Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CITIZENS’ SERVICES

(continued)

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $551,650,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I think we are going to try to begin now, officially.

I want to recognize that I am participating today from the homeland of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, today known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. We extend our appreciation to them for the opportunity to undertake the work before us on this land.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

S. Thomson: Good morning, Minister. Good morning to all the staff that are supporting the minister.

I appreciate the opportunity to continue the questions here. Just to advise the minister, I’ll start off this morning with a couple of questions around the budget and then a few questions to finish up the discussion and some of the questions we had around the privacy side of the ministry responsibilities.

About ten to ten or five to ten, MLA Sullivan, Vancouver–False Creek, will have a question, and we’ll turn the floor over to him for a question or two. Then — it should be around ten o’clock — we’ll be turning the questioning primarily over to the MLA for Kelowna West, my colleague Ben Stewart, around the FOI component and side of the ministry.

Thanks again to the minister. I appreciate the responses to the questions last week and look forward to being able to continue.

The first question is on the capital side of the ministry. Could the minister explain the fairly significant reductions in the capital expenses, both in terms of the real property side, a reduction from $251 million down to $186 million, and under the enterprise services, $51 million down to $37 million? Particularly on the enterprise services, with increasing data requirements, increasing cybersecurity threats, increasing need for robustness in our systems…. I’m really interested in what the reduction on the enterprise services component of the capital costs is.

[9:40 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much for this question.

The Ministry of Citizens’ Services’ capital budget for 2020-2021 is $350.266 million, which is a net decrease of 16 percent, or $66.974 million, compared to the 2019-2020 budget. This decrease is largely caused by reduced cash flow requirements due to the stage of multi-year major projects. The projects include the Capital Park building No. 2, Abbotsford courthouse complex, government workstations refresh and leading workplace strategies.

[9:45 a.m.]

Also, the decreases are partially offset by capital in­creases to fund additional facility infrastructure for government, including construction on the Nanaimo Correctional Centre, renovations to support segregation and accommodation in correctional centres, facility improvements for the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction services delivery offices, information management and information technology — sorry, this is for the maintenance and rehabilitation — and, as well, the energy-smart program.

S. Thomson: Thank you for that response.

Perhaps the best way to deal with this, rather than get into further follow-up and questions on this, is…. We’ll submit the questions in writing to get some more specific answers and details around what makes up the components — particularly, as I said, around the enterprise services component of it. I think that is what the minister was referring to on the workstation refresh side of things. We can follow that up with a specific request in writing.

A couple of questions on the privacy side of things. The minister will be aware…. One of the key areas of privacy protection is with respect to health data and health records. I don’t think anybody will argue. That’s a component of personal information that is very, very valuable and important to protect.

We’ve seen, over the last couple of years, a number of incidents and issues around that. There was an audit done in 2016 by the Privacy Commissioner around video surveillance and privacy compliance in medical clinics. Then this was followed up in September 2019 with another one around a compliance review of medical clinics. One of the components of the commissioner’s report on that was: “The troubling reality, however, is that privacy issues occur regularly within the medical field.” So flagging an area of concern and of importance.

Can the minister outline what steps government is taking to address the concerns raised by the report, particularly the 2019 report from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner?

[9:50 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Yes, I do agree with the member for Kelowna-Mission on the importance of privacy with health information. The audit that the member is referring to dealt with private clinics.

Let me tell you about our role in protecting privacy. Government completes and reviews over 1,000 privacy impact assessments each year in order to be assured that all government initiatives operate in compliance with privacy law. Government wards off over 300 million unauthorized access attempts to the government network daily. In instances where information is mishandled or inadvertently breached, government relies on a robust and consistent process to ensure that immediate action is taken and potential harms are mitigated and prevention measures are put in place.

Mandatory training of all public service employees and additional training offered for those that work with sensitive information or that are in privacy and security specialist roles such as the privacy officers and information security officers…. These roles ensure that privacy and security are well understood to be everyone’s responsibility.

