Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

The Chair: I’d like to start by recognizing that I’m speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I’m very honoured and privileged to do my work here and also to represent them in the Legislature.

We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. L. Popham: No, I don’t. I am just looking forward to continuing the process.

I. Paton: To start off after lunch today, I would just like to read out a quote from the minister, as a reminder to the minister, as a reminder of what is applicable to my questioning in the Ministry of Agriculture budget estimates.

Her colleague the hon. Finance Minister delivered the following statement into Hansard on Tuesday, June 23: “As I said that day when those dollars passed, we are accountable for every dollar of that $5 billion. The members know that. They know they have an opportunity here, in estimates, during this session to debate those dollars. Each of the ministers who have individual programs will be responsible.”

Moving on, I would like to revisit the minister’s comment on the Premier’s economic recovery task force. She said that numerous stakeholders have been in touch with her ministry and her staff and would be sure to convey their concerns to the Premier’s economic recovery task force. Well, this is simply not good enough. I have a list of members included on the task force in front of me. We see representatives from businesses, Indigenous groups, social services and creative arts, yet no mention of agriculture.

[1:35 p.m.]

What we see on the list of the Premier’s economic recovery task force is, for instance, the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Surrey Board of Trade, the Federation of Labour, the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, the Federation of Community Social Services, SUCCESS and Creative B.C.

Representing over 60,000 farmers in British Columbia is the British Columbia Agriculture Council. Why in the world wouldn’t the B.C. Ag Council be representing agriculture on the Premier’s economic recovery task force?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question.

Many of the concerns and challenges that have been felt through the pandemic by the agriculture, fish and food processing sector have been brought to us because my ministry has been hard at work making sure we’ve made contact with people over the last three months. As I said earlier, there have been well over 6,000 contacts made in my ministry.

We are aware of the challenges. This is being passed through the economic recovery task force. I also have my executive…. My deputy is also working on a deputy’s committee which is passing that information through to the Premier’s economic recovery task force.

I. Paton: I’d like to move on now to some housing issues regarding Bill 52. I must say that in the last year, if I had a dollar for every phone call and every email I’ve received from farmers, ranchers and rural property owners throughout this province, I’d be very wealthy. This is a huge issue.

I want to quote the Minister of Agriculture from CBC radio’s B.C. Today. “If a family needs an additional home, even three additional homes, to support their farming operation, they are very welcome to apply to the Agricultural Land Commission. If the commission sees that the application is being made within agricultural lands and the additional residents are there to support the farming operation, they will approve those applications.” The minister is suggesting that if a family needs an additional home, even three…. That would be four homes on a rural property or a farm, which, to me, is unheard of.

My question to the minister is: considering she is suggesting you could actually have four homes on a farm, how many applications have been approved through the ALC for such a thing — for even one extra home, two extra homes, three extra homes? Are there any examples where two, three or four extra homes have been approved in the last year by the ALC?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Just so the member understands what’s happened over the last year, there were 71 applications put forward for non-adhering residential usage. Fifty-one of those applications were approved, and 20 of them were refused.

I also, in speaking with the ALC…. It’s not unusual that there are more than two houses on a farming property to support the farming family. Although we don’t have the file number, there is one example that is from the Okanagan with three dwellings being on a farm parcel to support the family farm.

The member says he thinks it’s unheard of, but I’ve travelled a lot throughout the province, especially through the Cariboo, and it’s not unusual, in my view, that there’s more than one family home on a piece of property.

I. Paton: Well, we must be, certainly, talking to different people, reading different media outlets.

This is just such a huge issue in B.C. In fact, just the other day, I had a call from up in Hixon, B.C., with an elderly couple living in a small older house on a farm. This has to do with insurance, of all things. Insurance companies are now saying to these folks, who have a single-wide trailer on the farm as well…. The insurance agencies, including down here….

An example is going to be my own farm in Delta. Insurance companies are now saying: “We will not insure the secondary mobile home. Under the legislation, if that mobile home burns down, it cannot be rebuilt and replaced, because they’re only allowed one home on that title property.” So there’s an example.

Even on my own family farm, I have my mother in a house built in 1905, and I live in my grandfather’s house, which was built in the 1930s. If one of those two houses were to burn down, we’re being told that we cannot rebuild the second house because my mother is not considered farm help.

Could you answer that for me, please?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. It’s good to clarify what can and what can’t happen. So I appreciate the opportunity to do that.

If there was a residence that was affected by fire on a farm, if it was a mobile home or a dwelling…. First off, all existing structures are grandfathered. If one of those were to succumb to a fire, it would actually just be a process of applying to build another residence to replace it. That would go through the ALC.

As far as the insurance question, the rule hasn’t changed. It’s just who administers the rule that has changed. It used to fall under local government, but it was exactly the same rule. They would have the ability to choose whether or not a building would be rebuilt, if it was necessary for the farm operation. It used to fall under local governments’ responsibility, and now it falls under the ALC responsibility. The rule hasn’t changed.

I. Paton: To the minister: you’ve just said it’s not an issue; it’s not a problem. How can this information get out to the B.C. bureau of insurance, so that this gets out to insurance companies all through the rural parts of B.C., which are suggesting to farm owners that they will not insure secondary dwellings on farms?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I certainly can’t speak for the insurance companies, but what I can tell you is that the rule hasn’t changed.

I. Paton: I have so many articles. It’s endless. I think the minister would get the same agricultural newspapers and magazines and articles in local newspapers. It’s absolutely endless. So many of them focus on Bill 52 and the issues of rural property owners trying to succeed with a secondary home.

I’ve said for years, when I’ve made comments or speeches, that I’ve travelled this province, and if the next generation of farmers coming along are to succeed and buy into the family business as a successful business, we need to allow family members and farm help to live on the farm.

An example is Smithers. In Smithers, there are actually 11 dairy farms up there. Some of them are 25 or 30 kilometres away from downtown Smithers. A dairy farm is a 24-hour-a-day business. This is a farm that has cows calving in the middle of the night, cows that are sick with milk fever, horses that are foaling in the middle of the night. How could you possibly expect family members to commute 25 kilometres and live in an apartment in downtown Smithers when the father and mother own an 800-acre dairy farm with one home on it?

There’s a housing crisis in this province. Every Monday night in council, when I was on council…. It’s a no-brainer. All over this province, councils, on Monday nights, add density to their municipalities — two-lot splits, three-lot splits. We’ve got to make houses narrow. We’ve got to put more houses per square foot on lots. Yet in B.C., we have farms that are 100 acres, 800 acres, 1,200 acres, and we’re saying that you can have one house, maybe two. I’m suggesting that we should have three, maybe four.

If you have family members, sons and daughters, that want to be on the farm, they deserve to live on the farm if they want to be part of that farming operation. Even a former NDP Minister of Agriculture, David Zirnhelt, had this to say:

“Policy needs to reflect the realities of farmers living on the land and leaving the work in retirement. Attracting and retaining the next generation in farming is critical to the survival of family farms…. Increasingly, recent generations have higher expectations of lifestyle if they are going to be on the land. In short, decent housing, decent income and a supportive, stimulating culture around us is necessary to attract and retain people in the rural areas….

“Good housing in the rural areas is hard to come by, especially if landowners are restricted to one home per parcel of land in the agricultural zones…. Having more, better housing stock will help retain and attract young families. Older folks like to have others around for the heavy lifting and for emergencies.”

I have said this all along too. Rural communities and rural landowners…. It’s also about succession of family members. It’s about having grandpa and grandma on the farm. It’s about helping out with child care and families looking after each other.

We have an issue in British Columbia with rural areas, where the elementary schools are closing down. The community halls are not open anymore. They’re closing down because there are not enough people living in the rural areas. That’s why we need farm families to be on these farms with multiple houses.

Another quote I’d like to bring forward is from the Fraser Valley News of June 2020, and it’s a quote from the Minister of Agriculture: “It takes a lot of people to run a large farm. Having parents, in-laws and siblings on site helps many B.C. farms produce the food we need more efficiently. Our government will continue to make life better for these hard-working farming families.”

My question to the minister. After quotes like the one I just read out, how in the world can we continue on with Bill 52 and the legislation that is hurting people from putting secondary or third homes on their family farms?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you to the critic. I couldn’t agree more. That’s why there is no limit to the amount of applications that you can put forward to the ALC for homes that can be built that support the family farm.

[1:55 p.m.]

I. Paton: I’d like to look at some resolutions from UBCM about the same issue. This isn’t just about farmers, ranchers, rural landowners in B.C. that have got all of the issues with Bill 52. This comes down to resolutions at UBCM and from chambers of commerce.

There’s a 31,000-person petition that got presented in the Legislature last fall. Part of the petition reads: “Give equal opportunities for all farmers to diversify and sell value-added farm products independent of alcohol production.”

UBCM resolution B168, September of 2019, reads this: “To reinstate the previous provisions of the legislation which facilitated the construction of additional dwellings for farm help, manufactured homes for immediate family members, accommodation above an existing farm building or a second single-family dwelling.” It was endorsed unanimously.

My third resolution is from Kootenay regional district. It was: “Be it resolved that the province reinstate the previous provisions of the legislation which facilitated the construction of additional dwellings for farm help, manufactured homes for immediate family members and accommodation over existing farm buildings or a second single-family dwelling.”

When these resolutions are put forward at UBCM…. I find UBCM to be very serious. The resolutions part of the program is very serious. I’ve never been part of government yet to deal with resolutions. But have you dealt with these resolutions that have been put forward at UBCM regarding the restriction of secondary homes on rural properties?

Hon. L. Popham: First off, I hope that the member is clear that if a farming family has the requirement for an additional residence to help support the family farm, there is a path forward to the ALC with an application. I hope that the member understands that there’s no limit on the number of homes a family farm can build if it supports the farming operation.

I hope that the member is clear on that, and I hope that he is able to also give that message to our farming families around the province. I know he travels a lot around the province. Or he used to, as I used to. It’s really important that people in the province get the correct information.

Around the resolutions that came forward at UBCM, there has been an ongoing engagement process with local government with my ministry. Local government has been providing the input that explores all of those additional residence options, and those were options that we laid out in our intentions paper for residential flexibility.

[2:00 p.m.]

I. Paton: I have so many binders of interesting quotes here. I’d like to read something that was sent to me from the Delta Farmers Institute, which, of course, I’m quite closely connected to.

“Farm operations need flexibility for residential housing and additional housing, particularly with the widespread challenges of housing affordability and worker shortages. For instance, livestock needs on-site supervision. In some cases, it is a travel distance issue to obtain local staff. For many operations, having accommodation is essential for competitiveness and can encourage diversity for existing farmers and new entrants.”

I would like, at this point, to bring another example up. In my travels, I was in Fort St. John. I’ve just had such a great opportunity to check out all parts of British Columbia and all the different farming operations. I met with a lovely older couple up in Fort St. John. We sat, and we had coffee in their kitchen. They specifically asked me to come over because on the edge of their huge canola and wheat farm was a bit of a knoll, with mostly all trees and bush, but a clearing on that knoll.

They really wanted their son and daughter-in-law and their children to be able to take possession of that knoll and build a house to live on the farm with their elderly mom and dad. But because they were turned down by the ALC to subdivide off about five acres on that knoll to build their own house…. Banks, we must understand, do not hand out mortgages to people that don’t have their name on the title of a piece of property. That’s another huge issue in this province.

What would you say to this family — a great, hard-working family with a huge history in the Peace country of farming — that their son and daughter-in-law and grandchildren cannot separate off this five acres to build a house in Fort St. John?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, first off, any of the regulations around subdividing on the ALR have not changed. Those regulations exist as they did under the member’s government. There’s been no change there. I do know that there are financial mechanisms available to build more than one home on the same title, and that’s demonstrated, by example, all around the province, as the member has stated as well.

[2:05 p.m.]

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. We certainly must be getting different reactions from people all over the province. I am constantly getting calls and trying to get back to people who, disappointedly, time after time, are being turned down for applications for things like I just spoke of.

Here’s another situation over on Vancouver Island from a friend. Meghan writes: “There are no promises. Our lives are on hold, waiting for the minister to correct the housing constraints that the minister has put on us, which have ultimately had a negative impact on our abilities to farm and been exacerbated throughout this pandemic.”

Now, this young lady and her parents on the farm wanted to move a single-wide trailer on to a rural property on Vancouver Island. They actually wanted to place the trailer on an old site of a tennis court, so they would not even be putting it on any sort of black soil. But of course, again, they were turned down by the ALC.

