable cut and competitive markets internationally.
Everyone that I’ve talked to is excited about that except the opposition. What I don’t understand about the opposition — and I suppose I should — is that when they were in power, the public interest was secondary to them. While we’re in power, the public interest is paramount, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: Sadly, it is impossible to reconcile what the Premier just said with the comments from Mr. Kayne, Mr. Jones and Mr. Seraphim, the people who actually do make decisions that impact forest-dependent families.
You know, I’ve heard it before. I’ve seen it before. If I close my eyes, I can actually hear Forests Minister Zirnhelt saying precisely what we just heard from the Premier. Forests Minister Streifel — remember him? They weren’t bad people, but they made….
Interjections.
M. de Jong: I don’t think they were bad people, but they made the same mistake this Premier and his minister and his government are making today. They decided that….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
M. de Jong: They decided that they would rewrite forest management policy, rewrite forest tenure policy without any input from the very people that employ the majority of British Columbians in that industry, and how did it work out? Well, for the industry, we ended up with the highest-cost producers in the world, and by the way, for the governing party, they ended up with two seats.
I am less concerned about the second result than I am with the first result. But surely the Premier, upon reflection, will understand that now is the time to push the pause button and, before he imposes a further massive amount of uncertainty on this industry, talk to the people that employ the families that work in forest-dependent communities in B.C.
Hon. J. Horgan: If the member wants to test his hypothesis about how successful election campaigns will be, I would certainly take his F-minus and put it up against anything that we’re offering at this point in time. But that’s entirely up to him.
I don’t have to close my eyes to see the consequences of B.C. Liberal forest policy because I see it in my community every day, when truck after truck after truck is leaving my community, taking logs to tidewater to create jobs somewhere else. That’s the result of B.C. Liberal policy. Exporting logs is exporting jobs, and that’s how they approached forestry on their watch.
We’ve taken a different approach. I think you’re mischaracterizing the comments by Mr. Kayne from Canfor. I would encourage the media to go and talk to him directly about how he feels about the future of forestry in British Columbia. Everyone that I’ve talked to who’s staying in the industry beyond July wants to sit down with Indigenous leaders, wants to sit down with community leaders.
The member for Cariboo North knows full well that that’s exactly the case in her community. What is it that the B.C. Liberals don’t understand about getting everyone in a room and figuring out how we go forward together? I guess that just doesn’t equate for them.
WAGES FOR COMMUNITY
SOCIAL SERVICES
WORKERS
T. Redies: Since April 1, this Premier has been blatantly denying 17,000 workers, almost all women, equal pay for equal work. To quote Linda Perry with Vela Canada: “This is a deliberate manipulation of workers. There are people that are being punished by what appears to be a bias of elected officials.” When will the Premier stop punishing workers and provide equal pay for equal work?
Hon. S. Simpson: We’re looking forward to working with the key organizations in this sector. Those meetings are established. They’re moving forward on those. We’re going to look at how we engage that sector to make sure that we’re supporting their efforts in supporting the people who need their help. I’m looking forward to those discussions over the coming weeks and months.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.
T. Redies: Well, with that answer, the Premier might as well change the name of the party he belongs to, to the New Discrimination Party.
These answers….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
T. Redies: These answers we’ve been hearing for weeks about consultation are simply not true. Agencies and workers were blindsided, and they continue to speak out. To quote Karla Verschoor, the executive director of Inclusion B.C.: “This decision will negatively affect many of Inclusion B.C.’s members and has the potential to profoundly impact the lives of the already vulnerable populations we support.”
Again to the Premier, will he acknowledge that he is blatantly discriminating against these workers?
Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate that the member on the other side wasn’t here when that government fired 10,000 workers over a weekend — all of them women — and cut their wages by 15 percent. Another dark chapter in the history of the B.C. Liberal Party in government was ripping up collective agreements when there were only two opposition members here.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: So the hypocrisy of this group of people standing up and trying to give a lecture about workers’ rights is laughable.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, order, please.
Hon. J. Horgan: The minister has been abundantly clear. The minister is working with the sector to try and resolve a problem that has been developing over a very long period of time. I appreciate that they don’t like to hear the truth of their past or the reality of their future, but I see F-minus every time I open my eyes.
J. Thornthwaite: Equal pay for equal work is not that complicated. The Premier’s decision affects 17,000 non-unionized workers who provide critical social services. The network representing these workers says: “The government’s decision to value only those social service workers represented by a union is disingenuous, illogical and unfair.”
Why, under this Premier, has the NDP suddenly become the New Discrimination Party, and will he stand up, admit the policy is wrong and end the discrimination?
Hon. S. Simpson: We’re working with the sector. We’re working to resolve issues in a whole array of issues that that side ignored for 16 years. We’re working with a sector that’s working hard with people that need support and need help. I’m excited about that work. I’m excited about working with 36,000 people, with thousands of organizations.
We’re going to accomplish a lot over the next few weeks and months, as we, in fact, change this system and repair the damage that was done by that side in 16 years. What we’re not going to do is rip up contracts and throw low-wage workers out on the street like they did.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Finance. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Agriculture.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:03 a.m.
On Vote 25: ministry operations, $265,327,000 (continued).
S. Bond: Good morning to the minister and her staff. We appreciate the opportunity to continue our exploration around the Finance budget and assumptions. We’re going to start today with GDP growth, and then we’ll move through some other topics.
I think the minister is aware that most of the GDP growth projections for British Columbia cite LNG Canada as one of the lone reasons for keeping growth rates above 2 percent. Can the minister articulate for us what the risks are to B.C.’s GDP growth without LNG Canada?
Hon. C. James: The member was asking about LNG and GDP growth. I just want to correct the member. There are a number of different economic assumptions, as the member knows. We’ve talked about the kinds of things that are put into the model to take a look at GDP growth.