S. Thomson: To the minister: thank you for that overview.

One of the very, I guess, significant high-profile breaches was the breach with respect to health data, and that was the breach with respect to LifeLabs currently being investigated by the Privacy Commissioner. We know that there has been a report done and an investigation done and that there are some determinations. Currently the report is not available for review.

A quick question. Can the minister advise when the ministry…? I think this may have predated the minister’s appointment, but can the minister advise when the minister, ministry, deputy minister was advised of the breach initially, and by whom?

[9:55 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: On October 30, 2019, LifeLabs had notified the Minister of Health, and on the same day the Minister of Health notified our investigations office in Citizens’ Services.

S. Thomson: Can the minister advise us whether she has received a copy of the Privacy Commissioner report, and what, from her perspective, the status of the report is? Has the minister started to take initial steps within the ministry to respond to the recommendations and the findings of the report?

[10:00 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The answer is no. We have not received the report. It is an open investigation.

As for other actions that the government is taking, it is not my practice to comment on open investigations. However, this is…. The lead ministry is the Ministry of Health, so they will be the lead on this particular file.

S. Thomson: Now I’d like to turn the question over to my colleague MLA Sullivan from Vancouver–False Creek.

S. Sullivan: As relates to the archives, which I know are technically under culture and museums…. My question relates to legislation like the provincial Information Management Act — basically arising from the decision to keep the archives closed till 2021. I know that was recently changed. Apparently, they will be opening much sooner than that.

It relates to the issue of the provincial archivist. That position was ended at that point. When we had a provincial archivist, we had an advocate for the archives. It was always so important to have someone dedicated to good recordkeeping but also dedicated to the love of history.

Next year is the 150th anniversary of B.C. joining the Confederation. What better way to remind ourselves of what this means than to strengthen the B.C. Archives with a provincial archivist?

Because of this issue, we did learn how important the archives are and to whom. We’ve realized so many people are patrons of the archives, who are legal professionals that are engaged in the pursuit of justice; civil servants pursuing the public good; landowners seeking affirmation of boundaries, etc.; scholars and educators who are discovering stories; film-makers and cultural institutions; engineers; issues of environmental remediation; tourists, etc.

The archives are such an important part of our community. They are the keeper of our provincial narratives. I just wanted to ask the minister: given the importance of the archives, will she consider reinstating the provincial archivist?

[10:05 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I want to say welcome to the member for Vancouver–False Creek to today’s estimates.

I agree with the member about the importance of B.C. Archives. In B.C., the role of the provincial archivist is shared with the Royal B.C. Museum and the B.C. Ministry of Citizens’ Services, and we work very collaboratively together on this particular function. The ministry has a dedicated team of archivists, and we take this responsibility very seriously. Due to the current impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the archives are closed. We monitor this on an ongoing basis.

So yes, I do agree with the member that this is a very important function.

B. Stewart: Minister, thanks very much.

I want to move to FOI. I know that this is a file that has a constant amount of consternation. Can you give us an update in terms of the on-time response for FOI requests in terms of the percentage as to meeting the guidelines that are set out in FOIPPA?

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I’m very proud to report government’s on-time rate was 80 percent for many years, with considerable effort. This raised to 89 percent in 2018-19 and 83 percent in 2019-2020. The province saw a 41 percent increase in request volume over the last three fiscal years, with over 13,000 requests received in 2019-2020 alone at an all-time high.

These requests continue to grow in number, size and complexity. We are receiving the highest number of general requests ever, with one requester responsible for 72 percent of the over 8,100 general requests received in the fiscal year for 2019 and 2020.

B. Stewart: Well, thank you for that information, Minister.

I want to go to this process about…. There was a report done in the spring of 2019 by Deloitte, and I want to talk about the cost drivers that are mentioned in that report. I wonder if the minister would comment or could confirm that six of the eight cost drivers identified by Deloitte are attributable to government internal processes.

Hon. A. Kang: The facts of the report are accurate.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Minister.

I want to go to page 10. The context of the review focuses on only one of the eight cost drivers — noted specifically, applicant request types. Can the minister list for this House the applicant types and the fees that are applied to based on the applicant type?