Is there any reason why that should happen?

Hon. L. Popham: First off, it’s really important to have correct information. So I would just like to correct the member. He said that nobody is having any applications approved through the ALC. In fact, that’s not true. There were 71 applications. Fifty-one were approved, and 20 weren’t. That’s a 72 percent approval rating. The vast majority of applications are being approved, first off.

Then the good news is that there’s a path forward for farming families. The example that the member brought up…. The good news is if an additional residence needs to be put in place to support the family farm for farming purposes, then there is an application process that’s available for that family.

I. Paton: I just want to quickly read into the record…. I mean, I’ve got so many letters here of people that have been turned down.

The McDonald family in Salmon Arm, with a small property, have been turned down for a second home. They’re retired over by Adams Lake. They want to move over to the property in Salmon Arm with their daughter and son-in-law.

The Watt family of Loon Lake and Clinton turned down. Mr. Corson turned down. Mindy Parmar turned down. The list is absolutely endless. So I’m very confused by these answers.

[2:10 p.m.]

I’d like to move on to value-added. Also hitting the media and the newspapers like everything else has with Bill 52 and Bill 15 in the last couple years are the Abbotsford Gleaners. What a wonderful group. I’ve been there with an MLA from Abbotsford. We both know them very well. What a great group of faith-based volunteers. Of course, all they wanted to do was to expand their operation to put in a bit of a bigger lunchroom and some washrooms. That was turned down by the ALC.

Talk about “out of sight, out of mind.” They had this great old house, probably built in the late ’70s, and they turned it into a recovery centre for women in Abbotsford. They’ve been told by the ALC to close down the women’s recovery centre on this piece of property. So the Gleaners were shut down. They’ve been told to move off, on the same property, this wonderful faith-based house for women who need help with recovery.

Then there’s the Hop Fest in Chilliwack. Maan Farms were under scrutiny in Abbotsford. The Glow event was cancelled in Langley. Peteys Pumpkin Patch made all the television stations for closing down his Halloween pumpkin patch.

The Rusted Rake on Vancouver Island, of course, hit all the media. A great little venue. People would go there for lunch with products that were grown on the farm, whether it was poultry, pork, vegetables or soups and sandwiches.

Bird’s Eye Cove farm, up in Nanoose Bay, was shut down because they were having pizza nights on Friday nights, with products grown on their own farm, up around Maple Bay.

My question. Can you explain to me…? All these wonderful events have been shut down. Is there any progress? Have any of them been given the right to go ahead in the upcoming fall season?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I know the member knows this, but I’ll just remind him that the agritourism rules haven’t changed under our government. In fact, they were changed under the previous government.

I. Paton: That’s it?

Hon. L. Popham: Is that a question?

I. Paton: I’d like to further read out a quote from the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association regarding value-added enterprises on farms in British Columbia. I quote from the November 20, 2019, B.C. Cattlemen’s Association submission on supporting B.C. farmers and ranchers. It goes on to say:

“This at a time when ranching families need the ministry and the province to stand up for agriculture, not regulate farm families out of business….

“The B.C. Cattlemen’s Association has established the following founding principles for this engagement….

“Bona fide operations must be allowed to diversify income, through a variety of means, as long as the productive capacity of the land is not diminished.”

I’ll go on to read a quote that comes from the petition that was handed in. “The government should give equal opportunities to all farmers to diversify and sell value-added farm products independent of alcohol production.” Then it goes on to say….

An article came out just in the last couple of days. It’s so shocking for people in British Columbia to see that the Rusted Rake, an example of a great little eatery using farm products from their farm on Vancouver Island, was shut down. I don’t know what the status is right now of the Rusted Rake.

There’s a little farm operation and eatery on Bowen Island called Orbaek. You may have read this article. Orbaek is being allowed to function, on agricultural land in the agricultural land reserve, on Bowen Island. It’s considered a food lounge. Apparently they can stay, whereas other similar operations continuing in areas of B.C. are being shut down.

Now, what is the difference between an eatery and a food lounge that is being allowed to stay on Bowen Island?

Hon. L. Popham: I know the member knows this. It would be, I think, important if the member doesn’t know this. We could have a conversation to talk about it. The Rusted Rake didn’t have local government approval for running its restaurant.

I guess my question is back to the critic. Does he know this?

I. Paton: My answer to that question is…. It’s not really about the Rusted Rake. It’s about dozens upon dozens of farming operations in B.C. that are basically doing the same thing. They’re non-compliant.

I could name so many in my community of Delta on Westham Island. I’m in fear that the ALC is one day going to drive out there and go: “Wow, you can’t do this. You’re selling more than 50 percent of the product that you grew on your farm. Maybe you’re parking too many cars on the field as a parking lot.”

I mean, there are just so many successful operations taking place that are good for agriculture. I don’t know what the issue is with the Rusted Rake and why it has been shut down.

I’d like to move on now. I want to go back….

The Chair: Excuse me, Member. The minister indicated she wanted to speak.

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

I’m still curious. Does the member know why the Rusted Rake wasn’t allowed to proceed? It was because it didn’t have local government approval at the time. Does the member know that?

[2:20 p.m.]

I. Paton: I don’t actually know that. I just know that I’ve been hoarded with hundreds of emails and phone calls about…. I’ve even been to meetings at the Rusted Rake with so many community members in that area upset that the Rusted Rake is sitting there closed right now, where it was so popular for the locals to come in and have coffee and lunch at the Rusted Rake and make use of products from the farm that they were farming.

Hon. L. Popham: I’m wondering if the member would like to have a briefing.

I’m also wondering. Does the member believe that local government should be ignored?

I. Paton: I don’t think the questions are being actually thrown at me. So I’d like to move on.

We’re talking about support for the family farm, and the minister brought that up on several occasions regarding secondary homes. Could she tell me exactly what the term “supporting the family farm” would refer to? Does this refer to supporting seniors living on the farms, or does it mean supporting through child care or for farm workers? I’d just like to know her definition of “supporting the family farm.”

Hon. L. Popham: It’s a great question. Anybody who’s been involved in farming…. The member has told us many times how involved he’s been in farming. I have been involved in farming.

We know there are many, many activities that support a farm. If a family is farming a piece of ALR land, and they need support with whatever activities in order to be successful at running that farm…. It could include just about anything that a family would need to run a business.

But let’s be clear. These activities would support a family farming operation. Sometimes that means child care. Sometimes that means having your aged parents live closer to you. Sometimes that means having accommodation for people helping out with the farming activities.

There’s such a number of activities that support family farms. I can say that that’s why they’re the heart of communities so often, because they include so many people in the operations. I’ve visited many farms where the entire family is…. It’s all hands on deck. So I would say that that would be a great definition of what supports a family farm.

I. Paton: I’ll get back, once again, to one of my favourite groups — and I brought this up already — the Abbotsford Gleaners Society and the women’s shelter. Could I just get an explanation of where that stands right now, if they’re back in business, or are they still being forced off the property?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The women’s shelter were told that they had two years to relocate. They put in an application for reconsideration, and that application is in process.

I. Paton: I just want to quickly move on. I’ve got so many things to chat about. I just wanted to give you not so much a question but an update.

I have two families in the Kootenays — I’ll call them Tim and, another family, Corey — around Canal Flats and Nakusp. They’re very, very concerned, as a local farmers association, with recreational trails for ATV, motorbikes and whatnot going through ALR land.

I’m just wondering if…. They’re desperately looking for answers, and they’re desperately saying that motorized ATVs, etc., are not only a fire hazard but they’re a hazard to livestock, taking down fences and not closing gates and things like that.

These are two issues in the Kootenays. Recreational trails are being built and put forward for ATVs, etc. So I’d appreciate it if the ALC could possibly look into that.

My other question, getting back to the housing quickly before we move forward. The intentions paper came out. Now, you’ve told me all day long now that secondary homes are no problem, even third homes, etc. So why, then, would there be another NDP consultation? We need to study this some more. Why was there an intentions paper that came out where people weren’t told to put in their opinion on this particular issue? And the intentions paper still hasn’t been finished and hasn’t been brought forward.

Can you tell me a bit about the intentions paper, why it’s needed if you’re telling me that people can, no problem, apply for second and third homes?

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, Member. Thank you.

Hon. L. Popham: I also hope that the member understands that there’s a path forward for people who own ALR land who are farmers. So you can apply to have an additional residence. You can apply to have two additional residences, as long as that residence supports the requirements to run the farm successfully. There’s an agricultural lens that is used when decisions are made on the agricultural land reserve by the Agricultural Land Commission.

We also have people in the province that own agricultural land reserve land that aren’t farming. The intentions paper was specifically to address concerns and needs that people may have who aren’t farming.

I. Paton: When will the intentions paper be released?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: It’s unfortunate that the member doesn’t know that the intentions paper was released. I’d be happy to send him a copy. That was released on January 27. We then asked for comments to come back to us. Initially, we said that we would accept comments until April 17, but because of the current situation with the pandemic, we actually extended this engagement process with local government, just to reflect our current situation.

I can absolutely send the member a copy of the intentions paper.

I. Paton: Thank you. I stand corrected. I did know that. What I was referring to, I guess, was the comment period that has come up. It’s been extended throughout this summer now.

The other thing that I just wanted to bring up is how there’s a lot of backtracking that seems to happen quite often, saying: “Okay, we’re going to reconsider possible secondary homes on farms.” That’s a direct quote.

Then there are the gravel driveways that the ministry had to back down on, going: “Yeah, that wasn’t such a good idea. A lot of farms and ranches have extremely long driveways that need to put down a lot of gravel every year.” So that got backed down.

Then there was the satellite issue. I’d sure like to find out if we still have satellites — if that issue has been backed down on or if we still have MDA Systems looking at satellites, working on behalf of the Agricultural Land Commission to check on farms throughout B.C. for evil-doers.

Hon. L. Popham: I can confirm that there is no bid or contract underway to use satellites in the Ministry of Agriculture. But I will say that we do use Google Earth, and the Agricultural Land Commission uses Google Earth, which is a satellite system. So I hope that helps the member.

[2:35 p.m.]

Then, as far as the comment about fill or gravel on driveways, we’re always interested in how to make changes to support farming in the province. We know that there was rampant fill dumping on farmland, and that was rampant under the member’s government. But we made sure that we’ve put into place regulations that can stop fill dumping that damages farmland. As far as making sure that farmers have the ability to use gravel on their driveways when they need to, in a way that works for them, was also something that was very well supported.

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

On the topic of fill dumping, actually, when I was on the city of Delta, we solved that problem so easily by our own local bylaws enforcement people, who took a keen interest in watching out for illegal fill dumping on farmland. That could be done all over the province with bylaws at a municipal level.

It’s a great part of the bill to make sure that we don’t have illegal dumping on our farmland in British Columbia. But based on the Agricultural Land Commission and the number of enforcement officers, how will the enforcement officers…? I’m assuming that there are five or six or seven, maybe, for the entire province. How will five or six or seven of them keep track and keep watch over illegal dumping on farmland in the entire province of B.C.?

Hon. L. Popham: First off, I’d like to say that Delta does an amazing job around fill dumping and has for a number of years. The Agricultural Land Commission appreciates that so much. It hasn’t been the case with all local governments around the province. So with the legislation, that was changed. It just allows the Agricultural Land Commission to have better partnerships with local government.

They are complaint-driven. The ALC is complaint-driven. So it’s really important for them to have these good working relationships with local government. I really do think that the change will allow us to see less harm done to farmland, and I think the member and I would agree that that’s a good idea.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister. We certainly agree with that. There was nothing that I hated more than seeing trucks on a dark Sunday night going down farm roads and dumping their fill material illegally.

Speaking of fines and different things, I want to move on to trespass. On the day of October 28, 2019, my colleague from Chilliwack put forward a private member’s bill to strengthen the Trespass Act, because it’s become a huge issue for farmers and ranchers in this province and processing companies for poultry and beef and pork, etc. A huge issue.

That evening the minister stood on a podium at the Hotel Grand Pacific with her colleagues the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and made a statement on how they were going to really back the farmers. They had a great audience. It was a lot of fanfare. Lots of farmers there to hear this speech.

Last October the minister stood in front of ranchers and farmers with her colleagues and committed to take action on animal activism. FOIs have confirmed that neither colleague has taken any action, and all the Ministry of Agriculture has done is tell farmers and ranchers that they need to ensure that fences are up and call the police.