The member is correct. It does include LNG, but it also includes other economic assumptions, including employment, including commodity prices, including immigration and including CUSMA, the trade agreement signed. All of those, together, are included when it comes to GDP growth.
I think it’s also important to note that the growth from LNG that is included in this three-year budget would include the plant, the upstream, the pipeline — the employment and investment in those areas — but not the direct revenue. That’s outside the three-year plan, obviously. As the plant is built, that revenue gets built in, but that’s not built in at this point.
I think it’s also important to note that all the members of the Economic Forecast Council also included LNG investment as part of their growth. So it’s not broken out. It is part of the economic growth in our province that also, as I said, includes more trade certainty, increased employment and other economic assumptions included in the budget.
S. Bond: Well, thank you very much to the minister. It’s not a matter of correction. It’s clear that LNG Canada is one of the critical reasons that actually moves GDP growth above 2 percent. We know this: that the revenue from LNG Canada to government will be delayed. Can we expect slowing growth elsewhere to impact government revenues?
Hon. C. James: So, just continuing the conversation we had yesterday around any kind of projected slowing of growth in the country or in the province or, in fact, the global economy.
As we know, and as we talked about yesterday, certainly all of those pieces could have an impact on British Columbia and could have an influence in British Columbia. As I said, we’re certainly watching those growth numbers. We’re watching the projections. First quarterly is where those adjustments occur, if those adjustments need to be made.
Certainly, all of those kinds of factors could have an influence on the GDP growth in British Columbia. That’s precisely the reason we’ve built in the prudence that is built into the budget and precisely the reason that we’ve been recognized for the increase in prudence and the recognition for the prudence that we have built in. As we talked about yesterday, in fact — the highest prudence number in this coming year and $2.65 billion over the three-year plan. That’s exactly why those numbers are built in.
S. Bond: Maybe we’ll approach the question this way, then. Can the minister tell us what is B.C.’s projected GDP growth when LNG Canada is excluded?
Hon. C. James: As I mentioned, there are a number of factors, obviously, that impact growth in British Columbia — LNG being one of those, as the member pointed out. If the member looks in the budget, we’ve got the projections. We’ve got the three-year plan, and we’ve got the projections out five years. The level of real GDP will be expected to be 0.5 percent higher in 2023 than it would be without LNG Canada.
S. Bond: I’m sure the minister and her staff also are aware that RBC has recently told investors to bet against the Canadian dollar. Some observers are expecting a declining exchange rate against the U.S. dollar. Have the minister and her team done an analysis, in terms of what risk a decline in the dollar poses to this budget?
Hon. C. James: I think the important piece to note is that a one-cent increase…. Yes, exchange rates are part of all of the economic assumptions, obviously included as part of the budgeting process and the assumptions we build in, in our economic statements. A one-cent increase in the exchange rate is $25 million to $50 million, just so that there’s a magnitude there for the member.
We use the private sector forecasters’ average on what they project, so that’s the banks. We use their projection for the coming year. The projection this year is lower than last year, so it has been dropped based on the private sector forecasters’ average. But again, all of those things get looked at, at first quarter, at second quarter, as we’re moving along with our budget process.
T. Redies: Minister, as my colleague has been doing, we’ve been talking a bit about some of the risks to the forecasts. I’d now like to turn to ICBC, which I believe is one of the biggest risks facing this budget.
In particular, on this side of the House, we’ve been very troubled by what seems to be a complete inability of the ICBC management team to get their forecasts even remotely correct. This year, of course, the minister, through her budget, is forecasting that ICBC is going to more or less break even and then show a small profit next year.
However, on February 7, 2019, it was announced that ICBC had lost $860 million in the first nine months of this year. Far from meeting its planned loss of $684 million for the entire fiscal 2018-19, they advised that ICBC would record a loss of $1.18 billion instead. When did the minister first become aware that ICBC was not meeting its financial forecasts in fiscal 2018-19?
Hon. C. James: I was just making sure I had the years right, because one of the first issues that we certainly had to deal with as a government, when we came in, were the changes to the forecast at ICBC.
The member was speaking about 2018 and when those changes occurred. After the Q1 report came out, we continued…. I think the important piece to note is that we continued to list ICBC as a risk. It was obviously on a very close watch from our end.
It was an area that we had already identified as a challenge, so after Q1 report came out, we got a further update from ICBC, which meant that we then incorporated that in the Q2 report. That would have been November. That was a $206 million hit to the budget so that was included in Q2.
Then again, after we saw Q2, continuing our tracking of ICBC and the numbers at ICBC, we received again a further challenge when it came to the budget. That was reported out publicly in Q3, of $290 million, so that’s a $496 million adjustment.
Q3 comes out with a budget. Just for the member’s timing, that’s when Q3 is tabled, with the budget as well.
T. Redies: Presumably before the Q1 and Q2 forecasts came out, the minister was briefed that ICBC was not going to hit its financial forecast. If so, what did that timing look like?
Hon. C. James: I mentioned Q1, that we were tracking, as we had been from the first budget that we had announced, that there were challenges at ICBC.
Q1, we were tracking the numbers, and we were, in fact, on track with the numbers that ICBC had given us. Then, as I mentioned, before we got to Q2, we got the new estimate. We were continuing to do our work and to do the tracking of ICBC. We got our new estimate, which included, as I mentioned, the further loss of $206 million. That was due to an increase in a number of past claims that were coming forward to be settled. So you were seeing an increase from ICBC. They were bringing it forward and noticed an increase in the claim settlements that were coming forward from past. That added to the numbers that we reported out in Q2.
T. Redies: What were ICBC’s first and second quarter 2018-19 projections versus actuals?
Hon. C. James: I’ll start with the first quarter, because I think that’s what the member talked about. The first quarter estimate was a $285 million loss. Their actual budget was $268 million. That’s the first quarter. Again, as the member can see, there was some tracking that was going on there.