[10:15 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much to the member for that question.

The fees are not charged by applicant, but they’re charged by the effort — for example, the size and the scope of the particular request. In terms of fees, fees are not charged for personal requests. So personal requests are free, and only 1 to 2 percent of FOI requests result in a fee. If the member would like a detailed breakdown, we could certainly provide that for you.

B. Stewart: Okay. You mentioned that the fees are for effort. I do have the schedule of maximum fees, but I just wanted to clarify the applicant types. Can you just go back and tell us: besides personal, what are the other applicant types that you categorize them into?

[10:20 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The request types include media, personal or individual, business group, political party, interest groups, law firm, researcher and other public bodies.

B. Stewart: Maybe I could just…. On page 10 of the Deloitte report, Minister, it mentions “political party” three times. Can you just explain why?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: In response, page 10 of the report mentions this request type several times. In the last three years, we have seen the biggest increase in this applicant type. In fiscal ’18-19 and ’19-20, a political party submitted more than 10,700 requests. To give you an order of the magnitude of these requests, it is approximately 68 percent of all general requests at an approximate cost of $32 million to the process.

This report, I would like to note, was written by an independent third party.

B. Stewart: I certainly know that in the past…. You know, it’s not any different in terms of who’s in the official opposition. Questions need to be asked. Technology changes rapidly and is changing. And unfortunately, the complexity of requests does increase that.

On page 6 of that report, the FOI processes across “government ministries are highly variable.” Would the minister agree with this comment in the executive summary?

[10:30 a.m. - 10:35 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: To the first part of the question, I would have to respectfully disagree. It is incorrect. During this government, we have seen a significant increase in the number and complexity from political parties, as indicated by the Deloitte report.

I do agree with the member and acknowledge that the facts in the report…. The reality is that the ministry resources differently and uses different technologies to help manage information. However, our staff work constantly to improve information management practices and ensure as much consistency as possible across government. We have a community of practice. We’ve developed guidelines to ensure a cross-government approach in our practices and do that consistently.

B. Stewart: Well, Minister, I know we would like to get the cost of this down.

In terms of this report, it’s my understanding that you were briefed on the Deloitte report about recommendations to make FOIs work better. There are ten recommendations, I believe.

I wanted to ask you about what necessitated a need for guidelines to be updated. With that, can you also explain an example of the difference between non-topical and topical requests provided in the training guide sent across government? And what is the process for preparing electronic records after September of 2019, when these guidelines were put in place?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I’ll answer this question in two parts. With respect to change, there is no change in practice since September 2019. Further to the previous question, this is a good example of the provisions of guidelines to reinforce consistent practice. We always look to continuously improve, so this isn’t a change but, rather, an enforcement of good practice.

In terms of the second part of the question, some examples of non-topical requests versus topical requests. A non-topical request is one that asks for all emails for the entire month. So there’s no topic there. For the topical requests — on particular requests or policies, for example, child care policy or housing policy. So just reflecting on my previous experience as a teacher, being able to continually reflect on the process and good practices is something that we continue to do, similarly, in Citizens’ Services.

B. Stewart: I just had some technical difficulties there. I am hard-wired in, and I missed some of the minister’s response. I’ll accept that my colleague who is co-critic has heard it, and we’re going to move to the last part in this section.

We just want to…. I guess, in terms of this recommendation, is it…? The recommendation to attempt to narrow and eliminate fees has been removed. Is this applied to all applicants? Are they are evenly treated?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: All applicants are treated the same.

B. Stewart: I want to move on to…. Just in terms of another OIPC report, an adjudicator came out in September 24 of ’19 and essentially stated that they were not convinced that the opposition requests were an abuse of the right of access under FIPPA.

I just want to clarify. What is the “political party applicant,” and what is the “opposition applicant”? Are they the same or different?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We track status as political party. We do not track the actual party name. It could be one of the many political parties that reside in B.C.