What that means is it’s the farmers and ranchers’ responsibility to deal with trespassers who violate biosecurity measures and scare their families, and they are left abandoned by this ministry. In Ontario and Alberta, they’ve gone to bat. They’ve got the legislation put in. In Alberta, the fines are $10,000, $25,000 and $200,000 if you want to protest as a corporation.

My question to the minister. Will the minister commit today to take action like our neighbours in Alberta have done to stop animal activists from compromising B.C.’s food supply?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. It’s a very, very important issue.

Yes, the member is right. Last October I was able to make a statement with Minister Eby and Minister Farnworth around our views on how this situation needed to be handled and that we were very concerned about the livelihoods of farmers and the mental health of farmers because of what had happened over the year. We saw some very difficult trespassing situations, one specifically around hogs that the family is still struggling to come to terms with.

We are very much interested in making sure that we can protect the farmers and their families in the way that they need to be protected. The member is not correct. We actually have taken steps, and they’ve been important steps.

Last October we convened the first meeting, and this involved farming stakeholders, association groups, law enforcement, and cross-ministry, and we talked about the direction that we needed to go. Our next meeting was scheduled to happen in March, but it was cancelled because of COVID. It was rescheduled, and coincidentally, it just happened yesterday. Again, we had farmers represented. We had the associations represented. We had law enforcement representation, and we had cross-ministry.

What was put forward was a paper on best practices which was given to the stakeholder group. The request was that they review it, give feedback and come back in three weeks to give their feedback. Basically, this was an action plan on what needed to happen, but we didn’t feel comfortable moving forward on it without input from all of the stakeholder groups.

[2:45 p.m.]

One of the things that became very clear was that there was an interest in increasing penalties for trespassing, but there was also a really big interest in making sure there was an education component. The B.C. police chiefs association was also very interested in examining their own purview to see what they could do and if there were any gaps in how they were responding.

I think everybody appreciates having a round table. Being able to put forward the views of agriculture to law enforcement is very helpful. It helps to educate everybody to make sure that we’re going to be moving forward in the right way. But I have to say that it’s very disconcerting when families feel like they have to hide in their homes because of the activities that are happening from trespassers outside their door.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that response. I certainly hope this can move quickly to move in line with Alberta and Ontario, to get some firm legislation and a firm act to bring penalties against people that trespass on private farm owners.

I want to quickly jump ahead to a private member’s bill, which I presented on the exact same day as my colleague in Chilliwack presented his on the Trespass Act. One of the most important pieces of farmland in British Columbia — of course, I’m a little bit biased — is Brunswick Point in Delta. We have kicked this around for so many years, and I cannot seem to get answers.

A quote from the Delta Farmers Institute: “We have been fortunate, for over a century, that the 600 acres of Brunswick Point, with its fertile soil and proximity to the ocean, has produced high-quality vegetable crops, while providing habitat and feed for millions of migratory birds. The community needs to know that this farmland will remain as a public heritage asset in its natural environment and feed our population.” It is an integral component of Delta’s 22,000 acres of agricultural lands.

I go on to quote the mayor of Delta, who sent a letter to the hon. Premier John Horgan on May 8 of 2020: “The intent of Bill 221 is to require that the Brunswick Point properties are kept as Crown land and leased to either the original farm families or other local farmers for a minimum lease term of 20 years. Despite the current restrictions on land use, Delta is concerned that the Brunswick Point lands could be sold to speculators with no interest in farming and with plans for future non-agricultural development.”

We all know that there was a wonderful treaty signed with TFN. There’s a lot of economic development happening out at TFN. They are being very successful. They have a huge shopping mall. They have hundreds of new homes going up on what was agricultural land. There are massive warehouses going up — Amazon, etc. — on what was agricultural land, but to their benefit, they have a treaty.

The Brunswick Point land is still owned by the Crown, and it sits right next to, basically, all the economic development where we’re seeing the Amazon warehouses, etc. It is so important to me and to the people of Delta that the government move forward to give us some kind of assurance that the Brunswick Point lands will remain in perpetuity for agriculture and for wildlife habitat.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The province does not intend to remove Brunswick Point farmlands from the agricultural land reserve. Farming is a priority use of land in the ALR, as he knows, and the Brunswick Point lands are actively being used for agricultural purposes right now. The province will continue to work with all stakeholders in Delta to ensure that Crown lands are managed for the benefit of all British Columbians.

M. de Jong: Thanks to my colleague for letting me slot in.

Earlier in the exchange with the minister, my colleague from Delta was pursuing a line of questioning around secondary houses and a couple of aspects, one in particular that has arisen, that the minister touched on briefly. I just wanted to explore further.

The minister and my colleague talked about circumstances where a secondary home is destroyed. They talked about catastrophic events like fire, but I suppose that today it could be flooding, or it could be wind. I thought the minister was a little bit unclear in her answer. I just want to establish some clarity.

It strikes me that in a situation where a home that sits on a farm today is destroyed by catastrophic events, there is no automatic right to rebuild that home. Is that statement correct?

[2:55 p.m.]

Excuse me, Madam Chair. I’m not sure. On my screen, the minister is no longer present in the committee. Is she requiring a recess?

The Chair: Member, the minister is consulting with staff, and when she’s ready to answer, she’ll return to her seat. So we’re not in recess.

M. de Jong: My understanding is that the guidelines around that were that the minister could certainly consult with staff but would do so on screen.

The Chair: Minister, I’ve been advised by the Clerks that it’s a requirement that the minister stay on screen, even when consulting with staff. Thank you.

Hon. L. Popham: There is no automatic approval that would make it so you wouldn’t have to go through the commission, no.

M. de Jong: Sorry, I didn’t understand the answer. I’ll ask the question again, which I thought was fairly clear. For a family residing in a home lawfully located on a farm that is a primary or secondary home…. Let’s talk about a secondary home, for the moment. Were that home to be destroyed through some catastrophic event, there is no automatic right to rebuild that home. Is that a correct statement?

Hon. L. Popham: I think it would be…. I think the member would understand this. There are a lot of different situations that can arise. When the building was originally built, who approved it? Was it local government? Was it the Agricultural Land Commission? Have regulations changed? I think it would be, probably, most correct to say that there would have to be a discussion with the commission.

M. de Jong: Well, I’m going to try once more, because the minister seems reluctant to acknowledge what obviously flows from her statement. She speaks of the need for an application. I understand that. It flows, therefore, that in the circumstances I have described — where a family has lost their home through catastrophic events — there is no automatic right to rebuild. There is an application process involved in seeking the right to rebuild. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Popham: What I actually said was that there would be a discussion that would be needed with the commission, and at that point, there would be a determination of whether or not an application needed to be done.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think that would be, probably, similar to the way that local government would handle a house or a building outside the agricultural land reserve. If a house has been there for many, many years, I don’t think it would be an automatic approval to build it in exactly the same way that it was originally built, if there had been a change in building codes, etc. So you would have a discussion with local government in the same way.

M. de Jong: Well, to be fair, I think the minister is comparing apples and oranges. A conversation about the building code and what a new replacement home, for one burned down or washed away in a flood, would look like is a very different thing than a conversation about whether or not you can actually build a home. Does the minister agree?

Hon. L. Popham: Let’s be quite clear. The rules haven’t changed. It’s just that who’s making the decision has changed. Originally, if local government would have approved that dwelling if it was an additional dwelling, they would have put it through the lens of agriculture. That was the requirement for local government. Now the Agricultural Land Commission makes that decision, and they would make that decision through the lens of agriculture as well.

M. de Jong: I’ll ask this. My question will likely be disturbed by one of the 150-car trains hauling bitumen that rolls through my farm with greater regularity than it once did. That is a matter for another discussion with another minister, but I apologize in advance for the background noise that will interrupt this conversation.

Look, the minister now wants to suggest that nothing has changed. I am going to take issue with that. But maybe it is more helpful for me to explore, for a moment, the nature of the conversation that the minister has referred to.

To take this from the abstract to the real, I’m looking out of my window to a farm just down the road from me, where this is now a reality. The minister has said that on the morning after a family rakes through the burning embers of what used to be their house, rather than begin to plan for its replacement and reconstruction, they need to go have a conversation with a provincial body called the Agricultural Land Commission to, presumably, seek permission — the minister can tell the committee more about that — to replace the home that they may have been living in for decades.

Tell us about that discussion. Tell us, today, what guides that discussion. While she’s doing so, perhaps she can comment on the measure of uncertainty that has been created for those families. I’ve couched this question in the context of a secondary home, but, of course, the same rules apply for the primary residence, because when the primary residence burns down, the secondary residence becomes the primary residence.

[3:05 p.m.]

Perhaps the minister can tell us a little bit more about the conversation that will determine whether or not a family gets to continue to live, to rebuild, after a catastrophic event and live in a home that may have been home for decades.

Hon. L. Popham: First off, to clarify for the member, if the primary residence burns down, the secondary residence doesn’t become the primary residence. The commission doesn’t follow that. It’s really around the order of placement, and the commission isn’t interested in arguing the semantics. The secondary is the secondary.

If a house burns down, there is a general discussion that happens with the commission. There really needs to be a discussion around why that permit was issued. Was it for the purpose of farming, and is there farming taking place? Are the people inhabiting it a part of the farming operation? If so, then you can rebuild that home. If everything has changed, there’s no farming happening and it’s a secondary home on a piece of ALR that’s not for farming, then an application process would need to be followed.

M. de Jong: So to say it another way, the commission could say no.

Hon. L. Popham: If there’s no farming taking place, an application process would have to be followed. And, yes, there could be a negative result.

M. de Jong: Would it be more accurate for the minister to say, “If the ALC deemed there wasn’t sufficient farming activity taking place…”? Wouldn’t that be a more accurate statement? It would be a subjective test to be considered by the ALC. Correct?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: It’s a decision that the ALC makes with the information that’s provided to them.

M. de Jong: I’m not trying to be argumentative. I am, however, seeking a reasonable level of clarity from the minister that she seems reluctant to offer.

There is a discussion. We have established this. A family lives in a secondary dwelling, maybe for decades. That home is destroyed. The minister, though she refuses to say the words, acknowledges that there is no automatic right to rebuild. The family must have a conversation with the ALC. She acknowledges the ALC could say: “No, you can’t rebuild.”

I have made the proposition that they will have, in their own mind, some criteria. The minister says: “If there’s agricultural activity taking place.” Families could have a garden. My guess is that the ALC wouldn’t determine that to be sufficient agricultural activity.

I have suggested to the minister that the ALC would subjectively decide on the basis of whether they determined there to be sufficient agricultural activity. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Popham: I hope the member understands this. Nothing has changed except for the decision-maker. Local government would have gone through the same process, looking at it through the lens of agriculture, just as the Agricultural Land Commission would be using the lens of agriculture. So there has been nothing that’s been changed other than the body making the decision. And those rules were in place under the member’s government.

M. de Jong: You know, it’s really — and I say this respectfully — an astounding statement for the minister to make considering the fact that the body now making the decision is bound by a strict statutory mandate. If the minister doesn’t consider that a relevant change, then I think we’re all in trouble. I think that the minister is reluctant, and perhaps understandably so, to acknowledge the uncertainty that this has created for families.

Time doesn’t permit me to pursue, and I don’t think I’ll give the minister a chance. Does she not see the complications that this creates for families, even in this day and age, securing insurance on that secondary residence? My colleague mentioned that, and the minister glossed over it. She’s says nothing’s changed.

The decision-maker is now a body statutorily charged with a mandate and has made it clear what its views on agricultural land and multiple dwellings on agricultural land is, though, to my knowledge, has not published a set of criteria that they would apply to determining the answer to the question we’ve been asking. If I’m wrong, I hope the minister will say so, and say: “No. Actually, here’s the specific criteria that the ALC would apply in determining whether or not a family that had just lost their home to fire can rebuild that home.”

[3:15 p.m.]

I mean, imagine the circumstances. But if I’m wrong, now is the time for the minister to say: “Actually, here is the criteria. Families know today what the test would be.” So I’ll, on this topic, leave it at that for the minister. If there’s a set of criteria, point me to it.

Hon. L. Popham: First off, around the criteria, the commission does have a part of their website that is called “What the commission considers.” So I think that could help the member when looking at what the criteria are. It’s what comes into consideration.