The second quarter, $543 million; actual was $582 million. Then the third quarter, if the member is interested in the third quarter, just continuing on, is where you really see the increase in the loss. Estimated was $590 million; actual, $860 million. That’s where you see the real difference.
T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification.
As these losses were mounting, the actuals were mounting relative to the forecast, did the minister discuss this with the Attorney General and the president of ICBC? What actions arose from the Finance Ministry to determine the extent of the issue and to assure the minister that ICBC’s forecast going forward would be correct?
Hon. C. James: I think I mentioned that, obviously, we had identified it as a risk in the budget. In every quarterly report I’ve done, the public accounts reports that I’ve done and the budgets that I’ve had, ICBC is included as a risk. It’s obviously a piece that we’re paying close attention to in the Finance Ministry.
I know that the AG will talk about, in his estimates, the specific tasks they took on and the product reform work that they were doing. From our end, from the Ministry of Finance end, making sure we were continually tracking, making sure that we were meeting on a regular basis…. I meet on a regular basis with the AG, and this was certainly one of the topics. Staff were meeting on a regular basis with staff at ICBC, as well, to make sure that we were tracking those numbers. Updates were being given to Treasury Board, for example, on the estimates as well.
All of that kind of important tracking was going on. As I said, it’s been listed…. We continue to be concerned with ICBC’s numbers in our budget and list it as a risk.
T. Redies: I actually wasn’t asking about tracking. I was asking what work was done by the Finance Ministry to determine the efficacy of ICBC’s forecasts going forward, particularly given the fact they have a track record of providing forecasts that they don’t ever seem to meet.
In fact, on November 23, 2018, ICBC announced that they had indeed lost the $582 million in the first six months of fiscal 2018-19. That was essentially 85 percent of what they had projected to lose in the entire year. They projected $680 million plus, but by six months they had lost $582 million, which, if you extrapolated that over 12 months, would be a $1.16 billion loss. Given these, it’s not enough to track. We need to understand what the ministry is doing to assure themselves that they have capable people within ICBC, that they understand the forecasts and they’ve actually tested the assumptions. Otherwise, it’s pretty hard to have any faith in these forecasts, based on the track record.
I guess what I’m asking is: in just what specific ways did the ministry test the forecasts of ICBC, given their track record?
Hon. C. James: I think, as I talked about, that the tracking and the extent of conversations and work between my staff and ICBC staff is constant. That’s an ongoing process. There’s a more thorough process that occurs when quarterly reports come out to make sure, as the member has talked about, that we challenge the assumptions that are there — that we take a look at the numbers that are coming forward.
When their quarterly report comes out, my staff sit down and review ICBC’s work, line by line. We sit down with their actuarial teams and with their forecasters. We review all of the trends to date. We challenge their assumptions, so we go through a stress test process with their assumptions to make sure that they’re on track. We attend their board meetings.
Then, as I said, between quarters, we obviously continue to have that work going on. But there is a very rigorous process that occurs when their quarterly reports are coming out to make sure that we’ve taken a look at their assumptions and have those discussions with their staff, with their actuarial team and with their forecasters.
T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I mean, I sympathize with the minister, because it must be very frustrating to hear that a forecast is going to be X, and then it turns out to be significantly different.
It seems to me that whatever is being done with respect to looking at these forecasts, ICBC needs to be held to a higher account. In fact, actually, I guess one of my questions to the minister…. Because these are, obviously, significant misses, and it’s been a continuous history of significant misses, regardless of the process that the Finance Ministry goes through.
What conversations did you have with the president of ICBC? Did you take him to task for these misses and the impacts it was having on your budget?
Hon. C. James: As I said from the start, ICBC has been listed as a risk in our budget. Certainly, as Minister of Finance and as Attorney General — and as cabinet and as government — we have huge concerns about the economic challenges that we faced when we came in as government and economic challenges that we continue to face with ICBC. I know it’ll be well canvassed in the Attorney’s estimates as well to talk about the major changes that the Attorney has taken on to be able to deal with these issues. But, yes, those continue to be concerns, and because they continue to be concerns we continue the due diligence that needs to be done.
Does that due diligence involve my conversations with the Attorney? Yes, it does. Does that include the president of ICBC being involved in coming to Treasury Board and making reports to all of Treasury Board — not just myself, but all of Treasury Board? Yes, it does.
Those conversations and that work go on between all of us, because this is an issue that has an impact on not simply the Finance Ministry but all of government in the kinds of resources that we have to be able to put into programs and services that are needed across government.
S. Bond: We appreciate the minister’s answers. But let’s walk through this for a minute again. If we were to extrapolate the six-month loss over 12 months, it yields an annualized loss of $1.168 billion, yet as late as November 23, 2018, ICBC was forecasting a year-end loss of only $890 million.
Obviously, the minister should be concerned. British Columbians are concerned. The question is: what did she do about it?
In six months, the company lost 85 percent of what it predicted, in February 2018, that it would lose in the entire fiscal year. So what we’d like the minister to do now is articulate for us what reasons…. And, yes, we understand it is, technically, in the portfolio of the Attorney General. We’re talking about risk to this budget, and it is a major risk.
Most people cannot imagine how we’re going to see the kind of improvement that this minister has booked in her budget. So what reasons did ICBC staff — or the Attorney General or anyone — give to this minister and this staff to justify their prediction that they could restrict the losses to $890 million? If you look at the six-month number, it’s pretty much clear that that is impossible. What were the reasons? Secondly, what were the reasons that ICBC gave for continuing the sustained degree of loss?
Hon. C. James: Again, as I said at the start of our discussion around ICBC, I think the member is asking questions around our due diligence and the work we do around due diligence. I know that the specifics around changes that were made at ICBC will come up in the Attorney’s estimates. But I think it’s important to note that….