B. Stewart: I appreciate that. I do know that there are quite a few registered in British Columbia.

I want to move on to proactive disclosure. I know that this is something…. I’m sure that within government, more proactive disclosure makes it less onerous on FOI to have to do all this work.

I want to go to a report by the Information and Privacy Commissioner released on June 11, 2020. Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy states: “Proactive disclosure is more than just a helpful suggestion or best practice. It is a legal obligation under FIPPA. Public bodies can help themselves and the public by proactively disclosing frequently requested records.”

The report has three recommendations for all public bodies in British Columbia: all public bodies should establish additional categories of records; categories of records should be published and easily accessible to everyone; government should update its open information and open data policy to include guidance and tools to help ministries identify and establish categories of records for routine release.

I think the other thing that’s most important in this conclusion is…. This investigation found that while some public bodies are complying with section 71, others must take action now to comply with their legal obligations.

I think that probably the key in this particular report is it’s looking at how the costs can be driven down by the bodies that are required, under FOI or FOIPPA, to be able to do that.

I’m wondering if the minister can tell us: which of the expanded categories for proactive disclosure have there been since forming government? What are those categories? If we could receive that first.

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We agree with the importance, that proactive disclosures are very important. A reminder to the member that FOIPPA covers 2,900 organizations. It’s not just core government.

Currently there are eight proactive disclosure directives. In 2016, the first eight ministerial directives were issued. These directives require ministries to disclose specific categories for information without an FOI request. In 2018, two of these directives were repealed and replaced with amended versions.

The eight categories of records are as follows: ministers’ travel expenses, ministers’ and deputy ministers’ calendars, summaries of information about directly awarded contracts, summaries of open and closed FOI requests, records released in response to FOI requests, summary of information about contracts with values over $10,000 Canadian and summaries of information about alternative service delivery contracts.

As well, in response to issues about more directives, as part of this corporate proactive disclosure initiative, the OCIO continues to track the FOI requests received by government to identify trends and establish new categories for records for disclosure under section 17.1. The OCIO also continues to work with ministries to identify future categories of records for disclosure under section 71.1 and is actively monitoring developments in other jurisdictions.

B. Stewart: I just want to be clear that I know some of those categories that you just listed off there were things that…. When we were in government, we introduced ministers’ travel, calendars and expenses.

Anyways, my question really is: if there are new ones, will you agree to share that information with us so that we at least have an idea of where we can cut down requests and help in terms of trying to make this an easier process?

Secondly, I want to go back to a question that you answered with the many political parties. I asked you the question about what is a political party applicant and what is the opposition applicant. Are they the same or different? What I really want to ask you is: is the opposition considered to be a political party, or is it a different category?

Hon. A. Kang: Yes, we will share that information about proactive disclosures with you. In response to the second question, the opposition is a political party.

[11:00 a.m.]

B. Stewart: I know time is tight. It always seems like a lot of time and a lot of questions. But I want to just thank the minister and her staff for what they’ve done.

One area where we do want to send in some written requests on, that we’ve had quite a bit of correspondence on, is Service B.C. offices during the effects of COVID-19 and the challenges for both the offices as well as the people, the citizens, of British Columbia that are actively having difficulty and some misunderstanding about the preparations and rules around fair access to that information and a number of other written questions.

I think at this point I’d just like to turn it over to my colleague from Kelowna-Mission, Steve Thomson. He has the final word.

S. Thomson: On behalf of my colleague and other colleagues who have participated in this process, I just want to thank the minister and her staff who supported her in the process for all the work and the questions. As we said in our opening comments, this is a very, very important ministry that touches all of our citizens in British Columbia — an important role. We recognize that, and we look forward to continuing to work with the minister and her team as we go forward.

As my colleague mentioned, we will follow up with some written questions and some other specific questions. The minister has been very responsive to those kinds of questions in the past, and we appreciate that.

Again, just on behalf of all of us, thank you very much, and we look forward to continuing to work with you.

The Chair: Thank you. Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks before I call the vote.