Also, just going back to 2002, Bill 21 — maybe the member was sitting, then, in government — on rules and use and subdivision of agricultural land reserve: “a local government, or an authority, or board or another agency established by it or a person or an agency that enters into an agreement under the Local Services Act may not” — so local government — “permit non-farm use of agricultural land or permit a building to be erected on the land except for farm use, or approve more than one residence on a parcel of land unless the additional residences are necessary for farm use.”

For the member’s interest, there was no criteria or definition of “farm use” for local government to use. So I think that we have decisions on record, applications on record. So the member can go back and look at records from the Agricultural Land Commission of approvals or denials. We have what the commission considers as a guideline, and we have, basically, the same rule in place but a different decision-maker — but maybe making it more clear what farming is.

I. Paton: Thank you to my colleague from Abbotsford West. Perhaps we could further this conversation tomorrow morning if we have time.

At this time, I believe I’d like to turn over 30 minutes of questioning to the members of the Third Party.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the member for Delta South for that. We’re always having to juggle our schedules and try to keep to things.

I have one area of questions that I just very quickly want to touch base with the minister on, and then I’ll hand it over to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands. We have a community in the Cowichan Valley. Kingburne is the name of this community. They’ve created a community association, largely due to impacts that the residents of this community have experienced as a result of quarrying activity on ALR land on a property in their region.

[3:20 p.m.]

There was an approval in 2004 by the Agricultural Land Commission for extraction of rock for an irrigation pond on a property. But after 13 years of extraction, this landowner, GT Farms, was required to apply for a mines permit.

Now the same property owner has begun another extraction. It has a permit from the Agricultural Land Commission and is also being considered as agricultural use, agricultural activity. Yet the residents are very concerned that the same pattern is repeating, and that after 10, 12 or 14 years, then it will finally be turned over to the Ministry of Mines to oversee and regulate what is, essentially, mining activity — extraction and quarrying.

My first question is kind of an umbrella question, and that, for the minister, is: what criteria must be met for excavation on ALR land to be classified as non-farm use? At what point does extraction and quarrying become non-farm use?

Hon. L. Popham: It’s really nice to see you, Member. I haven’t seen your face for a while.

Okay, good question. In the past, with that prior example that the member brought up, there was a title of non-farm use for ag, which was a really vague title, and there was a lot of vagueness around what you could or couldn’t do and for the length of time.

We’ve substantially changed that. We don’t have anything called non-farm use for ag as far as soil goes. It’s now called soil or fill use. What triggers an application is an extraction of 500 cubic metres per year — more than that. If you want to do more than that, you have to put in an application to the commission. At that point, the commission will deem whether or not it it’s needed for agricultural uses.

[3:25 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Nice to see the minister as well.

Just quickly, does the minister have any idea how many…? In this case, extraction is happening and trucks are being filled and they’re driving away. How many truckloads would 500 cubic metres a year amount to?

Hon. L. Popham: There are about seven cubic metres in a truckload. So it would be 70 truckloads, approximately.

S. Furstenau: I know that my colleague also has a lot of questions, so I’m going to just kind of try to wrap this all into one thing. This is that for the residents of this community, what they’ve experienced is an enormous amount of what has essentially amounted to mining activity.

The roads in this area are incredibly narrow. There is increased truck traffic. There have been incidents where mining material has gone up in the sky and landed in neighbouring properties. There are definitely worries about impacts to groundwater. What they are experiencing, now that they’re in round two of this, where another permit has been granted by the ALC, is that…. This is a quote from the letter they got from the ALC: “The ALC is not mandated to consider issues relating to traffic, groundwater, noise, terrain hazards in their review of activities on the ALR.”

What these people are experiencing is mining activity happening in their neighbourhood without the oversight of the mining ministry and with the ALC saying: “We don’t do oversight on those activities because it’s not in our realm.”

This will be my last question, I guess, for the minister. This is a bit more of a philosophical question. Does she recognize that these impacts are happening in communities when what is essentially extraction is happening without the oversight and regulation that one would expect from the Ministry of Mines and that that is having impacts on these rural communities, and does she see the need for either the ALC to be able to regulate or for a recognition that all extraction activities should have oversight from the Ministry of Mines?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks so much to the member for bringing this forward. I definitely think that my staff would be able to get in touch with the ministry responsible for mines and have a discussion. And it would be important for me that we follow up with a meeting with you.

A. Olsen: Good day to the member for Saanich South, the Minister of Agriculture. It’s nice to unite Saanich here in these budget estimates. I guess the bitumen that is steaming through or railing through the member for Abbotsford West’s riding will be floating through our ridings very soon.

[3:30 p.m.]

Anyhow, I would just like to start my questioning of the minister around food security. I know that this is an issue that we both hold very highly in our work. We’ve talked about this quite a bit, Minister. With COVID-19 and the pandemic-related issues and disruptions in access, availability and safety of our food, it’s become an issue for many of our constituents across the province.

A couple of questions I’ll start off with here first. How do the minister and the ministry define food security? And to what level has the ministry been tracking disruptions of the food supply with respect to the most recent impacts due to COVID-19?

Hon. L. Popham: It’s absolutely good to see my colleague from the other end of the peninsula.

How does the ministry define food security? As the member knows, and in discussions that we’ve had, that’s not a completely simple question to answer. It’s a complex term, and it’s used by many people for many different reasons.

The ministry considers Agriculture’s role as working towards food supply security and helping B.C. producers and processors to grow and process more food, making more food available to our British Columbian consumers. We’re working with our colleagues across ministries because, as the member also knows, it’s not just a Ministry of Agriculture matter.

The disruptions. We’ve seen consumers be very alarmed when they’ve gone to the grocery stores over the pandemic months, and they’ve seen some of the products that they purchase not being there. The shelves were bare. So what we saw from that was a reaction by consumers to over-buy products. In fact, we didn’t have a supply issue. We actually had an overpurchasing issue, or an overenthusiastic consumer purchasing issue.

That being said, we’ve been tracking and supporting the movement of B.C. food to consumers and markets throughout this entire disruption, and we’ve been working to identify possible pressures on B.C.’s food supply chains.

We’ve made sure that we’ve done that to ensure continued B.C. food safety and supply. But as the member knows from our conversation, the labour has probably stood out to be one of the biggest factors in our food security here in the province over the last few months and continuing over the summer.

We have taken many measures to ensure…. It’s not just our primary producers who have been in contact with us, relaying any of the concerns that they have. We’ve been in contact with our food processors and our fishers. Over the last few months, we’ve made well over 6,000 contacts with the entire sector in British Columbia. That includes consumer groups and retail outlets as well.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister, for that response.

I guess, as COVID-19 hit us, in the spring of 2020…. We’re going to be working through the summer, through the late summer–early fall harvest.

[3:35 p.m.]

Recognizing that a second wave could come, could very well extend and is likely to extend, into the late fall and winter, there have been a number of people that have raised issues with me about the concern that what we see right now might not be the biggest issue, that what is coming might be even a bigger issue.

Does the minister and the ministry have any sense of the stability and security of our food supply heading into the later months of this year and early 2021?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. We are keeping an eye on any complications that are arising because of the pandemic.

As I have mentioned, labour is a big issue. Our cherry growers have seen sort of a double whammy this year. They’ve had enormous challenges because of weather, and on top of that, we’ve had some labour shortages. There are issues like that that continue to come up.

With agriculture, though, every year we do see some kind of challenge. Because we have such a remarkable and strong supply management system in British Columbia — for things that consumers rely on like eggs and milk, turkey, a lot of our meat products — we do see that that system is solid.

It had a bit of a challenge adjusting to the change in demand and supply, but that got sorted out. We do have that as a very strong part of the food system in British Columbia, but we also know that there has been a lot of great success this year in growing vegetables that need more moisture, because we’ve had such a wet summer so far.

I think we’re on track to making sure that we’re growing what we need, but as the member also knows, we only provide between 40 and 45 percent of what we need here in British Columbia. A lot of the role of this ministry over the last three years has been to figure out not only how to increase domestic sales but how to produce more food in general.

We consider the domestic market part of a very strong foundation in our food security goals. Previously there has been more of a focus put on the international market. But we can see that when something like a health disruption happens, like COVID-19, those markets crash immediately. So we do see growers that have lost those international markets.

It’s been our argument that those markets are great when they can happen, but we need to make sure that our domestic markets are increased. That’s really what we’ve been doing with our Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. platform.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister. I think Ryan Vantreight was the one that always reminded me of the rule of toos: “Too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry. It’s always too something.”

To the last comment the minister just made, with respect to what we supply, I think 40 percent was the number that you quoted — meaning that a majority of the food that we consume comes from somewhere else. I think that that is to the point of a lot of the constituents that I have. All of our constituents, from across the province, have raised the concern about the reliance on food imports and that a continued supply must continue to flow.

What role does your ministry play in the import side? I recognize and hold up the work that you’re doing to try to increase the amount of domestic supply. What role does your ministry play in terms of the food imports?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: That’s a really good question.

Actually, the provincial ministry doesn’t really have a role on the imports. That’s more of a federal government jurisdiction. When it comes to labelling of products, etc., it falls under the federal minister’s role, but we do sit at a table, right now about every two weeks, at the minister’s level, all ministers from across Canada and the federal minister, including the territories. Then my deputies also sit on federal-provincial-territorial deputy committees. I guess that’s where we would have input or hear of any breaking news that way, but as a ministry ourselves, provincially, we don’t have a role on imports.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that response. It highlights, I think, the importance of the work to increase the percentage of domestic supply for British Columbians. I think it probably highlights, also, the sense of urgency that our constituents have when it comes to ensuring that a local food supply is available to them.

Just shifting gears a little bit here, talking about the work that the ministry did with respect to the Food Security Task Force report that was released earlier this year. I’ve had the benefit of having an initial, very high-level conversation with the minister on that. I just want to ask a few questions here in budget estimates.

Does the minister, or the ministry, believe that increasing agricultural technology…? Actually, let me ask this question. In the new agricultural technology and land secretariat that I think was recommendation No. 4, to create a new agritech area, the minister has created a deputy minister’s role.

Can the minister please provide some more information around who else is involved in the secretariat? What’s the plan for the secretariat? Why is it that the decision was made to use agricultural land rather than industrial or commercial land as part of the recommendation that your ministry is currently investigating?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I think the first part of the question was: who is involved in the secretariat? In addition to Deputy Minister Shoemaker, the secretariat is made up of a small team of public servants who have been reassigned on a priority basis. The secretariat is working closely with my ministry, of course, and other ministries to ensure a cross-government collaboration.

The idea behind the secretariat is to investigate any of the challenges or barriers in growing the agritech sector in British Columbia. There’s a lot of agritech that’s already being used here in B.C. in many different parts of the sector, and there’s a lot of interest globally in agritech. To be clear, the recommendations that were put forward were just something for us to investigate and think about. The secretariat is looking at all types of land, including industrial land, to support opportunities to grow the agritech sector.

One interesting thing that happened over the last week…. I’m not sure if the member saw it in the news. There is a proposal out in Abbotsford for a quite large agritech park to be built, and that is not in the agricultural land reserve. So we see ideas like this coming up. We also know that in other regions of British Columbia, there may be industrial land that is available but has had a change in direction.

There are a lot of things that we’re looking at. We’re trying to map out what agritech is already here, maybe what’s needed and what sort of supports need to be in place to attract companies to British Columbia. But it’s all in the investigation stage, and I have confidence that Deputy Minister Wes Shoemaker will come back with a lot of good information.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that response.

To the Member for Delta South, I’ve got one last…. Well, I’ve got several questions, but I’ve got one last question that I will ask on the record.

Before that, I will just ask that the minister…. We’ve presented the questions that we had to your ministry. There’s a series of questions that you’ll see there around the concerns that have been raised to us, and I’m certain that they’ve been raised to your ministry. In fact, I think I’ve just been carbon-copied on the emails that you’ve received directly to your ministry with respect to the interaction between this new agritech zone, the ALR, the ALC and all of those aspects.

Perhaps we can either have a meeting outside of this or a written response just to how the ministry intends on dealing with those — I’d say conflicts, but I don’t know that it necessarily has to been seen as a conflict — interactions that are going to happen if agritech is going to happen on ALR land, noting, of course, that there are a lot of brownfield sites around the province, and there are a lot of other opportunities where those opportunities can be played out.

I’d also just note that there was a proposal that came to us in the B.C. Green caucus a number of months ago with respect to closed-containment fish farms on land — on a brownfield site — that would technically, I think, fit within this agritech umbrella.

I’m just trying to throw together as many of my questions into one statement as possible. But I’ll just end with this, Minister, and thank our colleagues in the official opposition for giving us this opportunity here today.

You did mention that there were a handful of other recommendations that were made by the Food Security Task Force. They included an agritech incubator, an accelerator program, an agritech institute and then, as well, aligning the agricultural activities with the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. I’d just love to get your feedback or your response to those other recommendations and the work that’s potentially underway to investigate those opportunities as well.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks to the member for the questions. I appreciate the questions in writing. We will commit to responding in writing, and then absolutely interested in having a briefing after that on any aspect of any parts of the estimates process that we’ve gone through, but specifically on the Food Security Task Force, if that’s what the member is interested in.

I just wanted to say that there have been no decisions made to create a new land use zone, specifically not on the ALR. It’s a possible option to create a land use zone, but it’s not the only option. That’s what Deputy Minister Shoemaker has been tasked to investigate. There will be a close collaboration with the Agricultural Land Commission and the secretariat. I hope that reassures the member that that lens of agriculture will be used in decision-making, and it aligns with our core values to protect farmland and to bring it into production.

I think I’ve answered most of the member’s question. If not, we can respond more in writing on that as well. But you can expect to have our response in writing by next week.

M. de Jong: We were talking earlier, discussing the role of the Agricultural Land Commission with respect to determining whether the owners of farmland could build a family home on that farmland. What I want to ask the minister about now is whether or not she sees a role for the ALC in determining where that home is built on the farmland owned by the family, if there is a role. And if she believes there is a role, what is that role?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I’m not sure I understood completely what the question was pertaining to, but I can say that the ALC supports the principles of the minister’s bylaw standards around siting. We’ll often look to clustering as part of a proper planning process, not so that it doesn’t affect the productivity of the farmland.

The Chair: Members, we will now take a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

M. de Jong: I’m going to put the question so we can…. Time is always an issue here. It strikes me that we have arrived at a point where the Agricultural Land Commission now determines, in some cases at least, whether a farm family can build a home. They now have the authority to determine the size, dimensions, of that home. And increasingly it appears that the ALC has reserved to itself the authority to determine where on the farm the home will be built.

I am concerned by the degree to which the rights of that farm family, as owners of that private property, are being stripped away and vested in the Agricultural Land Commission. Does the minister share any of those concerns?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I think, as the member well knows — or I think he knows — the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is to protect agricultural land and to give priority to the size, integrity and continuity. I believe the agricultural land reserve, as a land-use tool, has really allowed us, as a province, to maintain the very important food-growing lands that we need.

I think we’ve seen it demonstrated over the last few months, with COVID-19, that those lands are even more important than ever. The issue of food security is top of mind for British Columbians, and they want to feel comforted that there will be the ability for British Columbia to grow as much food as it possibly can to remain resilient and to increasingly become more self-sufficient.

M. de Jong: I will take it from that answer — I hope, fairly — that the minister does not share the concerns that I have attempted to articulate.

Just two more things that I wanted to canvass quickly with the minister if I could. My colleague from Delta spoke to a particular decision that was very troubling for people here. In the context of talking about that, I actually want to ask the minister about a decision from the ALC that I was pleased to see and solicit her view on that decision. It relates to the work camp application, I believe, outside of Vanderhoof, relating to the construction of a pipeline that the government now is enthusiastic about seeing built.

The initial decision from the ALC was to deny the permit required to allow construction of that camp on agricultural land. A review application was launched, and the ALC subsequently reversed its decision and approved that application. Is the minister aware, and is she supportive? And if she is supportive, explain the basis for her support of that review and decision.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Just so the member is clear on the decision process by the ALC, the initial decision was negative, but it turns out that the consultation documents that were required were not submitted with that initial application. The second application, or the appeal process, allowed for those consultation documents to be provided. That is a substantial reason why it was approved. Having those documents not in place the first time showed a negative result for the applicant.

How I feel about the application process and the approval. This is an approval for a temporary non-farm use. This camp is a temporary situation. It was assured to the commission that the land would be put into production post-camp. The mitigation and oversight by a professional agrologist, who is there daily, makes me feel quite confident that we’ve got a very sound process.

M. de Jong: The minister presumably would agree that we are talking about something that is not an agricultural activity but that involves other societal benefits — benefits, in this case, that the government is supportive of and I am supportive of. For that reason, I believe the ALC came to an appropriate and reasonable decision.

The minister, though, will understand that for those observing that decision, where a work camp to house workers over an extended period of time for the construction of a pipeline would be approved, and a women’s shelter that has been located on a property for decades would be evicted…. Does she see an inconsistency there that might cause people to be concerned and puzzled?

Hon. L. Popham: This doesn’t, in my view, pertain to the current budget discussion. I will say that the women’s shelter is under a reconsideration, so I won’t comment on that.

M. de Jong: It is very much, I can assure the minister, part of the consideration, going forward, of the organization and the women who have been taken care of and found sanctuary at the women’s shelter in Abbotsford. I’ll let the statements and, in this case, non-response speak for itself.

The last area I wanted to touch upon, the minister and my colleague from Delta have already canvassed in a general way, but I will be more specific. It was a year ago that, a few blocks from where I am sitting now, a group decided to descend upon and invade the family home and farm of a neighbour. They terrorized them, frightened them. They came onto the property all in the name of a cause that they presumably feel very strongly about.

A year has passed. My colleague has chronicled the bold statements that the minister made when confronted by a crowd shortly thereafter. Nothing has happened.

[4:20 p.m.]

Does the minister deem it acceptable that fully a year after a family of farmers was terrorized in the way that this family was, there would be no decision yet on whether or not to prosecute the perpetrators of that crime?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, the member is absolutely wrong to say nothing has been done. This issue has already been canvassed.

M. de Jong: Well, I’m all ears. I’m asking about an investigation, an action that took place, an invasion, a trespass chronicled on television no less. If I am incorrect, if steps have been taken with respect to that investigation to confront and deal with the perpetrators of that crime, then I’m all ears. Now is the time.

The minister purports to stand up and speak in defence of farm families. Well, here’s her chance. Because nothing has happened. No decision. Has the minister pursued this matter? If so, what has she done with respect to the farm invasion that took place on Harris Road one year ago?

Hon. L. Popham: The member knows very well that this is an RCMP matter. So I have no opportunity to insert myself into that process.

M. de Jong: What was the minister doing when she made that speech at the hotel that my colleague was referring to? She didn’t seem to have any difficulty at all inserting herself into the story when it was convenient to do so. Again I ask, what steps has she taken to seek a timely decision, a decision, that would send a signal to farm families that their interests are being protected by the law?

Hon. L. Popham: I’ve already canvassed this and explained what the ministry is doing. The member can go back into Hansard and read that.

M. de Jong: I don’t actually have to do that. I made a note. I was listening when she made her comment, and she can add to this if I misstate this. In reply to the question from my colleague yesterday, there was a meeting.

Now, if the sound went blank on the screen and I missed something…. But in reply to the question from my colleague who specifically referenced both the issue and the incident that gave rise to the minister’s comments in front of the farmers, when it was convenient to do so, she said to them that she had a meeting, and apparently, the meeting was yesterday.

Now, if she’s taken other action to address this issue on behalf of farm families who are concerned, they’re all ears, and I’m all ears. Now is the time to say it.

Hon. L. Popham: The microphone or the sound on the member’s computer must have cut out, because he did miss quite a number of things that we’re doing. So I suggest that he go back and look in Hansard.

M. de Jong: Well, I’m going to be persistent, because I was listening very closely. With respect to the incident that took place on Harris Road, where self-described activists descended upon and invaded the home of a farm family, I haven’t heard the minister say anything. If she wants to correct me, I’m, again, all ears.

[4:25 p.m.]

Has she made submissions to her colleague, the Attorney General, to ensure that he knows the importance she attaches to this? It strikes me that that would be a reasonable thing to do. Has she done that? If she has, now would be the time to say so. Is she satisfied — and she hasn’t answered this question — that it would take over a year to secure a decision from the prosecution service about whether or not to prosecute this matter? Is she satisfied with that?

Hon. L. Popham: The member knows — or maybe he doesn’t know — that all of the individuals on site at that incident were processed by the Abbotsford police, and that information was brought forward to Crown counsel. I have no ability to influence the speed of decision-making. The member, I would think, would know that. Other than waiting for that outcome, the ministry has undertaken a process to try to move forward on making sure that that sort of incident doesn’t happen again.

I went through the steps we’ve taken with the critic, and the member can refer to Hansard. But he’s tried to imply that yesterday was the only meeting that we’ve had. He’s missed a lot. He might want to update himself when the Blues come out.

M. de Jong: Well, look, I hope this isn’t news to the minister. Farm families are looking for a signal from her as minister and the government in general — a strong signal — that it denounces those who, in support of whatever cause they may happen to hold dear, believe that the law and the rules don’t apply to them. There has been a noticeable reluctance on the part of the minister and the government to make that clear, and it is noticeable to those in the agricultural sector.

I would have thought this exchange would have elicited from the Minister of Agriculture a strong restatement of condemnation for the people who purport to engage in this activity. The fact that the minister has neglected to take advantage of this opportunity to deliver that strong condemnation speaks volumes.

I did not ask the minister to influence the prosecutorial decision-making exercise. I asked if she was satisfied, as a minister of the Crown, that it would take this long for a decision to be made and whether she shared my concern about the signal that was sending to farm families. She chooses to ignore those questions. She chooses to avoid answering them, and her avoidance, again, speaks volumes and says much to farm families.

[4:30 p.m.]

With that, obviously, the minister has an opportunity to respond to my comments, but I will cede the floor to others, I’m sure.

The Chair: Does the minister wish to respond? I can’t tell if you’re consulting or not.

Hon. L. Popham: No, I think I’ve said everything I’d like to say.

B. Stewart: It’s great to be here in Agriculture estimates, with the diversity of problems that exist in that particular sector.

Today I want to talk a bit, Minister, about the agricultural exports. I do want to question you a little bit on some of the investments that you’ve made in that ministry in the past few years.

I guess, from an overall trade perspective, agriculture has had a pretty good run in the last little while, considering that some other things have been beaten down fairly severely. Last year the agricultural exports…. I don’t have the end of the year number, but it was up over 11 percent. I’m sure that that was in part to the staff that were working in those markets for the Ministry of Agriculture.

No doubt the numbers…. Although they’re staggeringly down for many commodities, and products that we sell in export markets…. I again see that the products for the first four months are up almost 5 percent. That certainly bodes well for agricultural producers that are shipping products that are not just commodities but specialty products, high-value specialty products that pay for good jobs here in British Columbia.

Well, first off, I just wanted to ask you…. Is that…? In 2019 — I just would like to confirm — how many dedicated staff that were being supported by your ministry were in the export markets, and which markets were they in?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I know I can always count on a trade question from that member. It’s really nice to see you.

This question probably is better suited for the Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness Ministry. We have an MOU with them, so they manage that.

I can tell the member that the trade and investment representatives…. There are three. We do have South Korea and Hong Kong. But there are also people that are working when we attend trade shows as a province, as the member will know. In 2019-2020, 18 international trade shows were being delivered in priority markets.

There’s been, obviously, a major complication with us attending trade shows. I myself was headed with staff to Boston this spring and, of course, because of COVID that got cancelled. It’s never been rescheduled as of yet. So we will have to see how the pandemic affects our representation at shows around the world, but we still remain with our three TIRs in place.

B. Stewart: The minister mentioned three trade representatives: South Korea, Hong Kong — and the third market?

Hon. L. Popham: I stand corrected. We have only two, not three: China and Hong Kong. But through the consolidation process, those representatives will be handled through Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.

B. Stewart: In the past, these staff were paid for, I believe, from the Ministry of Agriculture’s budget. That’s now going to be reallocated to Jobs. That’s what I think you just said.

I guess my follow-on is that I know that there’s a great team within Agriculture that supported these trade shows, like the 18 you mentioned. I guess I have a couple of questions on that.

One, is the budget being reallocated? I’m assuming this is coming out of the business development budget to support agrifood, industry growth, agrifood business development, etc. I’m just wondering if those funds are moving over to Jobs.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. It’s a good question.

The Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness Ministry will be running this enhanced, consolidated department for trade reps who won’t, necessarily, solely represent the interests of agriculture but more of a whole-government approach. There will be representatives that will represent the agricultural interests, but they won’t solely be representing agriculture. They’ll have other tasks as well.

The budget to have those two people in place is going to be reallocated within our ministry, and that money will be put towards supporting more international trade show work. One of the things that we will have to learn how to do differently is virtual trade shows. That’s the sort of thing that the money will be going to supporting.

B. Stewart: To the minister: there was a comment you made earlier to the member for Saanich North and the Islands that agritrade is great if the markets are not closed. Are you hearing…? Or are there markets that I’m unaware of that are now closed to British Columbia?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I think I chose my words incorrectly. The markets weren’t closed; they were disrupted. Our growers were seeing some stoppage in purchasing from international markets. There were barriers as far as delays of transportation. We saw a significant slowdown in the goods that were moving internationally.

B. Stewart: Okay, just a last question. I would like to quantify the amount of resources that are going to be going from the Ministry of Agriculture into international trade activities. She said, and I know, the staff in the ministry supported the people that were in the field previously. So for this reallocation of resources that’s going to be going on to international trade work, how much is going to be allocated to that?

I know that you have a strong Buy B.C. program right now. However, being a front-line agricultural producer for, you know, my lifetime, virtually, I just know that the small, independent producers are really an important part to our operations here in the Okanagan Valley. But more importantly, for many of the commodities — whether it’s farmed salmon, grains, oils, beef — these international markets are vital. They don’t want to be seeing the precipitous drop that we’re seeing in other commodities.

What assurance do you have for those larger producers in agriculture that are high-value, especially shellfish, seafood and some of the other products that are very much just British Columbia–based?

Hon. L. Popham: To answer the question around the budget, our total provincial budget for interprovincial and international market development is approximately $560,000 annually. Through the CAP agreement with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we receive an additional $1.93 million in federal funding, which expands our total budget to approximately $2.48 million.

[4:50 p.m.]

This has not changed very much at all. I can say that leading up to the disruptions that the pandemic caused, we are seeing a steady incline in our sales internationally. Of course, we’ve been scrambling through the pandemic to try and regain some of that market, but we expect that once we have a smooth process, once the issues around the pandemic, hopefully, move along, we will continue to see our steady incline.

S. Thomson: I’ll just say very quickly that I was next on the order to raise some questions, but the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, who has to move to her own estimates, just has a couple of short questions. So I had agreed that I would let her proceed first to get her couple of quick questions in, and then I’ll follow her.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much to my colleague from Kelowna-Mission for letting me butt in on him.

I’ve got two quick questions for the minister. The first one, of course, she’s probably anticipating. In a briefing that I had with staff on January 30, with regards to the puppy mill bill, has the ministry…? They had not secured this by January 30, but has something changed? Has the ministry secured the funding for the registration system for the SPCA to proactively shut down puppy mills?

Hon. L. Popham: No, unfortunately, we have not.

J. Thornthwaite: I just have one more question, then. The minister probably knows this, but more than half a million animals have died in barn fires in Canada since 2015. That’s an average of 100,000 animals burned alive every year. Apparently, the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes is revising the fire protection requirements for farm buildings, but they informed the BC SPCA that there was no “strong interest in making protection of livestock a code objective.”

Does the minister think that barn fires are a serious enough issue to ensure the protection of livestock is a code objective?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the interesting question. Thank you for bringing that forward. The safety of livestock and animals is, of course, important to me, and I do support the objective of protecting animals in that code development.

J. Thornthwaite: I just wanted to say thank you for that, and I’ll look forward to some action from the minister.

I’ll give that up to my colleague. Thank you very much.

S. Thomson: Good afternoon, Minister. I appreciate the opportunity.

Thanks to my colleague from Delta South for allowing a quick opportunity here for a couple of questions.

This is around one specific issue that relates to the craft distilling sector. As the minister will know, that sector creates jobs as part of our tourism sector and economic activity in our communities. Recently, the government moved to implement a policy change to support the restaurant sector in terms of wholesale pricing. I’m not arguing against that decision at all, but I wanted to ask the minister whether she’s aware of and understood the significant negative impact that that decision is having on the craft distiller sector.

I met recently with a couple of distilleries here in my riding. One distillery, for example…. That policy decision has a direct negative impact of over $78,000 on that operation for just two months, in July and August, a peak period for them. These are small family-owned businesses that are also struggling through the impacts of the COVID pandemic. They have arrangements with small-scale producers providing the produce for them for the craft distilling processes — a very significant part of a value-added agricultural sector, one that I would expect that the minister would be standing up for and advocating for.

Firstly, can the minister advise or confirm whether she was aware of the significant negative impact that that decision is having on the sector?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks very much for the question. It’s always nice to see the member. We started our careers in politics together. The other way around but still very meaningful to me.

There are a number of decisions that have been made over the number of months that we’ve been seeing the pandemic wreak havoc on our economy. There are some positive effects of these decisions, and there are negative effects. I think the decision that was made was looking at the overall impact of industry and the lift it could give to the restaurant industry, the sector as a whole. There were consultations that were done, and although people did understand that there would be some negative effects, a decision was made for the greater good.

That being said, I believe it’s really important for me to hear from the distillery sector. I would like to offer my deputies to meet with the distillers to make sure that we understand the full impacts that they’re feeling.

S. Thomson: I think they would appreciate that. The minister should be aware that the sector has reached out and has asked for that engagement and so far has not heard anything. It’s, in my view, disappointing, when you have a sector that’s closely linked to the value-added side of the agriculture industry, that those discussions haven’t already taken place.

I would think that the minister would be advocating for some policy adjustment or change that would help offset that negative impact on the sector. This is a sector that went to bat, in terms of a response to the COVID pandemic, by pivoting to produce badly needed hand sanitizer at a critical time and that has really stepped up. Now they’re in a situation where they’re facing that negative impact.

I would have thought the minister would have been a strong advocate for some further adjustments that would help offset that very significant negative impact on the sector. That, to date, hasn’t happened. I’ll pass those comments along, that the minister is prepared to engage on that, but I would hope the minister would be out championing some adjustments there.

[5:05 p.m.]

There was a business technical advisory panel report with recommendations in there that could have helped to offset some of this. Those haven’t been dealt with. It has been a long-standing process where those recommendations haven’t moved forward.

In this time, as they’re facing the same challenges that small businesses across the province are facing, I would hope that the minister would be advocating strongly for some adjustments that would help mitigate that negative impact at this critical time for that sector.

The Chair: Does the minister wish to respond, or shall I move on to the next…?

Hon. L. Popham: I can absolutely say that we would welcome a meeting with those folks. I’m just going through to see if we’ve had contact from them over the pandemic months. I’ll confirm if we have or not, but I think it is important for us to meet.

Thank you for bringing that forward.

J. Johal: Good afternoon, Minister.

I just have a few questions on the Food Security Task Force report. Did the task force consult with the Agricultural Land Commission, the ALC, when they wrote their reports?

Hon. L. Popham: No, they did not.

J. Johal: Can the minister say why they did not?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I can’t answer the question on why they did or did not. They didn’t consult with the ALC. It was an independent committee, and I wasn’t directing them to where they should consult. Now that the secretariat is within my ministry, there is very much a process that involves close consultation with the ALC.

J. Johal: I’m just trying to get a sense of the last answer.

This report could have major impacts on agriculture throughout this province. You brought the issue of food security. Many other members have as well. Was that in the terms of reference? Did the minister insist that it be in the terms of reference? I’m trying to understand why, if this type of report is going to have a significant impact on agriculture in this province, the ALC wasn’t consulted.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: As I stated before, this is an independent committee that came forward with a list of re­commendations. They made their own decisions on whom they talked to and consulted with. Like any report, these are recommendations.

We now have a secretariat that will investigate the needs of agritech around the province, if there are any missing links and if there is a way that we can encourage more agritech to be operating and to have its home within our province. Now that the secretariat is underway and collecting information, there will be a close working relationship with the Agricultural Land Commission.

J. Johal: Certainly, the minister has talked about food security. The member from the Green Party, when asking a few questions a couple of hours ago, was talking about it, and my colleagues. I think it’s all a broad conversation that we’re all having.

The four recommendations are quite significant. Can the minister tell us whether or not she’ll be accepting and supporting all four recommendations? At the end of the day, we’re not talking about 20 or 30; there are just four. Will she be accepting and supporting those four recommendations?

Hon. L. Popham: As the member knows, the report was written, and it has been received by government. We’re studying all the recommendations currently, but there absolutely have been no decisions made. I think that while we consider the recommendations, it’s very important to know that decisions will be made through the lens of protecting farmland, encouraging farmland but also making sure that we adhere to our core values.

We know that through these last few months the pandemic has made everyone more aware of food security in British Columbia. There are ways that agritech can help with the growing of food and with labour around food production. We’ve even heard, over the last week, that there is a proposal for an agritech park out in Abbotsford. That’s not on agricultural land; that’s outside the agricultural land reserve. Really, there are a lot of opportunities.

When we say agritech, that still has to be defined. There are many, many types of agritech that are already happening on farms in urban and rural British Columbia. We know that there is technology that’s being used to help reduce pesticides in vineyards and also to measure the humidity so that pesticide applications and fungicide applications can be less.

[5:15 p.m.]

Agritech is used in dairies right throughout the Fraser Valley. There are some dairies that are operated by cell phones now. The health of those dairy cows has improved because they get their health checked more often. They milk on demand, and they even have enjoyable back scratchers that they can approach at any time.

Agritech is everywhere. When we think about it as addressing labour issues, there is an amazing company that has created a robot that actually moves plants in nurseries. Nursery work is backbreaking. If this can reduce some of the labour in a nursery around really difficult jobs, then I think that’s what we can be looking at. We need to know what the agritech sector’s needs are. We don’t know that yet.

The work that Deputy Shoemaker is taking on is really creating an inventory, figuring out what the needs are and also what the wants of British Columbians are. All that work is underway, and I think it’s quite interesting. The work that he’s coming back with shows that we probably know less than we do know. It’s important work that needs to be done before we can move forward.

J. Johal: That doesn’t answer my specific question. You have somebody who’s looking at it. We have a secretariat. You’ve talked about core values, back scratchers, robots and technology — a very broad response to the question that I asked.

We have the four recommendations. You’re looking at them now. When can we expect an announcement on whether or not you will be accepting those recommendations or whatever plan you have moving forward based on this report? When can we get an announcement? When can we expect an announcement from the secretariat and from your ministry?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question, Member.

There are a lot of complex issues at play — identifying barriers and challenges to agritech, figuring out what the problems are that we’d like to solve. It takes a comprehensive engagement. We’re some time away from making any decisions, but I can tell you that there is a lot of good information in the report. There are a lot of things that we’re looking at and that we were looking at previously to the report coming out.

There’s a section around food waste. That’s a really important topic worldwide right now. I am happy to say that through our Food Hub Network, we have been able to support a company that is creating a wonderful tomato soup out of food waste. That’s being used within Vancouver. There’s a lot to figure out. I’d like to be able to have a date for the member, but I think that’s unlikely for a few months.

J. Johal: This is my final question before I hand it over back to my colleague from Delta South.

[5:20 p.m.]

The minister had talked about agritech developments and various technologies. I think it’s wonderful that some of these developments may be moving forward, but ultimately, they’re just developments in specific communities rather than a broad provincewide public policy to really allow our farmers to make a living and to really introduce many new farmers to the land as well.

I just want to read one portion of the Food Security Task Force report and ask the minister if she agrees with this assessment, because I think it’s core in regards to how we move forward. It’s on page 12. It’s about ensuring that “there is a place to grow food and support emerging agritech industries by examining land use….”

It’s action A. It says, under the report, that they wish to “allocate up to a maximum of 0.25 percent of the province’s agricultural land reserve, ALR, for a broader category of use essentially categorized as agricultural-industrial. Factors in siting this land include lower soil classification, class 4 to 7 only; proximity to existing transport corridors and services; and potential for clustering agri-industrial uses near other non-agricultural zones.”

Does she agree with that particular assessment and that particular recommendation from the committee? That’s my final question.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question.

The member knows that as far as the agricultural land reserve goes, there are a number of competing interests that would like to see themselves on that land. I prefer to look at all options. We don’t know where agritech needs to go, because we don’t understand fully the requirements of supporting it.

As far as do I support that statement, I don’t know enough about that statement to say yes or no at this point. The work that Deputy Shoemaker is doing will bring back those answers so that we can figure out which direction we want to move on. But I do know that there is a proposal out in Abbotsford for an agritech park. Quite large, not on agricultural land. And I think that’s where we would really like to focus.

I. Paton: Madam Chair, I think, at this time, I will turn the proceedings over to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the member for Delta South for giving us this opportunity.

The first topic that I would like to ask a few questions on is flooding. As you know, we had fires in 2017, we had floods in 2018, and 2019 wasn’t too bad for some, not too good for others. Now, in 2020, we have massive flooding again, and our ranchers are in dire straits. The difficulty is…. I’ve had two or three of them in my office who have applied for assistance. They don’t qualify. The reason they don’t qualify is AgriStability has so many restrictions on it. People may have made money in 2018 for the first time in two years. And 2019 — their income tax statements aren’t ready.

[5:25 p.m.]

Along comes 2020. They got flooded out completely, and they get rejected because they made too much money in 2019. But this is 2020, where they may not survive.

When will the minister…? I see in the budget process — I’m on the Finance Committee — that there’s talk about re-evaluating the amount of funding that is allowed under the percentage back to a rancher when he has floods or trouble. But the whole AgriStability, Minister, I believe, in talking to my ranchers, needs to have some new regulatory regime in it. It is not helpful to the ranchers.

I’m asking the minister. When will she take a good look at the AgriStability program and help these ranchers so they are not in dire straits every second year?

Hon. L. Popham: Great to see the member. I miss seeing all the faces from the Legislature. Thanks for being here today. Good question.

[5:30 p.m.]

I’m happy to say that we haven’t rejected anybody for AgriStability in 2020. If the member has a particular case, I think we should meet, and my staff can address the particular issue that you’re bringing up. There were payments made in 2019, using AgriRecovery, for flooding. The 2020 flooding will be addressed with our new, enhanced AgriStability program. We’ve done extensive outreach to growers and ranchers. That outreach has resulted in about a 40 percent increase in participation to these programs. We’ve created a B.C. initiative.

Although I continue to constantly advocate at the federal-provincial-territorial table with my provincial colleagues, my territorial colleagues and the federal minister, we made a decision that we would have to have a B.C. initiative this year to try and address some of the issues that we’ve been pushing hard at that larger table and that weren’t moving fast enough. Out on our own, we actually removed the reference margin limit, we changed the compensation rates, and we’ve been able to get money out the door much quicker. We’ve allowed for interim payments and increased those interim payments from 50 percent up to 75 percent.

We have, significantly, made changes. That being said, more needs to be done. There’s an October federal-provincial-territorial meeting, where AgriStability is one of the topics. Our ministry continues to put forward what our needs are in British Columbia, and we hope to see more changes in October, but I can say that we’ve made changes on our own while we wait for the federal table to move.

D. Barnett: Minister, it all sounds good. But when you’re a rancher and you’re flooded — not once but twice or three times — and you look at the criteria…. A lot of them don’t even qualify. Some may be getting the money out there quicker. It’s certainly not the ones that are in my office. There need to be changes made.

For example, a lot of our ranchers are mom-and-pop operations. In a lot of them, one of them has to go to work part-time outside the ranch. Well, automatically, you don’t qualify for these programs. If you have a corporation — a lot of people put their businesses in corporations — you don’t qualify.

These are serious changes that need to be considered, or we will not have any more mom-and-pop operations. Rest assured. I live with them, and I know what they’ve been through since 2017.

Minister, I would be more than happy to sit down with yourself, your secretary or one of your deputy ministers and give some good old-fashioned Cariboo input as to the needs of these people that are working out on the land.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I would never say no to some good old-fashioned Cariboo advice. That’s for sure. We’d look forward to having a chat, MLA Barnett.

Just so we’re speaking the same language, if you work off your farm or you have a corporation, that has no bearing on your eligibility for AgriStability. I think what you might be talking about is disaster financial assistance. So those would be two different programs.

We can definitely take the specific examples of the ranchers that are having those difficulties and just work through our programming to see what they qualify for and what they don’t qualify for, and then at least we’ll all be on the same page.

D. Barnett: You are correct. It also is in the disaster program. It is also…. Some of these regulations are in the AgriStability program too, because I’ve got the papers on my desk. So I would be more than happy to have a meeting with your staff and sit down and discuss it.

The other issue we have is that with the devastation that has happened to these ranchers over the past few years, they’re exhausted. And the paperwork and the hours that they’ve put into this…. It’s great to keep…. We have lots of people in offices and things, but it sure would be nice if there were more people on the ground to go out and work with these people one-on-one, because I can tell you that I am very concerned.

We talk about food security. I am very concerned about the ranching industry in my riding and, I know, in some others in the future, and we certainly cannot afford to lose these ranches. So another request to the minister is: let’s also talk about getting some help on the ground for these people, when it comes to all of this paperwork that they continuously have to fill out.

Hon. L. Popham: Member, I know that you know this, but we do have a staff person in Williams Lake. We also have a team of people who would be very glad to walk people through all of their paperwork. In fact, we can offer — and I think, maybe, it’s a pretty good idea — to have a workshop that we do through the B.C. Cariboo Cattlemen’s Association. We can actually have a team of people working on people’s paperwork if that would help.

[5:40 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I don’t think workshops are going to help, Minister. We’ve had them before. When a disaster strikes and people are in dire straits is when they need the help. All the workshops in the world…. I would suggest that we take a better look at getting help on the ground as quick as possible when these incidents happen to help these people out, not a workshop.

I’d like to move on with the next question I have, and it’s around abattoirs, my favourite topic. We had a great time in the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. We went out, and it was very interesting talking to people all across the province, and I thank you for that opportunity.

My question is around abattoirs. The Ds and Es we spent lots of time on. There were lots of recommendations, lots of support. How many D and E licences have been given since this report was filed in September of 2018 in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Popham: Member, I totally appreciate the work that you did with the standing committee. That was the first project that the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food took on, and it’s the first time it was active in many, many years. Having the committee go out and look at what the needs are for local slaughter was crucially important to me, and I think the work that was done by the committee was excellent.

We’ve been able to take those recommendations…. We’ve implemented many of them, and we’re still working on that. We made some changes just a couple weeks ago. The member asked how many D and E licences have been issued since the report was submitted. Of course, the member must know that once the report was submitted, anything that we change or move forward on still takes a bit of a consultation process with local government, regional districts, etc., because they’re an important part of the puzzle as well.

Let me tell you that in 2019, there were 23 applications in total. The Ds and Es in 2018…. There were 28 applications and 11 approved so far for class E. Class Ds have had 11 applications in the Port Alberni area, where we’ve added a new area that’s allowed to have them. There have been…. Okay, just so you know how popular these changes have been, 2019 saw only 23 applications in total. Since this January, we’ve already had 28 applications. That’s what I’m trying to say.

[5:45 p.m.]

The changes that we’re making are encouraging people to apply, and I think that the foundation that the committee gave us has allowed us to move forward, making sure that there is more local meat production in the province.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. Some of the issues that came up and recommendations that were made…. Your ministry, along with other ministries such as Health and other ones, put together, more or less, a cooperation. Has that been done so that the regulations are easier to be met?

The second part of that is the inspectors. Who does the inspection department lie with? Is that still with Health, or has the ministry cross-referenced together and made that easier for people to access?

Hon. L. Popham: As far as the inspection goes, currently Health still inspects for Ds and Es for rural slaughter, and Agriculture inspects for As and Bs. We are having active conversations right now with people that are involved in slaughter to make sure, as we move forward, that we’re getting things right. I think that you’ll be able to see more changes in the next while.

D. Barnett: How many more inspectors have been hired both for Health, for Ds and Es, and for the federal inspectors for the As? How many more have been hired in the last year?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question.

As far as the health authorities that do the rural slaughter inspections for Ds and Es, we don’t track the number of inspectors that the health authorities have. As far as the Agriculture Ministry, we are fully staffed.

In fact, we made an agreement, when the pandemic first began, with the federal government. If the federal government came up short with needing inspectors, or we did, we could lend each other inspectors, and that was to cover off vacancies due to COVID. So if somebody was sick and in isolation, we could cover the federal government off, or vice versa.

I think we have a pretty nimble program. I haven’t had a discussion on whether or not that agreement will continue, but it seems like it worked really well during this pandemic.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister.

We were short of inspectors last fall. So my question was: how many inspectors were hired prior to the pandemic? This is before the pandemic. We were short of meat inspectors for class As. So I would like to know how many were hired prior to COVID.

Hon. L. Popham: I hope I’ve got this right. If not, I can give it another try, Member.

We didn’t have any reports of having to deny any inspections due to not enough resources, so I’d be interested to know more about that from your perspective. I know that the select standing committee report recommended a discussion on increasing resources, even in rural British Columbia, with increasing resources with health authorities. I’m not sure if that’s what the member’s getting at.

[5:55 p.m.]

We don’t keep track of the health authority inspectors, and as far as I know, we didn’t have any shortages on our end. I’m wondering if that was a federal shortage, but the member could maybe give me a bit more information.

D. Barnett: Yes, it is the federal inspectors that we were short of last year. This year I know that the ranchers in this region have got to drive a long ways to the slaughtering. The same problem existed before COVID. They have to book five, six months ahead of time to get a space for slaughter. It is a big issue. It was last year, and it was the year before. It’s basically maybe not getting…. It’s fine in some regions, but in this region, there is a serious problem.

I have a whole bunch of other questions. I know we’re short of time. I have colleagues that have other questions. So what I will do is put them all in writing and send them off to the minister. Hopefully, I can get some responses later.

Thank you very much, and thank you to the member for Delta South.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the member for Delta South for providing us this opportunity.

I share the minister’s passion and enthusiasm for agriculture and believe that it’s a significantly important piece of economic recovery for our small businesses in the province.

I have a few specific questions on behalf of Cariboo North constituents. The first builds on what the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin had mentioned. We still have significant ranchers that have been impacted by the 2017-2018 wildfires. Now they have been flooded out since April. Much of Cariboo North has either been impacted directly by flooding or on flood watch, and we continue to be in that position. It continues to rain.

For many of the people from the Nazko area who were impacted by the Plateau fire complex, the first message or item that I’d like to raise to the minister is that I’m deeply concerned that they’re not going to be able to get hay out. I appreciate the minister’s comments of holding some workshops for the ranchers, but like the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, the specific types of paperwork that the ranchers are required to fill out are in different aspects or different ministries that a workshop just wouldn’t assist.

The first that I’d like to raise is…. I have several ranchers that were impacted, like I said, during the Plateau complex fire. Mostly in the Nazko Valley area, but it extends down through the Narcosli area. I’m just going to read what was sent to me. In 2017, their B.C. assessments were challenged. Their land and their ranch was burnt so bad that there is no soil left. The house and outbuildings were saved from fire-smarting their property.

In 2018, they were flooded out on their land. In 2019, their assessment went up by 49 percent, but then they had to go back and appeal, which they did win. In 2020, their assessment came back, and it went up 136 percent. So again, they had to appeal.

Is there a way that the minister could work with B.C. Assessment to support these ranchers so that they don’t have to go year after year and appeal these assessments on deeply impacted areas for ranchers? Like the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin said, they have been so devastated by year after year of fires and now floods. To go through and have to prove, each year, their impact is very, very problematic.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I really appreciate the member bringing that question forward. I think probably the best way to proceed is for my staff to reach out to the member. Together we can work with the associations to try and put forward a case to B.C. Assessment. I think the member has…. We will definitely need the particulars on each case.

I think, in general, the more that we can work together to advocate for agricultural needs with B.C. Assessment…. I don’t see any downside to that. Let’s work together on that case.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you on that.

The second piece that I think we’re going to require some assistance from the minister with is…. The other challenge we’ve had this year, with the significant spring freshet that we’ve had, is that we’ve lost a significant amount of road networks in our region. Two particular roads that lead into agricultural communities have detours that have been put in place on forest service roads.

The challenge that we have is that we can’t get cattle liners in on those four service roads, and we can’t get hay in either. While we’ve had push-back, on the federal side, saying that the cattle liners can travel on the grades of these detour forest service roads, the cattle liners are saying it’s not safe for the animals to be doing such. So they’re refusing to do that.