I know the Attorney will speak more about the complex process that is used at ICBC because of their business, which is that they use actual results, but they also use actuarial assumptions. It’s complex. It’s not as linear as the member presents when she simply looks at the multiplication across the months. In fact, it is a very complex process and is not linear because of having to use actuarial assumptions along with actual results.
We sit down with ICBC. We take a look at their claim settlement costs. We look at accident frequency. We assess their actuarial assumptions, as I talked about. We were seeing, in the first quarter, some evidence of flattening of accident rates. You were seeing some of that occurring.
Second quarter. As I had mentioned earlier, we were also seeing the increase in the number of claims coming forward and the cost of those claims coming forward. I know the Attorney has talked about that previously.
All of that kind of work goes on, as I mentioned, from a quarterly perspective when the reports come out. With their teams, we stress-test their assumptions. We go through that process, and those conversations continue.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. James moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:06 a.m.
On Vote 21: ministry operations, $6,529,945,000 (continued).
C. Oakes: First, I would actually like to acknowledge and thank the staff at the ministry for the work that they’ve been doing with the school district on finding a resolve or putting in an application for the Quesnel middle school, a desperately needed school in our community. I believe the application was completed last month. To the ministry: if I could perhaps get an update on what that process looks like….
We have a very short window for building, of course, in the north. Of course, I know that capacity is always a challenge, with lots of requirements in the budget. But an update on the Quesnel middle school would be greatly appreciated.
Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question. She has come at both an opportune time and maybe also a sensitive time in terms of providing details that are not yet public, because the good news is that Quesnel Junior Secondary is now in the funding approval process with our government. We invited the district to do a PDR. They did a really diligent, solid job on that. So that business case has been evaluated. We are looking at funding approval for a project there.
Just to go back a little bit, the old Quesnel Junior was deemed not safe for students. There were snow-load issues, and we reacted very quickly with SD 28 in investing approximately $2 million in Maple Drive, where both groups of students are now.
I have to take the opportunity, just on the record, to say how much the ministry appreciates not only working with school district 28, but the ideas and the public process have been greatly assisted by Mayor Bob Simpson of Quesnel. He has taken a very active interest in this project. Actually, it could open up some opportunities on the old school site, as well, that have benefits for the member’s constituents and the people of Quesnel.
We’re just shy of some news that I think the member will appreciate. I think it’s one that her constituents will appreciate, should we get funding approval. We’ve been canvassing during this set of estimates how quickly our ministry has executed on, now, $1.1 billion worth of projects since September 2017. We have not delayed on projects; we have accelerated. We respect the unique windows of high-peak construction activity in her community.
When we do get to an announcement, I am sure that the member, as well as her constituents, will be very pleased, because it will represent the first major capital project, if you can believe it, in 20 years in school district 28. So we’ll have to, I think, maybe leave it at that unless the member has some follow-up questions. I hope she can appreciate that I can’t get into too many details. But I would characterize where we’re at right now…. We’ve come a long way very quickly, and we’re getting into the funding approval process right now.
C. Oakes: Minister, I would like to recognize and thank you for recognizing the incredible, diligent work of both our school district and our community, working hard on putting this process together — again, thanking the ministry. The weather has been a significant challenge over the last few years. Who would have expected record snowpacks followed by the wildfire seasons that we’ve had?
I have two more questions. They do tie into some of the challenges that we’re having in the community. It’s not necessarily capital. I apologize if an answer…. I would be happy to take an answer after, off line, whatever works. But we have canvassed in the House the challenges we’ve had with West Fraser Road. That was a road…. As a result of 2017 wildfires, we had a significant landslide that took out West Fraser Road. As a result, the school district, for busing, has required…. It’s been over two hours each way for busing, and it’s had a significant impact, actually, on the buses themselves. Two buses have had to be put on that route. As well, up until March, even just the cost of repairs was $23,300.
We had a community meeting last Wednesday, where the Ministry of Transportation reported out what the next steps will be. It’s going to be a $71 million project to fix that road, and there was no timeline identified.
As one can imagine, we’re probably looking at, for the school district’s purposes…. They’ll be required to plan for continuing on this other route for some time.
I wonder if there’s an extraordinary expense fund that the ministry may have to address extraordinary costs that a school district may have to incur because of things such as wildfires and floods, and if that may potentially be an opportunity to apply federally to disaster financial assistance for such a cost. There was a letter that was put in through the school district on March 4, 2019, through the Ministry of Transportation, that really outlines the significant impacts that this road closure has had on the school district’s budget.
Hon. R. Fleming: I will leave, maybe, the transportation aspects to that ministry’s set of estimates. What I can say is that, first of all, we’re very sensitive to school district 28’s situation — that this puts a number of kids, I think two dozen or more, at a serious disadvantage in terms of the length of their school day due to the additional transportation that this road situation has caused.
What we’ve done from a Ministry of Education perspective is try to assist the district with the increased transportation logistics and costs. I am happy to say that just last month, April 2019, the school district secretary-treasurer contacted us and explained the bus routing issues that they’re confronting due to the washed-out highway and asked if the ministry could assist with any additional bus approvals. So we have approved two additional buses. These are type D 80-passenger buses. And we have allocated an additional $350,000. I think it’s $525,000 for all three buses.
So there will be new buses purchased. I know that the secretary-treasurer was very, very happy with the two additional buses that they’ve received and felt that it would alleviate the pressures that they’re facing, which are extraordinary in this situation. We’re able to do that because we did increase the bus acquisition program from $10 million a year to $13 million a year in Budget 2018. That allows us to have contingency in these types of situations where you do have wildfire interface or you do have the kinds of weather conditions and washed-out roads that we’ve seen in Quesnel. We’ll be able to respond to these sorts of emergency situations in other districts as well, should the need arise.