Hon. A. Kang: Yes. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

My staff are in and out of this room, but all of us are very…. We appreciate the questions from our critics. They have been wonderful critics. I thank them for their kind words. As well, I want to thank all the members opposite for participating in estimates. This has been my first one. Very enjoyable. The questions that came forward really give us a sense of how well we work together as government and our critics.

I want to thank everyone on behalf of my ministry.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. And thank you to all the members.

Seeing no further questions, I’ll now call the vote.

Vote 20: ministry operations, $551,650,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

Now I will call a short recess of ten minutes while we prepare for the Minister of Agriculture.

The committee recessed from 11:03 a.m. to 11:14 a.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $77,261,000.

[11:15 a.m.]

The Chair: Minister of Agriculture, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do.

I’m happy to be joining all of you. It’s nice to see my critic, MLA Paton. We don’t get to see each other very often these days.

It’s nice to see your face, Ian.

I’d like to introduce my staff that are joining me today. This is a very unique way of doing estimates, but I think that we have been all working hard to find a way to do it smoothly. With me today, in my office, is my deputy minister, Tom Ethier. I have my assistant deputy minister Arif Lalani and my assistant deputy minister Jennifer McGuire. I have my chief financial officer, Brian Fraser. And I have the CEO of the Agricultural Land Commission, Kim Grout.

I also have a whole herd of Agriculture staff that are joining me via teleconference, and I’d like to mention them as well. It takes a lot of team effort to prepare for estimates and get through the day. I appreciate everybody’s hard work. We have Graham Knox, Martha Anslow, Shelley Canitz, Lonny Steward, Gavin Last, Mark Raymond, Wes Shoemaker, Rotimi Famodile, Kirsten Pedersen, Ursula Viney, Brian Cotton and David Travia. That’s the team that I have to support me today.

I’d like to say, just briefly…. I think we only have about six hours. So I won’t give too much of an introduction.

This has been a very difficult year, which we’ve all been experiencing, due to the pandemic. There have been some silver linings in ways that our sector has changed the way they’re doing business.

We’ve seen some extraordinary numbers coming out of last year’s financials. So I think, given the setback we’ve seen because of COVID-19, there is some hope that we’re on the right track. I feel strongly that agriculture, fish and processing are part of the way that we can become more resilient as a province. I look forward to continuing the work that we’re doing.

Thank you very much. Happy to be here today.

The Chair: Now I’d like to ask if the member for Delta South would like to make some opening remarks as well.

I. Paton: Thank you to the Minister of Agriculture for a lot of good work that goes on. Being the Agriculture critic, I’m sure we’ll have six hours of lots of critiques. I’ll put it that way.

I want to introduce myself. I also want to say that I’m kind of…. My partner, the co–Agriculture critic — I’ll call her Linda — from Boundary-Similkameen, couldn’t be with me today. She has some family issues. Anyways, I’ll be on my own here, along with some fellow MLAs later on this afternoon.

I think I’ve said this a million times. I’ve been in agriculture my whole life. A third generation Paton living on our farm in Delta. My grandfather came to the farm about 1937. I’m living in my grandfather’s house. I was actually born and raised on the farm that I’m still living on today, 63 years later. So very involved in the dairy industry — I was a dairy farmer for many years — and also in the farm auction business.

I’ve been on so many committees, over the years, for agriculture, whether it’s the Delta Farmers Institute, the board of directors for agriculture at the PNE, the B.C. Youth in Agriculture board at the PNE, the Metro Vancouver and the Delta ag advisory committee.

As the minister has said, it has been a very trying year since the start of 2020. So many things, because of COVID-19, have affected agriculture in this province. We can start with things such as….

My history goes back to the auction business. So many ranchers in this province depend on the bull sales and the auction sales that all take place in February and March and April in this province. Those had to be set aside or reworked to make it work, but it was very difficult. Farm equipment auctions have been put on hold or cancelled.

Very disappointing for kids in agriculture and 4-H. All the fairs and agricultural fairs have been cancelled, pretty much, this summer. We’re still trying to figure out how we can pull off the 4-H auction at the PNE, which we’ve done every year since the 1960s. Yeah, a lot of trying times.