In many instances, to get hay into these areas…. The roads are single-lane industrial forest service roads. So again, we’re having difficulty in trying to find people to bring the hay in. We’re heading into the fall, and I know that we’re going to have challenges with getting animals back from range on some of these detour routes.

We have been working with EMBC. If we could get some support from the minister to work closely with EMBC…. I think it will be required. I think we’re going to have a very difficult fall for our producers, on getting their animals back from range onto their properties. For those who weren’t able to get their animals out to range, we’re going to have to find feed somewhere. For many of them, I do not think they’re going to be able to get hay off this year because of the weather that we’ve had. So we’re going to need some help.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: To the member, this sounds like we probably need to get those details, as well, from her. Then I think this is going to require a conversation by our ministry with EMBC, with the Ministry of Transportation and with FLNRORD, so why don’t we…. When we’re touching base on that other issue, we’ll gather the details from you on this one as well.

C. Oakes: Perfect. Thank you very much, Minister, for that. I appreciate that. I know we all want the best for our agricultural sector. So I appreciate that.

I have two more questions. I know there are folks that are following me, and it’ll help get them ready.

I have two questions that come directly from the Quesnel Cattlemen’s Association. The first question is around…. Most, if not all, permits of renewal, permits for range tenures, water licensing and licensing have now been moved to having to go online. The challenge we have is that many of our rural areas do not have access to broadband Internet. Even through FrontCounter British Columbia, they’re directing all permitting right now down to one single front-line office, I believe, in Williams Lake. So the backlog has been tremendous.

The first is…. We’ve got to find a solution so that areas that do not have access to broadband or connectivity…. We have to find a way so that folks can do the permitting.

The question is…. The licensing process, even though it’s mandatory, has been taking three to four years for some who have registered and who are still waiting for their water licences. They registered three or four years ago. They’re waiting for the registration. Now they’re starting to get billed. After two years, they continue to get billed, year after year, for applications, but they still haven’t received their water permits. Now they’re starting to receive letters in the mail telling them that it’s mandatory and that they had better get their water wells licensed.

The challenge becomes…. I know that this will probably be through a different ministry, but I think it’s important that this minister understands the delays.

Many in our agricultural sector have done everything within their power to meet the requirements that the government has put forward. They have tried to put their permits through. They’ve done that three and four years ago. They continue to wait for the permitting process to happen. They get billed, year after year, on wells that haven’t gone through the process. Now they’re getting letters from the ministry that suggest that they haven’t done something that they, in fact, have.

Is there any comment or suggestion on these permitting processes and how we can either streamline it better, provide better support or find a different solution? Right now it’s just not working.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: A great question and not something that we’re not aware of, for sure. The problems around broadband access are ongoing, but it is being improved through the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. Unfortunately, it’s not instant. But they are working on it, and we are absolutely aware of the challenges that it brings when there are online registration processes and rural B.C. can’t access them. So very aware of that.

We are working with B.C. Cattlemen’s and FLNRORD to streamline the water-tenuring process. That’s ongoing right now and a priority, for sure. We know that there is a backlog, and this unfortunately…. We’re happy that people are registering, but we’re not happy with the backlog. So we bring this forward to FLNRORD, and they are working as fast as they can. We will certainly remind them how important it is.

C. Oakes: Madam Chair, this is my last question for the minister.

Minister, I thank you for that. Perhaps they could also suggest maybe not sending out the letters reminding people to register, because it just makes them very frustrated, and then we get the calls. So I just put that out there.

Around premise ID, I know that the minister worked hard during the wildfires of 2017 and 2018 to ensure that we worked closely with the agricultural sector to make sure that premise ID was something that the agriculture sector supported and bought into. We did have good buy-in, and we’re proud of that work.

The challenge that we’re hearing now from the cattlemen is, in some cases, they are now…. They were told, originally, that it was a one-time setup and would only be used in times of emergency, such as wildfires, flooding and earthquakes, but this no longer seems to be the case, as we have received emails or letters telling us that we have to renew or update the premise ID, along with letters, in some cases, telling us that we will have to register all water linked to the premise ID.

I think that, again, this ties into the water licences and the backlog there, but now they’re pulling the premise ID process into it. We had the buy-in from the agricultural sector, and I’m concerned that we are going lose that buy-in. I think…. Not to speak for the minister, but I’m sure that the minister doesn’t want to see us lose that important work that had been done. So if there is maybe some clarity on why they are tying premise IDs to water licences and why they’re making people redo all of that paperwork.

Hon. L. Popham: Very interesting to hear the discussion from the member. It’s the first that I’m hearing about this. We haven’t heard anything from our stakeholders, so I will commit to checking into that right away and getting back to the member. The premise ID program is something I believe in very much. Let me check in to see what’s happening.

M. Stilwell: Thank you to the member for Delta South, who has allowed me the opportunity to ask some questions of the minister.

[6:15 p.m.]

I’m going to start out today by just asking a very local Vancouver Island question. I know the minister is aware and has heard of Island Good. Vancouver Island Economic Alliance is the group who came up with the idea. They funded the initiative itself over the last year or so, and they truly believe — and I agree with them — that they could move it along faster and further with some additional government funding.

George Hanson is the president of the Vancouver Island Economic Alliance. He sees — and I agree with him — that there’s lots of tourism potential. In fact, they actually have an agreement with Tourism Vancouver Island to market the brand to tourism organizations. They’ve tried to get some funding through the ag foundation, but sadly, they didn’t qualify.

I can tell the minister that as critic for Tourism, Arts and Culture, tourists love having local products, especially from those places that they visit. I know people aren’t visiting as much as we would expect at this time of the year, COVID-19 having impacted things greatly, but the Island Good brand really helps to identify those local products.

I’m just wondering if the minister has anything that the Vancouver Island Economic Alliance could access through the ministry to help support this important program, especially now, in the height of a pandemic, where it is even more fundamentally important that we buy local.

Hon. L. Popham: Well, we’ve just recently had a meeting with Island Good. They have laid out all of the great things that they do, and there’s so much that aligns with the ministry work that we’re doing.

They did bring up the challenge that they’ve applied to Investment Agriculture for Buy B.C. dollars. Unfortunately, we do Buy B.C. as a logo and a support program. We don’t do smaller regional programs, but we did make the commitment that we would highlight them in all of our Buy B.C. social media. So we’re going to work on something together in that way, but there are also a lot of other things that we can work on and that we’re aligned on. So we’re going to continue those discussions.

M. Stilwell: I appreciate that the minister took time to meet with those from Island Good and Vancouver Island Economic Alliance and hope that we can see the branding improve and go forward and ensure that people are spending more money, more dollars locally, here on the Island.

I’m just going to move now on to something that is more focused on jobs and the economy. I’m just wanting to know from the minister…. You know, you’ve visited many, many farms, ranches and processing facilities, highlighting your interest in everything from hazelnuts to honey.

I also understand that farmed salmon is the largest agricultural export in B.C. Could the minister perhaps tell me when was the last time she visited a salmon farm?

Hon. L. Popham: You know what? I probably couldn’t come up with a date. What I can tell the member is that we work really closely with the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, and we’ve spent a lot of time together over the last couple years as we’ve worked closely around a process in the Broughton Archipelago with nations. So we have a great working relationship.

I haven’t been able to get out to a farm recently, but hopefully, maybe after we’re allowed to travel a bit more, I can do that.

M. Stilwell: Thank you to the minister. I hope she will take that opportunity, when she gets it, to visit a salmon farm. When looking at agricultural industries, especially during what has become a very challenging time now with COVID-19, I believe agricultural industries have the potential to increase both production of salmon and also employment.

Could the minister tell me…? When she’s looking at agricultural industries, what agricultural industries does she believe have the potential to increase production and employment?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: It just triggered my memory that last summer, late spring, I was actually on the west coast and spending time with Cermaq, going through their processing plant and taking a trip out to their farms. That was the most recent one that I’ve done, but I’ve done many in my life as critic and minister.

Which parts of agriculture, fish and seafood may represent areas of growth? Well, in my view, they all do. We are trying to increase all domestic production, making sure that we’ve got the land base to do that on and that there are programs that enable goods that are grown and processed in British Columbia to be marketed within B.C. but also marketed outside our province. It’s a really important part of our food security plan.

You will know, as most of us do know in British Columbia, that we only provide between 40 and 45 percent of what we need here. I see the idea of resiliency and food security…. There’s a big part that we need to increase so that we’re growing and producing more, not just so that we can feed ourselves but so that we have the opportunities to feed other jurisdictions.

M. Stilwell: While I believe the minister is saying that she believes sustainable food production raises those new opportunities for our coastal communities, she didn’t specifically say…. I don’t want to put words in her mouth, so I’d just like to know if she includes salmon farming specifically as an industry that has the potential to increase production and employment.

Hon. L. Popham: Well, of course it does. We’ve just gone through a really important process in the Broughton Archipelago — where there are agreements between nations, where salmon farms operate within their territories — to make sure that nations are included and in agreement with where they’re operating. It’s been a very successful process that we went through.

I think it’s probably…. I would say that the state of salmon farming is in a better place than it’s ever been over 30 years. There were controversies that were building, and instead of ignoring them, we put forward a process that brought everyone together. We have new First Nations monitoring that’s going on in the Broughton Archipelago. I think the process we went through is a success and ensures that if there is to be growth, that everybody is included in the way that growth happens.

M. Stilwell: Could the minister tell me roughly how many First Nations people are employed in salmon aquaculture in B.C. today?

Hon. L. Popham: We don’t have that number available immediately, but it’s probably going to be continuing tomorrow. I can get it to the member as soon as we begin.

M. Stilwell: My understanding is that it’s about 20 percent. It’s a commonly used number among industry. It would seem to me, then, that aquaculture is actually one of the largest employers of First Nations people operating on the B.C. coast.

[6:25 p.m.]

It may very well be that the industry has the potential to grow production and employment, especially those in the First Nations communities along the coast. Can the minister tell me how she supports or specifically promotes the salmon farming industry, either through public events or how she appeals to the federal Minister of Fisheries over the policies that have, quite honestly, moved towards the engagement and the future of the B.C. salmon farming industry and, therefore, those First Nations jobs?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I think the work we’ve done over the last couple of years, with regards to the process we followed in the Broughton and the policies we’ve brought into place around salmon farming, allow for nations to be very involved in the industry. Or they can choose not to. It’s a fair process where everybody is sitting at the same table.

I think that’s probably one of the best ways to make sure that everybody has the same potential to expand an industry, to have the least controversy within an industry, and it’s the way that we also authentically address reconciliation.

I thank the member for the question. Noting the hour….

M. Stilwell: Madam Chair, I have one final question, if we have time.

The Chair: Sure, one more quick question. We have three minutes till 6:30.

M. Stilwell: Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the minister’s remarks, but what I specifically was asking is how she promotes the industry, how she advocates to the federal minister about the industry. As an MLA from central Vancouver Island, finfish and shellfish aquaculture are important job sustainers and job creators for the people in my community, and on northern Vancouver Island as well. It is especially critical now, as the economy is suffering through this pandemic and from the impacts of COVID-19.

Specifically, I’d love to know what the government’s plan is to support and help these sectors so that they can grow responsibly in our region and can support B.C.’s economic recovery post-COVID-19.

Hon. L. Popham: Well, we support all of the industries — fish, agriculture, food processing — in a large way through our ministry. In fact, I can say that the fish side of the Ministry of Agriculture is bigger than it has been. We actually call our fish sector…. We have a fish department now, which we haven’t had for a very long time. We’ve been increasing resources there and staff.

We do spend a lot of time talking about the seafood sector, whether that’s the salmon farming side, whether it’s the shellfish side or the processing side — value-added goods, shelf-stable goods — to make sure that we can find new markets. I visited the Boston seafood trade show last year and was planning to go again this year before the pandemic hit.

I also advocate…. We were having weekly calls with the federal Fisheries minister where we discussed all issues of fish. I flew out to Ottawa last December when she was first appointed to make sure that I was advocating for the west coast interests of Canada.

I think we’re doing a lot. It’s a very important part of our ministry, and I always have time to meet with and to discuss challenges that our fishers are having.

[6:30 p.m.]

We’ve got enormous challenges right now. Our shellfish industry, because the restaurant sector has slowed down so much, is having challenges itself, but we’re looking at ways to address some of those challenges, constantly advocating for the seafood side of the ministry, and I will continue to do so.

I move that the committee rise 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 6:31 p.m.