C. Oakes: One final question. Again, I thank the minister and the staff for the work that they are doing on this.
The final challenge we have is that we’ve had a downgrade to the Johnston street bridge, which is a major bridge that links industry. It’s to the West Fraser…. It’s to the plywood plant. I know this is more of a Ministry of Transportation question, but I’ll get to how this impacts the Quesnel middle school and Red Bluff elementary school. It also impacts Lhtako First Nations and a daycare.
All of the traffic, because industrial traffic can now not cross over the Johnston street bridge, is now required to go up Highway 97 and go on Maple Drive. And Maple Drive is really not set up to be an…. It’s still a highway. It doesn’t have lighting, and it doesn’t have sidewalks on it. So currently, we have 45 to 80 industrial vehicles travelling down each day to go to the plywood plant, and they have to go by the elementary school, the middle school, a daycare and adjacent to the Lhtako First Nations.
We had a pedestrian death in December, which was incredibly tragic for Lhtako First Nations, and we do need some support of some partnerships, perhaps, between the school district and the Ministry of Transportation to look at perhaps some lighting or sidewalks by the two schools.
I recognize this may be a conversation that may have to happen at a later date, because the Ministry of Transportation probably needs to be looped into that. We had talked about that with them, but I think the school district could…. It would be very helpful if that conversation could also be cooperatively managed with the two ministries.
Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll just have to briefly comment on this, because I probably don’t have as much information as the member would like. But what we’ll certainly do is…. I understand the Ministry of Transportation has had open houses as recently as last week. Undoubtedly, the member was in attendance. Of course, the solution the community is rallying around is to fix the road, and I think the federal confirmation of disaster funding will make that all the quicker.
In the meantime, any issues around student safety do concern us and the district. We’ll make note of the information the member has provided here, and perhaps one of the senior team can reach out to Transportation. And I expect that the city, around lighting issues, sidewalk safety, planning safer routes to school and those sorts of things, would be pretty critical in finding something that will ensure that student safety is protected and enhanced.
D. Davies: I believe that wraps up all of our questions from the MLAs regarding capital for now, but I certainly do have some more yet. In fact, there is one more I will be asking on behalf of my colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain in regard to a new school in Burke Mountain. I’m just wondering if the minister can give us an update on that.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the critic for passing on to the member on whose behalf he has asked.
The member will know that our government approved, not too long ago, a replacement school, with an expansion at the base of Burke Mountain — Irvine Elementary, a fantastic project to rebuild a pretty tired school that was at high seismic risk. That’s just inside the Port Coquitlam border but serves kids who live on Burke Mountain. That is underway. We expect construction to gather pace very shortly. We have a project ongoing at Minnekhada as well — a new school in the district.
When it comes to schools directly on Burke Mountain, our government is very mindful of how long that community has waited — years and years and years. The question from the member comes at a time when we’re very close. We’ve been working on an announcement for some time. Very difficult site challenges. The member might be able to appreciate just the geography there. The land that was purchased was, let’s just say, the saw ends of the deal. Very steep slopes, very expensive earthworks required.
Having said that, we feel very good about where we are in terms of being able to get school infrastructure on Burke Mountain and assist that community. Also, we’re very interested to see district 43’s new priority list for capital investment that will come on or about June 30. We have engaged them on their top four priorities thus far and are looking forward to seeing the next wave of projects.
Our interest in this district is primarily seismic projects. We have done expansions at the same time. We’re also looking at other school expansion projects, just in pursuit of portable reductions. SD 43 is a fairly fast-growing district, so some of the work that the capital branch of the ministry is working on is geared towards eliminating portables.
D. Davies: I’m going to do a little interlude here. What I certainly forgot to do was introduce some of the staff that is helping me out as well. Dion Weisner is my research person. I’ve got Doug Secord, who helps out in comms, and Jonah Gowans, who is my LA. I’m trying to organize myself over here in the next few days, so I certainly want to give them a shout-out as well, in regard to my staff. So thank you.
Just further to Burke Mountain, don’t get me wrong. I understand the complexity of the schools and school district and issues around Burke Mountain and within Coquitlam. But the issue, I guess, that we have, and the issue that residents in Burke Mountain have, goes back to a promise made by the now Premier, as well as reinforced by the now minister. I’ll read a quote here, right from the NDP media release: “A John Horgan NDP government is committed to fast-tracking….”
The Chair: Member, names.
D. Davies: Sorry. “An NDP government is committed to fast-tracking school construction in places like Burke Mountain.” Now, when we lead up to an election and these promises are made, that they will be fast-tracking…. My colleague asked this question last year to the minister, regarding this school. It really does not sit well with the residents of Burke Mountain, having been told that this school is going to be fast-tracked. They would like to know how this fast track might look.
Talking about schools, the minister mentioned a school that was being built at the bottom of Burke Mountain. That’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the promise that was made to fast-track a school in Burke Mountain.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question.
I would probably take a little bit of issue, and I think people in Burke Mountain would also take issue, with Irvine having no relationship to the growing Burke Mountain community. It is a school that has served and will continue to serve Burke Mountain residents. It was welcomed by people in that part of the Tri-Cities when we announced it, and it was fast-tracked.
This is a project that had no support from the previous government. When we came into office, we looked at the capital plan for SD 43 and what work may have been done from projects that were alluded to by the previous government, and Irvine was nowhere on the radar. We took the opportunity not just to make it a seismic mitigation project but also to expand it so it has room to grow.
The same goes for Sheffield elementary, which is a project that’s of primary interest to Burke Mountain as well. I definitely expected, given the number of promises and press releases by the previous government, to see evidence of work when we came into office, but the reality is that Sheffield elementary was not even at square one. In fact, it was backed up beyond that. The previous government did not invite the business case development. They did not begin any stage of approval. It had been a high-ranking ask of the previous government for many, many, many years.