[11:20 a.m.]

Labour shortages, of course, are a huge thing in the province. Then, with the COVID-19 outbreak, we saw some of the craziest things, such as rationing of toilet paper. I must say, I’m probably not the only one, but my prediction back then in February was we haven’t seen anything until people stop and think: “What if there’s a positive testing in our processing plants for fruit, for vegetables, for poultry, for beef.” We saw that happen, and suddenly there was panic in the streets. There were empty grocery store shelves.

The system of processing in the beef industry certainly got backed up because of closures and shutdowns of processing plants, not only here in B.C., with poultry, but also in the prairie provinces, with some of the big meat production companies. It’s taught us a lot of things about being prepared. It’s taught us a lot of things about the future and being prepared with personal protective equipment in our processing plants.

Anyways, I’m happy to get started. I thank you for this time. I certainly wish we had 12 or 14 hours, but we’ll try and get through this as best we can.

I’m going to start off with a news release that came out on February 19, 2020. This is from a very respected group, probably the most respected agricultural group in the province, the B.C. Ag Council, out of Abbotsford.

On February 19, 2020, they put out a news release. It says: “B.C. NDP Government Releases Disappointing Budget for Agriculture.”

“The B.C. Ministry of Agriculture received a $2.8 million reduction in funding for 2020. The reduction is primarily targeting travel and office expenses, a freeze on hiring and anticipated program slippage. Out of all the provinces, British Columbia continues to have the lowest government expenditures in agriculture as a percentage of agriculture GDP.

“Grow B.C., Feed B.C., Buy B.C. will not increase in its third year as originally planned, meaning new food hubs will be on hold….

“‘As recent studies have reported, agriculture has significant potential to grow Canada’s economy,’ says Stan Vander Waal, BCAC president. ‘We believe this is also possible in B.C.; however, our province still invests less money into the agriculture sector, relative to its size, than any other province in Canada. We need to invest in this sector if we want to realize the potential that it can bring.’”

My question to the minister. How can this government possibly stand up and tell farmers, ranchers and processors that agriculture is a priority in our province?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. It’s always a pleasure to talk about how much of a priority agriculture is and the successes that we’ve seen with the supports that we’ve put in place.

I just wanted to mention, before I address the member’s question specifically, that the Ministry of Agriculture budget is more than $95.4 million for ’20-21, which is almost $14 million larger than it was under the previous government. I can say that the fiscal adjustment was an untargeted budget reduction to each ministry for the years 2021 through 2023. It was untargeted, and the strategy for managing the reduction was left to ministries to modify their budget allocation, applying their knowledge of priorities and stakeholder needs.

This is consistent with the direction that was provided in alignment with the government and ministry priorities. We focused on protecting staff and the delivery of our core services with minimal disruption to our stakeholders. We also protected existing funding for Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. and removed the planned expansion funded in prior budgets. As a result, we primarily targeted operational expenses such as travel, contract expenditures, information technology, office and business expenses, and other discretionary expenditures.

We’ll continue to monitor and evaluate operational work during the fiscal year and then adjust accordingly, depending on emerging issues and needs. I can say that the decisions that were made reflect our strong fiscal management as a government. I believe that was a responsible choice to make.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that answer, but I’m going to ask it one more time.

I’m going to frame it this way. The minister says that agriculture is certainly a priority in the province of British Columbia. But the first three or four things that would pop into my head if I were a newcomer in agriculture in B.C…. I’d say there was virtually nothing mentioned in the throne speech about agriculture. That tells you something. The budget has declined by $2.8 million this year. Agriculture is not even part of the B.C. economic recovery task force. That certainly tells you something.

A group was formed called Changes to Bill 52. There are over 4,000 members of a Facebook site that are just so adamantly upset about the direction of agriculture in Bill 52 and Bill 15 in this province. They came to the Legislature as a protest back in May, with 38,000 names on a petition.

Again, how do these four things add up to priority for agriculture in B.C.?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I find the question that the critic has posed to be quite interesting. We have the highest budget that Agriculture has ever seen in the history of British Columbia, and that’s to the credit of our government believing that food security is an extremely high priority for us. It’s hard for me to understand the critic criticizing the highest budget that Agriculture’s ever had, and much higher than it was under his government’s leadership.

I think we’ve seen some incredible support coming forward for the sector. Agriculture is significant when it comes to the economic framework. I think COVID-19 has put a focus on the need to continue the path that we’ve been working on. The critic says that we’ve decreased the budget, that we’re not listening to the thousands and thousands of stakeholders that there are in agriculture.

I can tell the critic this. When the pandemic struck, we began making calls and contacts through our ministry. We’ve made over 6,000 contacts over the last few months. That’s listening to people who are in the business, listening to farmers, listening to every part of the sector. We have been checking in non-stop, and we’ve heard about the challenges that they’ve faced, which included not just the challenges around COVID, but in general.

Also, we’ve heard about some of the successes that people have seen. The silver lining right now is that consumers are very aware of the food system. I think that the focus that we’ve put on having a strong domestic supply and demand is going to allow us to continue making a plan for resiliency.

I’m not quite sure where the critic is going. Maybe he could tell me again. If we have the highest budget that the province has ever seen for Agriculture, how would that be something negative?

I. Paton: I’ve got several questions related to the budget, but to answer the minister’s question briefly…. As years go by, everything tends to go up, including…. Budgets will go up. The cost of farming goes up.

[11:35 a.m.]

Interestingly enough, the government put out quite a release just yesterday, I believe it was, to say that our sales are up $3.9 billion in British Columbia for agricultural products. But what they failed to say is that one of the biggest contributors to that increase is cannabis. I think most people know my position on cannabis on farmland in British Columbia.

It goes on to say, in an article by Mr. Fletcher, that the Agriculture Minister “credits the improved revenues to the province’s work in ‘helping farmers farm and strengthen food security.’ But two-thirds of the revenue increase over 2018 is from cannabis sales, which rose $300 million as legal retail expanded.”

There’s really no mention of the aquaculture industry, including salmon farming, which added to a huge part of this increase in cash receipts into the province. But what we don’t see is the talk of what it costs in increased expenses to run farms in B.C. A farmer may see increased revenue from cash sales, but under this government, we have seen increases to carbon tax, to the EHT, to minimum wage, to farm equipment and farm building insurance rates, electricity, heating fuel, machinery fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, seed, veterinary care and business insurance.

We can see cash receipts going up, which looks good, but the costs of production in this province are going through the roof, with all of the added taxes and red tape that are happening under this government.

My question to the minister is: can you tell me what is the single biggest hit to the Agriculture budget regarding COVID-19?

Hon. L. Popham: I’m just going to briefly touch on some of the comments that the critic said, but I also need to qualify his question, I think.

B.C.’s farm cash receipts increased 13.3 percent, or $462 million, which is bringing it to a record of $3.924 billion in 2019. Farmers’ total net income rose from $24 million to $66 million, which is a 174 percent increase. But the critic asked what the biggest hit to Agriculture has been due to COVID-19, and I’m not quite sure what he meant by that, if he could just maybe restate his question.

I. Paton: Well, I’ll rephrase this to the minister. How has COVID-19 impacted government revenues within the scope of this ministry?

Hon. L. Popham: I guess I’m still a little bit unclear on the question. The critic asked: what is the biggest impact on revenue to the ministry? Our ministry doesn’t have a lot of revenue. But if he means the impact to the entire sector, I’d have to say, honestly, that I think it’s too soon to tell what the impact is.

[11:40 a.m.]

We do know that there have been some very big challenges for the restaurant sector, which has impacted our farmers. There has been an enormous impact on our seafood sector because of the challenges around moving products internationally.

There are a lot of things that we will have to see, in the longer term, how it turned out. We recognize that there have been big challenges. On the positive side, we do know that there has been an increase in domestic sales for farmers. We don’t have those numbers officially. We have been hearing reports from farmers, for example, that sell at farmers markets.

We offered a program to help farmers and seafood producers and food processors get online with their products. We offered an e-commerce program. Very popular. It was actually subscribed to immediately, the first release of finances, and then the second time, again, very much subscribed to. We could probably add more to our budget around supporting e-commerce, and we’re looking at that. These are new ways that farmers and fishers and food processors are able to move their products.

COVID has posed many challenges, but we are looking at new ways of doing business. We hear the term “the new normal.” We’re not going to go backwards with this. We’ve even heard reports from up in the Comox Valley. Someone who raises cattle has seen a threefold increase in their sales online. There are definitely bits of good news throughout this very challenging time.

I. Paton: My next question would be: were any additional funds provided to the Ministry of Agriculture for COVID-19, and how were these allocated within the departments? In other words…. So many things had to be dealt with, whether it was hotels for migrant workers, meals for migrant workers, travel costs, PPE to go to farming operations and processing plants. What were the additional funds provided to the ministry because of COVID-19?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I’ve got four areas that I can talk to the critic about. We have domestic migrant agricultural worker accommodation, this was $1.6 million; AgriRecovery, which is $15 million; and animal care facilities, over $6.5 million. We’re also looking at, at this point, almost $20 million for the temporary foreign workers quarantine process.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I guess to continue on about declining revenues, my question to the minister is: how have the agricultural revenues declined since COVID shutdown? I’m thinking of bees, laboratory work in Abbotsford, permits, licences — all the different things that would bring in revenue to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Hon. L. Popham: The ministry gets less than $1 million in revenue annually. In fact, about $982 million this current fiscal for the ministry.

[11:50 a.m.]

Sorry, $982,000. My deputy corrected me. I was way, way up. It’s $982,000 for the ministry, about $530,000 for the ALC fees.

Around the fees collected at the lab, the Abbotsford lab did not stop at all through COVID. So there has been no decrease in revenue there.

Another area where there are fees is around meat applications, processing applications. We’ve seen a significant increase since January 1 of our class E applications. We’ve already had 28 applications come through for class C. Last year, in total, we had about 23. So we see significant more activity there. Then we’ve seen 11 class D applications come in, in Alberni-Clayoquot since the changes were made there by our government.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. My next question would be: how much of the $1.5 billion in recovery funding that’s left is being requested by the Ministry of Agriculture, and for what purposes?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you to the critic for the question. Those discussions are ongoing. Of course, we will be putting forward initiatives that we believe are priorities, but there is nothing to report out as of now.

I. Paton: Through you, Madam Chair, nothing to report yet on the recovery plan for moneys left over for agriculture in British Columbia. Is that correct, what I just heard?

Hon. L. Popham: It’s an ongoing process, and we are putting forward our priorities.

I. Paton: To the minister, what agriculture groups in the province of B.C. have come forward so far with priority requests for a portion of the $1.5 billion in recovery funds?

Hon. L. Popham: Because the critic asked that, I will say that we won’t see a complete list until the end of August. I’d like to also remind the critic that this doesn’t pertain to the budget estimates today.

I. Paton: Now that the province is in deficit, how will the ministerial holdbacks be impacted?

[11:55 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: We believe that that question is better directed to the Minister of Finance.

I. Paton: My question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could you tell me why agriculture is not being represented on the Premier’s economic recovery task force?

Hon. L. Popham: Our ministry has been hard at work making sure that we’ve made contact with all of our stakeholders right across the province. All of that information is being fed into the economic recovery task force, so there is large representation from agriculture, fish and food processing.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour, can this be your last question, please?

I. Paton: Certainly. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This has been a very trying time — very disorganized — through this pandemic for almost everyone, including farmers, including agriculture, people trying to figure out where things are going with changes to legislation.

My question to the minister…. A couple of your staff were very well liked, Mr. Mack and Mr. Shoemaker. Why would there be a change of DMs and ADMs in the middle of this pandemic?

Hon. L. Popham: I’ll note that that question is not relevant to estimates, but I will say that any HR issues are handled through the public service.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 11:59 a.m.