What our government did was approve it in March of 2018 — so the first budget year opportunity that we had as a government. The first time we brought a budget through the House last year, March 2018, is also when we announced it. Literally, no sooner had the budget been tabled in the House, than we invited the school district to do a business case that they were never previously asked to do before for Sheffield elementary.
I’m happy to say that the district responded quickly. We have a strong relationship with SD 43 on school capital infrastructure, and they’re ready to go. They’ve been waiting for a long time for investment like our government has demonstrated.
This is part of the $1.1 billion in 20 months that we’ve approved — or will be, when we get to announcement. That’s what fast-tracking looks like, quite frankly. When you’re starting from square one and you announce two schools in the same neighbourhood, in the same community, 20 months in as government, that’s fast-tracking.
What I will also say and commit to the member is that the moment we’re ready to announce the school, I’ll let the critic know.
D. Davies: Well, I would encourage, then, the minister to reach out to the PAC and to the residents of Burke Mountain. I mean, this is a fast-growing community, and I know the people are quite upset. The people are enraged. I’ve received emails. I know the member for that riding has received emails. I would certainly encourage the minister to reach out and report back. Again, in our opinion, another broken promise by this government to the people of Burke Mountain, so he can maybe reach out and talk to that group there as well.
That completes that question. I’ll move on to a number of other questions I have. Can the minister tell us what percentage of school district capital projects is forecasted this year that meet the approved schedule and budget?
Hon. R. Fleming: What I would say to the member is this. We have a record now, as a new government, of record levels of investment, record pace of funding approvals for school projects right around the province — he knows that; some of them have been in his own constituency — and $1.1 billion in school infrastructure investment. British Columbia has not seen this in 20 years — this kind of school renaissance of construction activity.
We have a budget before the House that this year alone has just shy of $800 million budgeted for capital investment. That’s about twice the historical average of the previous government, in terms of real investment, although rarely did they spend the amount that was budgeted. We have concentrated — and I mentioned it to the member last year in estimates — on not only creating a budget to build schools but spending it.
We are tracking our utilization for the year that expired March 31, and it’s looking very, very good. It looks like, for the first time in a long, long time, we may have gotten very, very close to 100 percent utilization rate.
A lot of money was left on the table just in the last mandate of the previous government. We’ve talked about that before. I don’t need to go into that now, unless the member would like me to. But the underspending on schools is definitely a factor as to why the size of the backlog of projects is as large as it is.
I’m happy to report to the member that we have 157 projects, now ongoing, related to school capital in British Columbia. That is remarkable, quite frankly, in B.C. We haven’t seen that for a long, long time. It’s also in a construction market where we have the hottest economy in Canada. We have the lowest unemployment rates. There’s a lot of construction activity happening in the residential, commercial and institutional sectors, so we are looking for workers in many different parts of B.C. where there are significant school capital projects happening.
I don’t expect those conditions to change, but it puts a fine point on why we have to continue to do the acceleration that we’re doing and get to approvals more quickly with school districts.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dean in the chair.
The committee met at 11:06 a.m.
On Vote 13: ministry operations, $80,134,000 (continued).
Hon. L. Popham: At this moment, I’d like to introduce the farm team that’s playing today. I have my deputy minister, Wes Shoemaker; my ADM, Wes Boyd, who’s in charge of corporate services; James Mack, assistant deputy minister, agriculture science and policy division; Arif Lalani, assistant deputy minister, business development division; and we have Kim Grout with us, who is here as the CEO of the Agricultural Land Commission.
I. Paton: Thank you. I’m looking forward to a full day of questions today to the minister.
First of all, going back to yesterday afternoon, speaking about the committee members — I don’t want to spend a lot of time on it — could you just briefly explain to me what the qualifications were when you set up the committee and how you went about hiring them?
The Chair: Through the Chair, please. Thank you, Member.
I. Paton: Through the Chair, of course.
….what the qualifications were or the terms of reference for the committee members that were put on the panel for the final recommendation. Thank you.
Hon. L. Popham: The question was: how were the members chosen? What were the terms of reference?
The Agricultural Land Commission, when commissioners are being appointed, have some legislation and some guidelines that they follow. Those commissioners would need to have an agricultural background, come from local government with some experience, some academics, First Nations.
The advisory committee was chosen in a similar way, and I would say that this committee was exceptionally diverse with their experience that they brought forward. The member will know, if the member went through the biographies of the committee members, that we do have farmers that are farming. We have local government experience. We do have academics represented, First Nations.
I think it’s really a well-versed sector of people that were able to go out, talk to British Columbians and bring back opinions that they heard. They put that into our report, filled with recommendations. I value the time that they spent.
I. Paton: To the minister: you talked about how each member should have agriculture experience. Probably the most important person on the committee would be the chair of the committee. Two questions. What would be the agriculture experience of the chair of the committee? What was the total cost of putting on the entire committee travel, hotels, etc., to put the final report together?
Hon. L. Popham: With regards to the chairs of the committee, we actually did have two chairs. One was a farmer. The next chair that took that chair’s place did have experience at local government, understanding how the Agricultural Land Commission interacts with local government. She also happened to have been an MLA, and she did a lot of good chairing work in the Legislature itself. So I think we were covered off on experience and requirements for chairs.
As far as how much it cost, this was not a budget item in this budget this year, but last year it was around $100,000.
I. Paton: Minister, yesterday we touched briefly on the final report, which I will be talking about a little bit more today. Before I do, I wanted to go down memory lane and talk about the interim report — specifically, the one sent to you directly by your deputy minister on April 24, signed off by the now chair of the ALC, Jennifer Dyson. The public consultation didn’t end up until April 30, yet email obtained through FOI clearly states that it includes “recommendations for immediate legislative change.” The report was sent to the minister on April 24, a full six days before public consultations closed.
Minister, we know that legislation takes time to draft, yet you announced a public consultation starting in February 2018.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please, Member.
I. Paton: Chair, through you to the minister, was the minister or her staff working on these legislative changes prior to the public consultations closing?
Hon. L. Popham: I think this is a good time to just make the point that when I was tasked to revitalize the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve, this was not a one-step process. This will be a continual process.
The committee was doing that consultation work. The Ministry of Agriculture was sitting at the tables with that consultation, so we already knew the input that we were receiving from the public. I had also been the critic for eight years, so this was not new information, necessarily, that we were receiving. There was some direction that we had in mind. The consultations confirmed that work. There was an interim report. I think the member will understand that policy work takes time. So the ministry was started on that.
I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. It would be understandable for the public to be a bit wary in light of the drastic changes that have been implemented in the ALR. It is clear to this House that the minister’s agenda is so strong that she is willing to shut down consultations prior to the closing date.
Will the minister agree to release any emails pertaining to this report and any work that was done to create legislation prior to the release of the report in August 2018?
Hon. L. Popham: Well, of course, I know that there have been many FOI requests regarding this specifically. Everything that has needed to be released has been released. But I also would like to remind the member, through the Chair, that there is also cabinet confidentiality. Cabinet decisions are not subject to FOI, but any other emails or work that was done has been released.
I. Paton: To the minister, of the 2,300 submissions, how many were from farmers or with an agricultural background, and how many were made from the general public?
Hon. L. Popham: Well, I think one of the strengths of the submissions that we saw was that they came from all British Columbians. For the face-to-face meetings in communities, the invitations were targeted at local government and at agricultural stakeholders. There was a very good representation from the farming community. But we also considered that British Columbians, in general, would have opinions around the agricultural land reserve, and we found that there was incredible support for this reserve.
This included consumers of British Columbia products and people that have been living in our province for quite some time. We had submissions from people that were farming when the agricultural land reserve initially came in — and the support that they had for it today. I think we saw a really great cross-section of opinions of British Columbians, but definitely, agricultural stakeholders were represented.
L. Larson: To the minister, I’d like to just focus a little bit on agritourism and recommendations No. 16 and No. 17 in the report. In those particular recommendations, events at wineries….
Several recommendations from this report on revitalizing the ALR suggest that there should be restrictions on events that happen — on events that are currently happening at wineries, on other types of alcohol-production facilities that are also holding events that are on ALR land, and even on events selling farm products on a farm itself. Did the minister discuss the impact on tourism revenue with the Tourism Minister, with these restrictions on events?
Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. Just a reminder to the members that this report that we received was an independent report and that those recommendations are independent recommendations. The bill that was brought forward in the House last fall and the current bill that’s on the floor are the recommendations that we’ve accepted. In any future consideration of recommendations, of course, we’ll move forward with fulsome consultation with any part of the industry that would be affected.
L. Larson: I understand that there is no specific legislation on the table at this current time regarding this, but considering the amount of recommendations in here that have already been actioned by this government, I do find it very concerning, especially from a tourism perspective.
Currently several small producers of farm products — honey, lettuce, berries, etc. — can get together at one of the farms and create a farmers market. This report is suggesting that that practice no longer be allowed. Why would that be?
Hon. L. Popham: I’m sure the member is aware of the 50 percent rule that currently exists. If there were to be a farmers market set up on a farm establishment, 50 percent of what’s being sold at that market would have to be coming from that farm where the market is being hosted. Then the additional 50 percent can come from other vendors. There have been no changes with that.
I certainly agree with the member that if there were to be any consideration of changing that idea, there would have to be fulsome consultation. We would not want to see any negative effects.
L. Larson: The minister has said many times that British Columbians should eat more B.C. farm produce, but any of these recommendations would certainly not help to promote B.C. produce if it is more difficult for consumers to purchase. I still have grave concerns about this direction from the recommendations that appear to be making it more difficult for British Columbians to access farm produce by limiting the amount of produce available at any one location.
Hon. L. Popham: I’d just like to reiterate that there is currently, and has been for quite some time, the 50 percent rule. And nothing has changed.
L. Larson: If nothing has changed, then I am assuming that these types of recommendations that are in this book have no value.
However, further restrictions on agritourism accommodation are also recommended in the report. What is the rationale behind restricting time and removing cooking facilities from those tourism units which are currently in the allowable footprint of a particular ALR land, winery or farm?
Hon. L. Popham: I think that it has to be stated again that the committee was independent of myself, and the recommendations are independent recommendations.
I think I can say that when writing the recommendations, I’m almost sure that the committee had in mind two things: that was, how are things affecting the farmland, and how are they encouraging farming? The mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is, of course, to protect land and to encourage farming. I think we see that theme coming through in those recommendations, but they’re independent of me.
I know that there is some necessity to clarify the current legislation. Under the current legislation, the amount of time that someone is allowed to stay at an agritourism facility has always been limited. It is supposed to be short term. It’s not supposed to be a long-term stay. That’s current legislation.
Then the current legislation also includes that it’s just bedroom capacity. There has been no legislation that allows for a kitchen and cooking facilities built into those farmstay accommodations.
That’s current legislation. If there were to be any movement towards changing that, there of course would be consultation with the agriculture community, the tourism community and local government.
Let’s also be reminded that in all of this revitalization, the idea is to protect that farmland so that it can be farmed. So making sure that farmland is for farming needs to be the highest and best use for that land.
Of course we know that we have legislation that allows for other things to happen on farmland. We just want to make sure that agriculture is the primary activity.
L. Larson: I guess it’s more the fact that this type of recommendation can even come in a report — that, obviously, if the committee had expertise in the economics of farming, some of these things would never have been in this report at all.
For instance, as the minister well knows, through the South Okanagan and Similkameen, fruit stands line the sides of our highways, all the way along. The fruit stands are on the footprints of the agricultural land that they sit on, on the edge of the highway, and the stand itself belongs to that particular farmer.
Certainly, there is, inside that fruit stand, a multitude of B.C. product that is not produced on that land. There’s honey. There are jams. There are spices. There’s everything — all B.C., but it has come from many other locations to be in that stand. It is what draws the tourists to our area every year and does about $50 million worth of accommodation alone in the South Okanagan.
I have very grave concerns that people who are not familiar with the economies of the industry have made recommendations in this report that someone, at some point, may think is a good idea. I do have a very grave concern, and I would sincerely hope that nobody goes down this particular path.
Hon. L. Popham: To answer the member’s question and concerns about farm stands, for example. The farm stands right now must comply with that 50 percent rule as well. That’s not a change. It’s certainly not something that’s being contemplated.
I think what the independent committee did is that they did broad-range consultation with British Columbians. The input that they have compiled into recommendations in that report is just one piece of information that would be considered if changes were being made. We’re certainly not bound to those recommendations. Of course, if a change was going to be made around anything that would affect farm income, there would be consultation with the agricultural community. Absolutely, that’s a necessity.
I’d also like to say about the committee members that it’s a very diverse group of people. Many of them are farmers. I take a bit of exception to saying that they wouldn’t have any agricultural economic background. I would actually go further to say that they do. But we also had local government. We had the Real Estate Association. I mean, we had a diverse group of people collecting information from British Columbians. So I appreciate this report that they put together, but we’re not bound to those recommendations. We certainly have other ways of gathering input as well.
I. Paton: I would like to just start with a bit of a diatribe on the fact that I think we’re missing the boat in a lot of these recommendations. You know, agriculture in British Columbia, especially in the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island…. This is not Nebraska. This isn’t the open plains of Wyoming. This is small-scale agriculture, where people are trying to make a living in this province on smaller-scale properties.
Agritourism is so important for farmers to try to make a living in this province. We keep talking, and I keep hearing from this ministry about saving the land, saving the land. We need to talk about saving the farmer. How can the farmer and the family in the next generation continue to make a living on the farms that they’re on all throughout British Columbia?
Madam Chair, I’ll give you examples. In Delta alone, we have Day at the Farm. I think the minister has been there. It’s a huge day at the farm, where city people come out. Over 3,000 people attend Day at the Farm on Westham Island every year in the fall, at Emma Lea Farms. Just last weekend, they had a huge craft fair at their farm, at Emma Lea Farms, on Westham Island. We have nine agritourism businesses just on Westham Island in Delta alone. We have Horsting’s vegetable stand. It draws people in. It’s not just about purchasing veggies that they grew on the farm. It’s pies. It’s coming in to have soup and a sandwich at lunchtime, as you’re heading north towards Prince George.
Desert Hills Farm in Ashcroft, same thing. There are so many things. We have U-pick all throughout the Fraser Valley and British Columbia. We have pumpkins that are picked in the fall. There are hundreds of cars that come onto farms.
I don’t get it. Why are we trying to turn away agritourism? We have corn mazes on farms. That’s not necessarily farming, but it’s bringing an income to the farmer who’s trying to farm other types of farming. But these agritourism abilities give the families an opportunity to make some extra money.
Recommendation 14, if implemented, would devastate agritourism in B.C. The report makes it sound like agritourism is a bad thing when, in reality, agritourism is keeping the industry vibrant and encouraging the next generation of young farmers to stay on the farm.
Does the minister agree with the recommendation that agritourism-related activity should be severely restricted on farmland?
Hon. L. Popham: Well, from what I interpret from that recommendation, it’s really addressing the amount of buildings and amenities that go with agritourism and how they’re placed on the farm. The recommendation is to put them together. Currently under the legislation, you aren’t able to have permanent structures or permanent parking associated with an agritourism activity, so there are no changes there.
I think that where they’re going is: “Let’s not have 100 different agritourism operations happening on a farm that takes away the primary activity that should be happening, which is farming.” Do I support agritourism? Absolutely. Do I know that it’s part of what brings people out to our farms, that supports the agricultural economy? Of course I do. But I think that we also need to understand that the primary activity on that farm should be agricultural activity.
M. Hunt: I get it that we’re protecting farmland. I get that. I get the fact that some farmers have basically converted barns into wedding halls and are having weddings every weekend. I get it, okay? But we also have the reality that we have farm tours, where we have people coming to a barn that is very much a barn, and things are moved around, and we have tables, and whether it’s the chamber of commerce or whoever, people come in, have a big party for the day, that sort of thing.
Well, what we have is we have a greenhouse that grows flowers. The market for flowers rises and falls, so as a result, they’re not always using all of the inside of the cement-floored greenhouse. During part of the shoulder season when there is nothing else happening in a section of the greenhouse, they just slide things aside and have a party for the neighbours. Whether it’s a Christmas party, a Thanksgiving or Halloween type of thing…. To me, this sounds like the kind of good, wholesome stuff to bring the urbanites into the rural and see what it’s like, and we celebrate.
The problem is that now they’ve got a letter that says: “No, no, no. You can’t do this anymore. You have to cease and desist.” You must get a non-farm-use permit to have a couple of events in the greenhouse, in a part that isn’t being used for agriculture during that particular moment. But it is used for agriculture for the whole year.
Is there some change in policy that’s provoked this?
Hon. L. Popham: I see we’re going to be wrapping up soon, but I’ll just answer the question the member posed before we wrap up.
There have been no changes in legislation. Anything that has pertained to the situation that the member is talking about….
I don’t know the details, so I won’t get into the details, but something like that would fall under the legislation changes that were made under the former government. If the member wants to just talk more broadly about that legislative policy, you would require a permit for activities such as that through the Agricultural Land Commission, depending on the size, the scale and the scope of the event. That’s nothing that we’ve changed. That’s actually legislation from the former government.
Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada