Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

I. Paton: Good morning. I know we don’t have a lot of time this morning, but I just want to catch up on a few last-minute things.

I think the one thing that this pandemic has proved to us in agriculture, especially here in British Columbia, is the lack of locally grown food: vegetables and, especially, meat — poultry, beef, pork, etc. Having travelled around this province, I’ve realized that our livestock numbers are shrinking. All you need to do is fly over this province and look down at small farms everywhere in B.C., and the livestock are gone. They used to be there, but there’s no livestock inside the fences anymore.

What we’ve shown is that 4,000 head of cattle a day being killed at a plant in Alberta — or two or three plants in Alberta and across Canada — is a little bit susceptible. We saw that when positive tests started to break out. Employees are elbow-to-elbow in these plants. We’re not sure where the livestock came from, but they’re going through these plants at 4,000 head a day, with 2,000 workers in a plant such as JBS or Cargill.

What we’re seeing is that people in British Columbia want to be able to buy beef, pork and poultry from their neighbour down the road, neighbour Joe. They know he’s been humanely raising his steers and his cows and his heifers. That’s what I think people really want to purchase: locally grown produce and protein that is locally grown in B.C. by their neighbour down the road. I think we need far more licences to go out for B licences and D and E licences, as we’ve talked about.

I was on the committee that travelled around B.C. in 2018 about the industry for abattoirs and slaughterhouses. My question to the minister: can the minister tell the House what work has been completed on the recommendations outlined in the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture report on abattoirs? Can she identify which of the 21 recommendations have been completed, which of the 21 are currently in progress and which are yet to be started?

[9:40 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. This topic is very important to me and has been for a very long time. One of the main pieces of art I decorate my office with is an abattoir map of British Columbia. It’s also been something that I know has needed some change for as long as I’ve been an MLA.

There were changes to the way we slaughtered meat brought in, in 2008, and since then, there has been a constant conversation from small-scale producers around the way that those changes back then really affected the capacity that we have for small-scale slaughter and just the way we generally deal with meat slaughter in British Columbia.

When the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food was reinstated after a very long time of not being part of the Legislature, one of the first tasks was to send a team out to investigate provincial meat production. I’d like to thank the critic for the time that he spent on that committee. It’s a critically important committee to the Legislature and to British Columbia.

The report that came back was fantastic. The work that was done was excellent. The report made 21 recommendations for government. Eight of those recommendations were about abattoir licensing and oversight, three of those recommendations were about skilled labour and workforce, and ten of the recommendations were about industry growth and development. On June 3, 2019, our ministry formally accepted all the recommendations.

[9:45 a.m.]

The progress to date on the recommendations in­cludes reduced travel time, policy associated with class E licence applications, no-cost training for class D and E licences, consultation with operators and local government on class D administration, slaughter capacity study to provide a baseline for future reviews of meat inspection programs, Buy B.C. promotion of local meat products, local meat production promoted through agricultural fairs and 4-H funding, funding research to investigate alternative inspection methods, and farmers’ concerns about disaster relief conveyed to emergency management British Columbia.

We have also brought in three new regions that were designated on June 10, 2020: Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, area H in the regional district of Fraser–Fort George and area D in the regional district of the Central Kootenays. These regions are now able to have class D licences.

I can say that for the Alberni-Clayoquot district, 11 applications have already been received since that change on June 10, 2020.

I. Paton: Thank you for that answer.

If I had to look at the top three things that farmers and ranchers in B.C. are extremely concerned about — we talked about it yesterday — it’s secondary homes, third homes on farms. The second would be value-added, and meat is a big part of that.

If you can do slaughter and butcher of good-quality locally grown beef of small-scale here in British Columbia and set up a little roadside stand with your vegetables that you’ve grown and a freezer cooler with the meat that you’ve packaged, that’s what we need to see in British Columbia on big farms and on small-scale farms as well.

The important thing to me is that we get more A, D and E licences out there in B.C. so that everybody can start raising livestock again. The bottom line is this. If you’re a farmer, you can grow all the Brussels sprouts and potatoes and whatever in the world, but if you don’t have a processing plant nearby to sell that product to, nobody is going to grow it.

The same with beef and poultry. If you don’t have an abattoir or a butcher nearby, why would you bother getting into the production of some beef cattle or chickens or turkeys or hogs or whatever? So we need to get more licences out in B.C.

The important thing — and this is what we found on our travels with the committee we’re on — is there’s a great lack of B.C. Ministry of Ag inspectors. The only inspectors that are checking on D and E licences are the Ministry of Health inspectors. We asked people: “When was the last time you saw a Ministry of Health inspector that came to check your stainless steel tables and your knives to see if things are clean?” “We haven’t seen a guy in a year, maybe a year and a half.”

The most important thing is that if we’re going to sell locally grown protein here in B.C., we need to have more hired inspectors through the province that will go and do random checks on D and E licences. We need more of them, but they need to be randomly checked, for the safety of people in B.C., by provincial inspectors.

Could you comment on that, please?

[9:50 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks, again, to the critic for the question.

I think the exciting, good news is that since the new regions were brought on, we have seen a flurry of activity. Even since January, we’ve seen a flurry of activity around applications. And that’s good news because it means more people are interested in being part of meat production in British Columbia. So as the critic mentioned, people do like being able to access meat locally — maybe from their neighbour, maybe from their hometown.

The critic brings up a good point. Having more applications and more livestock being raised doesn’t address the capacity that we have for slaughter. I think, as we get more animal production coming online, it will make the business case for more slaughter facilities to come online as well.

Around the inspection, the inspection takes place for the Ds and Es through the Ministry of Health, the health authorities. It’s not through Agriculture. But what we have been doing, because we know that there is going to be a need for more inspection as we see these applications come in, is we’re investigating all ways that that could be done.

One of the things that’s quite interesting is looking at an alternative approach to traditional inspection, so using technology to do those inspections. We see in human health there is a capacity to use cellphones to verify disease in communities that don’t have a doctor available. That’s something that can be possibly incorporated into our inspection services here. There could be more virtual disease verification that’s done. So there are a lot of different approaches that we can take now. Technology has really increased around health and safety.

There are things that we’re looking at like that. But also, to address the larger capacity issue, the member’s quite right. A lot of our cattle move to Alberta for finishing and for slaughter.

[9:55 a.m.]

We’ve been working, over the last three years, with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association to try and figure out a larger way to address larger-scale slaughter in the province. And I’d say that we’re getting pretty close to being able to see something new happen. It will offer larger-scale capacity for beef, red meat slaughter. But it’s also going to give us the capacity to be able to market our own domestic meat within our province as raised and slaughtered here fully.

There are many interested parties that we know of that are interested in that capacity being grown, including large restaurant chains. So we’re also, as the critic knows, trying to move more grown and processed product through our hospital systems, and ground beef is one of the things that is very much used in our hospital system. The member has been in the dairy industry, and he’ll know that at the end of a dairy cow’s life, it often goes into the slaughter and into the hamburger market. So this increased capacity will also, probably, be able to help the dairy industry.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister.

One more quick question about the abattoir situation. I wanted to clarify that for inspectors for B licences, which are provincial inspectors that actually sit for seven or eight hours a day at the facility to see that it’s humanely slaughtered, etc., and humanely trucked to the facility….

I’m not suggesting for Ds and Es that we need a person there eight hours a day, five days a week. I’m simply suggesting that a provincial inspector could be a pop-in inspection, just like we used to have on dairy farms with barn inspectors. You didn’t know exactly when they were coming, but they would pop in just to make sure that you’re on your toes and you’re doing things in a humane way and in a cleanly way.

My last little question is the Fraser Valley. We speak mostly about this large province of ours, rural areas where people want more opportunities for D and E licences for slaughter and butcher. But right in the Fraser Valley, we have people who — Minister, you know how many hobby farms that are out there that got split up in the ’60s and ’70s that, unfortunately, are only five acres — want to raise a few beef cows or some sheep or some poultry.

The worst part of the whole abattoir situation is, actually, the Fraser Valley. There are a few big boys out there. They don’t even really want to do custom kill for small operators. So I have people coming to me in Langley, Surrey, Delta and Abbotsford going: “Can we get some D and E licences right in the Fraser Valley?” Even though they’re rather close to some of the big boys, we need to have….

Is there a possibility of more D and E licences, actually, in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. L. Popham: There are class E licences available for the Fraser Valley. If someone who has a class E license finds that they’re unable to get the space at a larger slaughter facility, that can trigger a feasibility study from our ministry to see if there needs to be more slaughter capacity put in.

[10:00 a.m.]

If the member does have a farmer that he knows that would like to apply for a class E or has a class E and can’t find the slaughter capacity, just get in touch with us, and we can do a feasibility study.

I. Paton: I’d like to move on to The Future of B.C.’s Food System. The Food Security Task Force put it together. First of all, I do want to say that I do compliment Mr. Dhillon and Mr. Gupta and Ms. Newman, who were charged to go out and to do this report. However, if we go to recommendation 4 in the report on the use of agricultural land in British Columbia for agri-industrial uses, it’s probably not the best choice of wording.

I would like to read out some headlines from many farm publications in B.C. I’d start with Country Life in B.C. This is regarding this report and recommendation 4. “Farmland Advocates Pan Agritech Plans.” “Using the ALR for Industry Is No Route to Food Security.”

The next one, Western Investor Magazine: “B.C.’s Food Security Task Force Report Draws Disbelief and Guffaws.” “Pandemic Brings Food Security Issue to the Forefront.”

CBC: “B.C. Food Security Report Sparks Debate on Technology and Agricultural Land Reserve: Experts, Municipal Leaders Say Converting Any Part of the Land Reserve Will Fuel Speculation and Raise Costs.”

Then, finally, the Alaska Highway News. The headline says: “Peace River Regional District Rips up the B.C. Food Task Force Report.”

Then we go on to a quote here. I think — I hope — the minister knows about this letter that was written. It was written to Premier Horgan, and it came from 23 advocates of agriculture that are very well known in British Columbia, including Richard Bullock, the past chair of the land commission; Joan Sawicki — I’m sure you all know Joan Sawicki; and Kent Mullinix, the head agriculturist for KPU.

To the minister, could she please tell us her opinion of where things are going with this recommendation 4? I mean, it’s certainly been dissed by every article that I’ve seen since it came out. What is your comment on using ALR land for industrial uses?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks, again, for the question. I think we know that as our demands evolve over the next decades, the demand that we are going to see for food is increasing. That’s a global situation. We also have a problem, globally, with food waste. That’s becoming quite top of mind for many people.

The Food Security Task Force brought in recommendations that deal with a lot of pressing issues that we’re seeing for agriculture worldwide, really. They brought forward examples of how this is being addressed in other jurisdictions. I would like to thank the Food Security Task Force, that was led by Peter Dhillon and members Arvind Gupta and Lenore Newman, for the work they put in on this report. There are a lot of things that can be addressed.

[10:05 a.m.]

Of course, like any report, it’s presented to us, and then we need to do the work to try and find out which recommendations we would like to work on, which should be implemented. But there’s a lot of good work in this report.

As far as any land use changes, this is something that Deputy Wes Shoemaker is going out to investigate. Of course, that’s a complicated situation. There are a lot of competing pressures on agricultural land and reserve land. We know that it was put in place for future generations specifically for food security, and we’re very protective of that land. So Deputy Shoemaker’s job is to go out and see: what exactly are the needs of agritech? What is agritech, and what are the needs of farmers around agritech?

I think the critic said himself: “Recently B.C.’s new Food Security Task Force recommended a certain amount of ALR land be set aside specifically for agricultural industrial use. This will be critical if B.C. is to bolster our packing and processing industries, as well as to provide local cold storage facilities to help to keep produce fresh, retain its value and increase its shelf life.”

I think the member himself acknowledges that we do need to look at different avenues to produce food, but whether or not that lands on the ALR is really to be investigated. Those consultations are being done now. Deputy Shoemaker’s job is also to make sure he’s working closely with the Agricultural Land Commission and to take a look at land use.

There are possibilities that are showing themselves, especially out in Abbotsford with a company that wants to set up an agritech park. It’s outside the Agricultural Land Reserve. We really need to have an inventory of what land is available, what agritech needs and what British Columbia wants to be involved with, with agritech.

But make no mistake. Agritech is happening all around us right now. Farmers are using agritech in British Columbia, and we need to know what role it has here. We see that small-, medium- and large-scale farmers, fishers and food processors are using agritech that’s available to them now, but what do they need? That’s what we’re going to find out.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Just further, I would like to know what the total cost of this Food Security Task Force report was.

I’d like to let the minister know that we already have eight institutions in B.C. that are doing post-secondary agriculture. I’m sure they are all desperate for funding. I can tell the minister that, as a farmer, there is technology coming our way every day. All you have to do is to look at salesmen. That may sound funny, but the salesmen for everything you can think of — whether it’s semen, genomics, robotics, GPS for your tractors or autonomous-driven tractors — are all over. All this is coming from the universities — Cal Poly, Nebraska, Iowa — and it’s coming from Israel and Germany.

Those are the leaders in agriculture technology. So I’m just not sure if we need to spend in the millions of dollars to compete with all these universities and countries. Even Guelph University — that’s our leading agritech and innovation university in Canada.

I would like to know what the cost is to do this report — the task force — and what the cost would be for putting up the innovation and technology centre in the Fraser Valley that you speak of.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The Food Security Task Force had a budget of $150,000, which was for travel, project management support and other administrative expenses.

Then, to the member’s comments about which academic institutions are doing what and the potential to have agritech hubs around academic institutions, part of the task that Deputy Shoemaker is undertaking is to have those conversations with academic institutions and private business to see what the partnerships are that can be made. The University of the Fraser Valley will be on that list, definitely. But there are also other academic institutions that are entrusted around…. In the viticulture sector, we’ve got academic institutions in the Okanagan region that are looking at being entrusted in using technology to more sustainably manage vineyards. There are a lot of examples.

One of the examples that the task force brought up was an example from the Netherlands, where there is a good partnership between government, private business and academia, where they create these agritech hubs, and agritech can be developed there. You also see spinoffs of food being grown in those same areas.

Agritech is here. The member is right. It’s all around us. So we need to position ourselves as a province to be able to support that but also to take advantage of the opportunities where we can be a player worldwide.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we have time for one more question, or a couple more questions?

The Chair: The time is yours, Member, as members want to use it. Please proceed, Member for Delta South, unless I’m told otherwise.

Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. L. Popham: I just wanted to let the member know that I’ve got all summer.

I. Paton: There are some interesting things going on with technology right now in British Columbia, and it’s just quite amazing. Years ago a tractor salesman was just a guy that used to farm who wanted something different to do, so he’d go out and sell tractors. But now you almost have to have an engineering degree in technology to be a salesman for farm equipment, because it is so complicated with the electronics, the GPS, the robotics and all the different things.

[10:15 a.m.]

In my dairy farming days, of course, we were trying to raise the most prized genetic dairy cattle, and nobody wanted bull calves. Now semen is being sexed, so before you purchase it, you know that you’re going to get heifer calves rather than bull calves, which nobody really wanted. Yeah, there’s so much technology out there, but it is definitely out there already throughout British Columbia.

One of my final questions is about water in British Columbia. Of course, it’s a huge issue, especially as our summers get hotter and our streams and creeks and rivers tend to go down at certain times of the year. Farmers and ranchers are very concerned about signing up for the licences for groundwater and for wells. One of the things that they were very concerned about, which was a bit surprising to them, was the cost of flow meters being installed.

In Delta, we decided, when I was on council, that we were going to put… Almost every new application would go on a water meter. The water meter would be dug into the ground in the front lawn with the meter on it, and that would be checked for flow and the usage of water. But the customer did not have to pay for that. The municipality of Delta paid for the water meter, the flow meter.

These farmers and ranchers are rather upset. To the minister: could you explain why the cost of a flow meter with installation and labour could be up around $5,000 on groundwater wells in the province?

Hon. L. Popham: I think I need a bit of clarification from the member. I’m not sure if the member is referring to a requirement from local government or a regional board requirement. Maybe he can clarify that. I may need to get back to the member on this answer, but I’ll give it another shot if he clarifies.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. I’ve been getting quite a few letters. Perhaps I haven’t noticed exactly where they’re referring to, but I’m suggesting that through the water regulations and licensing through the ministry, farmers and ranchers are being told that if they have a well, they’re going to have to install a flow meter so that they can come and check and see how much water is being used each month. They’re being billed to do this. The cost is $4,000 to $5,000. Perhaps you could check into that.

Another water question would be that ranchers are somewhat upset that they’re being told that, at certain times of the year at the end of summer, they may be restricted on use of water for drinking water for livestock. That would be like the worst thing a rancher could ever hear.

I could see cutting back water use for irrigating crops. They’re not too happy about that, by the way, especially over the Koksilah on Vancouver Island. They want to be able to irrigate their third crop and their fourth crop, which goes into late August and September. That’s another story.

But very upset if the Ministry of Agriculture or FLNRO was to one day say: “You have to cut off that well. You can’t water your cattle anymore.” Cattle have to drink water 24-7, all year round.

Could you comment on that, please?

[10:20 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: It’s a great issue that the member has brought up. We are currently working with B.C. cattlemen and dairy and with the Ministry of Environment and FLNRORD around the need for certainty for livestock in a drought situation. So it’s a live issue. I will probably be able to have more updates in the next little while. I can definitely keep the member apprised.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. Last summer I think we almost bumped into each other at a trade show on Vancouver Island for agriculture. I spent, actually, two days going to some of the seminars, which were quite interesting, about Feed B.C., where some of your ministry staff were talking to the audience about getting B.C. food products into our hospitals and our institutions.

When I came away from it, it seemed like not a whole lot was happening. They were realizing that there are some pretty big walls to get past, when you consider…. Sysco and Gordon Food Service, companies like that, are huge companies that have contracts with our institutions, our hospitals, our prisons, to supply on a basis of 365 days a year, and they likely source their food products from where they can get them all year-round.

My question is: how is your Feed B.C. program moving forward into our institutions? How many B.C. products, right now, are moving into our hospitals, in the way of poultry, meat, pork, apples, cherries, all of the different things that you have spoken about?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. It’s one of my favourite topics. I’m sorry. I’ll try not to ramble on too much, but there’s a lot of exciting stuff that’s happening.

When we first decided to start working on the Feed B.C. policy, there were a lot of barriers in place. One of them was that we didn’t know a lot of information. So we had to kind of start at the bottom and work with health authorities and with suppliers and distributors, like the member mentioned — Sysco, Gordon Food, all of the companies that supply into the health system now.

What we found is that there’s a great desire by everybody that’s involved to start supporting a more local food system. Those conversations hadn’t happened before. What we also learned from those discussions is that nobody really understood the types of products that could be supplied by our own B.C. growers and processors already. Perhaps they were never engaged into the system. Perhaps they had products that nobody knew about.

We have been having continual discussions, bringing in farmers, bringing in health authorities, bringing in nutritionists and dietitians and working with our ministry and with the Ministry of Health. It has been a massive effort just to make sure that we’ve got all of the baselines and then start to investigate how you bring small-, medium- and large-scale producers and processors into the equation as well. That’s very important.

We started off thinking that we would work with health authorities to move food into the hospital system. We had the vision of working with them so we can get more into extended care, long-term care and retirement facilities. We also started to realize that post-secondary was extremely well suited to start bringing in more B.C. products. That’s because they have a little bit more flexibility on what they can buy compared to a health authority. Throughout all of that….

[10:30 a.m.]

We did start by bringing Interior Health in as a partner. They brought in vegetables from a greenhouse operator right in that area. That greenhouse operator has expanded his facility just to supply the Penticton hospital.

Penticton Hospital has switched to B.C. eggs, which was something that I hadn’t really considered at the beginning, that supply management could be affected by this. But they buy 600,000 shelled eggs a year, and they weren’t necessarily buying from B.C. But the egg producers of B.C. contacted us and said: “Now that we’ve switched, we’ve noticed a big difference.” So Feed B.C. also applies to supply management.

All in all, we are now at the point where we’re going to…. Well, I don’t really want to scoop myself on estimates, but we will be announcing other health authorities that we have now brought on as partners — Northern Health, Coastal Health. All of the health authorities are, basically, ready to come on as partners.

What that means is that they’re keeping track of what they buy, letting us know what’s Buy B.C. and then investigating with suppliers and processors and farmers what the top items are that these facilities use. They use a lot of frozen berries, which is great, because as the member knows, we grow a ton of berries. They do breaded fish. Yogurt is a really…. They use a lot of yogurt. Frozen soups. Chicken. Of course, I mentioned ground beef earlier.

There’s a ton of products that can be brought on, and some are already being used. We’ll be encouraging them over the next year to start increasing their purchases of B.C. products. We had a notional 30 percent goal, but we are there. So I think we’re going to easily be able to surpass that.

I know I’m probably going too long, but I just want to give the member one example of what changes when a conversation like that happens. I think he’s going to be pretty interested.

One of the things that hospitals will use is precooked chicken, and the precooked chicken that is being processed in British Columbia has a certain sodium content in it. Well, in a hospital, sodium is one of those things that you really have to watch. So a conversation is happening between our chicken processors and the health authorities to see if they can create that product with low sodium so that it could be moved into the hospital system as well.

It’s just little conversations like that — even, like, the size of the yogurt containers. It needs to be unsweetened in the hospital system. We didn’t have that happening here in B.C.

There are so many business opportunities that come with it. That’s why I think it’s exciting. Not only does it help our primary producers; it helps our processors. I think it’s a positive step for our economy and the agricultural community.

Thank you. Sorry if that I was a bit too long.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister. I’ll just make a quick statement and then one more question I’d like to read into the record. It doesn’t need to be answered here.

I just want to say that the Feed B.C. program is, definitely, a great idea. I know that it must have all sorts of challenges because farmers cannot just go knock on the door of a prison or a hospital or a school and say: “Hey, would you like to buy my potatoes?” Everything has to have gone through a processing plant.

I have heard on good authority that, unfortunately…. You claim this is Feed B.C. and we’re getting this stuff in. But unless I stand to be corrected, you can bring in agricultural products from California, Washington State, Oregon and Mexico, and as long as they’re processed and packaged in B.C., they can be included as a Feed B.C. item that claims to be a B.C. product. I could be corrected on that.

The final thing I’d like to write in, and I would like a written response, if we could, please. I’m going to bring this up from yesterday.

It’s my private members’ bill, M221, 2019. This is very, very important for agriculture in all of B.C. but especially for the people of Delta South. I’ll read from a letter of Mayor George Harvey of Delta. “The intent of Bill M221 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 the land use, Delta is concerned that Brunswick Point lands could be sold to speculators with no interest in farming and plans for future non-agricultural development.”

[10:35 a.m.]

As I said yesterday, Brunswick Point is absolute class 1, 2 and 3 farmland. It was expropriated in the ’70s and never sold back to the farming families. There are five farming families that are still on a lease, year to year, with the provincial government.

It’s right next door, and I hope the minister will take a drive out sometime. You could not imagine the size of the warehouses that have gone up next door with the economic development program of TFN.

I would like, in writing, from the minister, if she would agree to bring forward Bill M221 for debate in the House — that we protect the Brunswick Point lands in Delta, not only for agriculture in perpetuity but for the well-being of all of the migratory birds that make use of that piece of property in their annual migration.

Hon. L. Popham: I will look forward to the member’s letter.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for a congenial 6½ hours, and thank you to your staff. I was hoping I could meet your staff, but they’re, obviously, off in the background. Hopefully, one day I get a chance to meet some of your new staff. Thank you for your time, and thank you to Mr. Chair and the Clerks.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, we will be voting to complete the estimates.

Any closing comments, Minister?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I would like to thank the critic for his great questions. I’ve also enjoyed the 6½ hours, and I’d like to offer a thank-you to his colleagues that also joined us. I’d, of course, like to thank my staff for being an amazing support system for me.

Vote 13: ministry operations, $77,261,000 — approved.

Vote 14: Agricultural Land Commission, $4,943,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, everybody. We are finished the Ministry of Agriculture, and we’re going to go for about a ten-minute recess to prepare for the next set of estimates.

The committee recessed from 10:38 a.m. to 10:53 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $47,124,000.

The Chair: Any opening remarks, Minister?

Hon. S. Fraser: Yes, I do. It’s my pleasure to speak to Budget 2020 today.

First, I’d like to point out that the way we are gathered today to do this work of government is extraordinary, which would be an understatement. I thank the many staff from the Legislature and elsewhere in government who have made it possible for us to have a virtual legislative sitting during the pandemic to do this important business in ways we would not have even thought possible. I would just acknowledge that I am not technologically very adept, so I am totally amazed by this in so many ways.

[10:55 a.m.]

We’re here on the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I feel so blessed to get to do our work here on this beautiful land.

Joining us today from our ministry, I have staff, including Deputy Minister Doug Caul and Assistant Deputy Minister Wes Boyd. Jennifer Melles is also here, assistant deputy minister — and Assistant Deputy Minister Jessica Wood, Assistant Deputy Minister Trish Balcaen and Deputy Minister Suzanne Christensen. I am also grateful to have Tracey Herbert, CEO of the First Peoples Cultural Council, here supporting us.

This is my first estimates debate, from either side of the House, outside of the House. Of course, that is because we are in the midst of a challenge that has tested us in so many ways. But it’s a challenge that has also brought us together. As we are doing here today, we have had to rely on technology and innovation in these unusual times. This has allowed us to continue the important work of our ministry and of government with Indigenous partners.

Last month Premier Horgan and I met on Zoom with all of the leaders from the modern treaty alliance nations. We came together, as a group, for the first time to discuss matters that are important to all of us. We have done virtual town halls with First Nations and Indigenous leaders and organizations. We have conducted negotiations and even signed an agreement on Zoom.

Despite these unprecedented times, the vital work of government is still getting done. In fact, the global pandemic…. The health safety of British Columbians in this pandemic is our top priority, and our commitment to reconciliation is stronger than ever. This has been evident in how we have worked with First Nations on the COVID response. The level of coordination and engagement between nations and government in responding to the pandemic has been extraordinary, though, of course, it’s not always perfect. We always have more to learn.

First Nations communities have been devastated by past pandemics. Smallpox, tuberculosis, scarlet fever, influenza and measles — entire communities devastated by the deaths of thousands of Indigenous People in British Columbia and across Canada. That history remains fresh in the minds of Indigenous Peoples. First Nations and Indigenous leaders have worked very hard to keep their communities and, especially, their Elders safe from COVID-19 — and very successfully, according to recent data from the First Nations Health Authority.

The First Nations Health Authority has been leading our effort to support First Nations in this work, which has been a key priority across government agencies. The Ministry of Health, the First Nations Health Authority, emergency management B.C., my ministry and Indigenous Services Canada have all worked very closely together with First Nations and Indigenous organizations, sharing information and supporting communities with planning, supplies and, of course, food security.

We also developed a new framework that will ensure health care needs are better met in remote and Indigenous communities. We are also working together to make it through this all safely, and we will continue to do that, because we are stronger for working together. Our government believes that by working together, we can build a better, more secure future for everyone.

In the past three years, we’ve been working to bring tangible benefits to British Columbians that make life better: safe, affordable homes for people who need them, fair wages, affordable child care, public services that people can depend on, investment in education, health care, safe communities, a more inclusive province and, very importantly, a strong, sustainable economy.

In my role as Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, I see this as important groundwork that contributes to advancing reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, because there is work to be done on reconciliation in every sector and aspect of society. Of course, that is why every ministry has this in its mandate and every minister has this in his mandate.

[11:00 a.m.]

During the past three years, we’ve reached some really significant milestones on our shared journey with the Indigenous Peoples. Historic legislation to implement the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and that’s a first, of course. Sharing provincial gaming revenues — well, that’s a first for British Columbia.

Agreements with nations that are making life better for communities throughout British Columbia. Investments in language revitalization and Indigenous housing off and on reserve — again, a first. K-to-12 curriculum updates to include Indigenous culture and history in all grades — again, a first. Amending child welfare laws to keep Indigenous children and their families and communities together. That’s a first too. New strategies for First Nations justice and poverty reduction — a first. And the first-ever Indigenous law program at the University of Victoria — a first in British Columbia, a first in Canada, a first in the world globally. And investment in mental health and addiction supports for Indigenous Peoples.

All of this has contributed to the ongoing work of implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. This important progress, achieved by working together with Indigenous Peoples, has given us a strong foundation for implementing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, Bill 41, that came in last November and passed last November with the support of all members of the Legislature. It was a momentous occasion — I know we all remember it with honour — and something all members of the Legislature can be proud of, no matter what side of the House we sit on.

We are the first jurisdiction in Canada to pass such legislation — legislation that upholds the human rights of Indigenous Peoples, legislation that provides us with a framework for reconciliation.

Since November, we have had discussions with many Indigenous partners about the critical next steps for consultation and implementation of the act. This has included First Nations directly, modern treaty nations, First Nations Leadership Council, Métis Nation B.C. and other Indigenous organizations. These conversations, along with previous engagements and agreements, will inform the priorities of the action plan, which we expect to be released before the end of the year. And of course, a couple of weeks ago we also tabled the first annual report under the declaration act.

The other milestone I’m most proud of from the last year was the first transfer of sharing of gaming revenue. Nearly $3 billion will be shared over the next 25 years. This revenue is making a real difference in communities, building sorely needed housing, building a community youth centre that will offer support for young people, managing fuels in a nearby forest to protect homes from wildfires, creating connections to culture that are integral to the health of communities and so much more. We look forward to many, many, many stories yet to come and to seeing how this long-term, dependable source of revenue supports self-determination and self-governance.

Self-determination is the core of reconciliation. In the past year, we have worked collaboratively with nations to support their unique vision of reconciliation. We celebrated with the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council to mark the signing of the pathway forward agreement, an agreement about making lives better for people, with regional economic development as a cornerstone of reconciliation. We want to acknowledge that this work started under the previous government, setting the foundation for the success story we are now building with the Carrier-Sekani people and all citizens of the central Interior.

Other important agreements include a land use plan with the Tahltan Nation to bring certainty to the Klappan Valley and a historic reconciliation agreement with the federal government and the Tsilhqot’in Nation. We also continue to cultivate our relationship with the Métis people of British Columbia through an accord with Métis Nation B.C. that, again, builds on work by the previous government, making sure Métis people are part of reconciliation and part of the conversation and actions in British Columbia.

We also, of course, signed an MOU with the Wet’su­wet’en Nation, an MOU that starts the negotiation process on how to implement Wet’suwet’en rights and title. Reunification within the Wet’suwet’en Nation is a key part of that. Complex issues around Wet’suwet’en rights and title have remained unresolved since 1997 and the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision. By taking the steps to resolve these issues, we can avoid the kinds of conflicts we’ve seen on the land and instead work together for the benefit of all people who live in the region.

These are a few examples of the reconciliation efforts and progress we are making with First Nations, Métis and urban Indigenous People in this province.

[11:05 a.m.]

For many nations, treaties are a path to advance reconciliation together, guided by a new policy that modernizes treaty-making in British Columbia. We are basing treaties on the recognition of inherent rights. No longer will government extinguish those rights. The policy was developed in collaboration with the federal government and the First Nations Summit.

Our approaches to treaty-making are helping us make progress — Ditidaht and Pacheedaht; We Wai Kai, Wei Wai Kum and Kwiakah. With all these nations, we moved to the final stages of treaty negotiations last year. We have also been advancing treaty negotiation through incremental treaty agreements. Cowichan Tribes, Penelakut Tribe and Halalt First Nation have all purchased private lands through these agreements recently — lands that support economic development for the nations.

Of course, culture is also an important part of advancing reconciliation. For many, many years, language revitalization was neglected, even though all Indigenous languages in B.C. are endangered. Language is an invaluable way to connect people to community, to land and to culture. We recognized this through a $50 million investment in 2018.

As a result, the First Peoples Culture Council was able to quadruple their mentor apprenticeship teams from 27 to 109 teams just in the past two years. They have more than doubled the number of language nests in the province from 14 to 33. This work supports a foundation for the future — a future with thriving Indigenous languages spoken in thriving communities. I hope we can all envision the day when all Indigenous children can speak their language.

Together, we’ve made important progress since 2017, when my cabinet colleagues and I received our mandates. As a matter of fact, that was three years ago today, this very day. So it’s interesting that we are doing estimates exactly three years to the day from this government being sworn in.

We have much more to do. But the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act gives us the tools and the framework to take the next steps of that work. We have important conversations going on right now with Indigenous Peoples to develop the action plan. Within those discussions lies a road map for our shared prosperity ahead. Our commitment is to do that work together, in cooperation and consultation, with respect and with Indigenous Peoples.

Thank you. I look forward to our discussions today. Klecko klecko.

D. Ashton: Minister, nice to see you again. I would like to also extend thanks to your staff for being there.

In the essence of time…. I appreciate it. Thank you for your remarks. Very well said. I would like to turn over to the member for Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for his opening comments. I’m going to try to be brief, in terms of some questions. So I won’t dilly-dally, I suppose. Let’s get right to it.

I want to start off…. The minister talked about this engagement between his government and First Nations — advancing deals, advancing negotiations. How is the minister engaging with non-Indigenous people, in terms of these agreements and processes, so that they can have the information and be part of what is going on with the negotiations?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thank you for the first question, to the colleague opposite. I want to acknowledge the work he’s done in previous time as minister also.

To the ministry question, though, transparency is key. It’s critical to the success of any negotiations that we engage in. We apply different approaches with stakeholders — of course, with regional staff, with open houses, with letters, with materials online. Suffice to say that transparency is critical to the success of any negotiations in all regions of the province.

J. Rustad: Obviously, there was a lot of friction in the Peace country when the negotiations went on with regards the caribou arrangement that was ultimately struck. I know other ministries may have taken the lead in terms of the caribou issue, but I’m sure that MIRR was very engaged with those negotiations, or at least MIRR staff would have been.

The question to the minister is: what lessons were learned with those negotiations — in particular, with regards to the reaction to the non-Indigenous community, both elected as well as the community members at large? How has that shaped or changed, if at all, the negotiations that would be going forward on other caribou issues or other types of negotiations that MIRR has undertaken or will be undertaking around the province?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. I would suggest that the issues in the Peace around the caribou reinforce the importance of transparency. The Premier acknowledged last year the importance of transparency publicly when this was a significant issue.

In response and how we reacted to that, we built a committee — a table, if you will — with local governments and First Nations all at the same table. We continue to learn and try to be more effective on how we do our work and how we work with local communities as well as with, of course, First Nations in our negotiations. Bringing people together always seems to be the best approach.

J. Rustad: The real challenge, I think, in the Peace country — and that, unfortunately, we’ve seen repeated in some other negotiations— is that the engagement with the non-Indigenous community and other stakeholders, as the minister has described, is after negotiations in a reactionary perspective, as opposed to during negotiations or even prenegotiations to talk about the objectives and to be involved in the process and to be brought along.

I am curious as to whether or not that engagement the minister has described is a part of the actual negotiation process or whether that’s more of an after process in terms of working through issues once the basic agreements have already been reached with nations.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member, again, for the questions. They’re good questions.

I will reiterate that we are committed to transparency here. The tables that we are negotiating with happened at the same time as the stakeholder engagement. First Nations are actually sometimes joining us at those tables. We’re trying to ensure that everyone has information really in real time.

J. Rustad: I like that approach. It doesn’t seem to be happening quite that way on a number of files where people have approached me on that.

[11:20 a.m.]

Given time here, I want to switch and talk a little bit about the Wet’suwet’en MOU and issues there. As the engagement now has started post the signing of the MOU, can the minister describe the engagement with the non-Indigenous communities to keep them abreast of what is happening, what the MOU is about, and an update with regards to how negotiations are going? How is that process? How are the non-Indigenous communities being kept up to date with those discussions?

Hon. S. Fraser: In answer, the regional staff that we have working at MIRR and the chief negotiator, of course, are having regular contact with stakeholders and with local government and will continue do so.

J. Rustad: Perhaps if the minister could describe — I understand it would be the regional staff — any contractors or other consultants that might be engaged in that process of engaging with the non-Indigenous communities.

Hon. S. Fraser: As I think the member knows, we’ve brought in Nathan Cullen to help on this particular issue. He’s got lots of local knowledge and, of course, is well known and well respected by all. He’s also involved in discussions with local stakeholders.

J. Rustad: How is MIRR engaged or involved with not just keeping the non-Indigenous communities and stakeholders involved, the people involved, but also the Wet’suwet’en people themselves, the elected chief and council, and the process that’s in there? Is MIRR directly or indirectly involved, or is it contractors engaging with those groups?

I know, obviously, the Wet’suwet’en people themselves have got some processes and stuff involved. I’m just curious as to what level of engagement MIRR is directly involved in with those issues.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: In answer to the question, actually, I have been. As minister, I’ve been in contact with elected Chiefs as recently as yesterday. That work will continue, as I think it’s important that I’m directly involved there. Also, of course, regional staff are in touch with the elected on a whole range of issues on a regular basis.

J. Rustad: There’s a couple of practical questions I need to go down here, and I’ll turn it back over to the critic.

I’m just curious. The consultant that you have, Nathan Cullen, I agree, is, obviously…. As a previous MP in the area, he is well aware of the issues that are up in there and very knowledgable about the people that are, obviously, the key people that are engaged in that area. I’m aware that he also has been involved in some of the phone calls with the elected and those kinds of issues.

I’m just curious — between the consultant, the staff and the minister, who has directly been engaged, as he has said, through to them — what the response has been from the non-Indigenous communities as well as from the elected Wet’suwet’en people with regards to the negotiations and the process that is being undertaken.

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, thanks to the member for the question.

I think everyone recognizes the importance of working towards rights and title — certainly, from the elected and the hereditary but also the stakeholders — in the interests of more certainty and the predictability that that will bring. That seems to be understood.

[11:30 a.m.]

Smithers’ acting mayor, I know, came out with a statement at one point after the MOU indicating cautious optimism. I think that’s where we’re at right now.

J. Rustad: Well, the minister didn’t really answer the second part of the question with that, but that’s fine. We are short on time. But I will say into the record that my understanding is that the calls and discussions, particularly with the elected representatives of the Wet’suwet’en people, have not gone well. They feel frustrated with the process. They feel that their voices are not being heard and that their concerns are not being considered as the process goes forward. That’s unfortunate.

There are the internal issues that are happening within the Wet’suwet’en people, and I understand that. But it’s something that I think certainly the minister and the ministry should be very concerned about in terms of how such an important issue as the future for the Wet’suwet’en people…. Title is the key piece of that future in building that prosperity for the Wet’suwet’en people.

I want to move on to another question in terms of time. My understanding — I think I just need some clarity from the minister — is that they’ve engaged with Nathan Cullen. Is Nathan Cullen paid directly as a contractor through the ministry? Does it come out of contingencies, or is it a contract done through some other agency within government?

Hon. S. Fraser: In answer, Nathan Cullen is under contract with the ministry, with MIRR, and he’s paid for out of ministry operations.

J. Rustad: My understanding from information that we received for the ten-day period in January where Mr. Cullen was employed within the ministry is that his rate of remuneration for the work that he did was $2,000 a day plus $5,000 for expenses. Could the minister confirm that that is the rate that Mr. Cullen is being paid for the work that he is continuing to do for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations in terms of engagement with the Wet’suwet’en?

Hon. S. Fraser: In answer, Nathan Cullen is paid, currently, $250 an hour up to a maximum of $2,000 per day, but that is work that is directed by the ministry. The time and the work is directed by the ministry.

[11:35 a.m.]

J. Rustad: I’m assuming expenses would be, of course, on top of that rate. Perhaps if the minister could compare that compensation to other contractors that are working, in terms of negotiations, within the ministry.

Hon. S. Fraser: His rates are at a reasonable average. There’s a range, but it’s in a reasonable average.

J. Rustad: So taking a 200-workday year, it’s $400,000 plus expenses. That’s the average that is being paid to contractors that work within the ministry? I find that a little curious, given those rates would be almost double what a deputy minister would be paid for the work that a deputy minister does.

To that end, is the contractor, Mr. Cullen, required to produce any written reports with regards to the work that is being undertaken and any updates in terms of the negotiations or the process that might be able to be made public?

Hon. S. Fraser: MIRR, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, directs Nathan’s work. That includes his time. We are mindful of budget issues, and that comes into that too. He reports directly to our chief negotiator. But I just want to be clear. Nathan’s role…. He’s focused on engagement. He’s not a negotiator. He’s not negotiating. He reports out weekly or more often, as the situation dictates.

[11:40 a.m.]

J. Rustad: The question was whether there were any written reports that would be available. But to that extent as well, my last question to the minister, and I’ll turn this back over to the critic afterwards.

Can the minister provide a summary of the number of hours and expenses to date that have been incurred by Nathan Cullen, and with that, if possible, a summary of any of the sort of reports or engagements that he has undertaken?

I’m going to sign off at this point. I know the critic will have an opportunity to hear the answer. I’ll certainly look for it in Hansard, but my hope is to be able to get that summary. Obviously, it’s very important information. The engagement and the work that’s being done is critical, both with the non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities.

I look forward to that information. I want to thank the minister as well as staff for the opportunity to ask a few questions here today.

Hon. S. Fraser: I’ll commit today. We’ll provide the information that’s available to the member for the previous question. In the interest of time, I think that would be the most effective. We can put that together for him, and we will.

E. Ross: To the minister, your government, through the Solicitor General, actually redeployed the RCMP to enforce an injunction to remove the blockade on the LNG Canada pipeline. My question is: was this done through communication or direction from your ministry?

Hon. S. Fraser: The answer is no.

E. Ross: To the minister, thank you for that.

To the minister, was there any communication beforehand to your ministry, the cabinet or even the government as a whole before the Solicitor General actually redeployed the RCMP to this blockade of the Wet’suwet’en?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: My ministry wasn’t involved in any aspect of directing police actions. I don’t have any more information than that.

E. Ross: That was not the question. The question was: was there any communication? To be specific, was the government, the cabinet or your ministry aware of these actions before the Solicitor General sent in the RCMP to not only enforce the injunction to uphold the rule of law but also to cover any expenses of the RCMP?

I’m not saying that your ministry had any involvement in the direction or the deployment. I’m asking: did the government or your ministry or cabinet…? Were they aware of this action before the Solicitor General made this decision to deploy the RCMP?

Hon. S. Fraser: To the member’s question, just to be clear here, the province did not and does not direct police actions and did not. We in the ministry are not aware…. The question he’s asked…. I have no awareness of that. So perhaps these questions are better placed with the Solicitor General.

E. Ross: It’s quite surprising, because the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs as well as the Tsleil-Waututh, the Squamish Band and B.C. Civil Liberties have all claimed they got a written letter from the Solicitor General actually outlining what I’ve just asked.

It’s kind of surprising that the Indigenous Ministry has no knowledge of this issue of the government deploying the RCMP and offering to cover the cost of deploying the RCMP to get rid of this blockade.

Anyway, in any event, this is probably not going to be the last time, especially since there has been a smokehouse that has been built in the right-of-way of the pipeline. So if the Solicitor General or the government decides to enact these emergency powers to enforce the injunction again, this time around, will the Solicitor General consult with or communicate to your ministry or to cabinet or the government of its intention to invoke emergency act powers to enforce an injunction to get rid of the blockade in the pipeline?

Hon. S. Fraser: Again, the government does not direct the RCMP operations or tell them what to do.

This is a question directly at and about the Solicitor General. So I would suggest that if anyone has the answers, it would be the Solicitor General. I do not have those answers.

[11:50 a.m.]

E. Ross: Okay. So the minister won’t know if the Solicitor General will consult with his ministry if they decide to invoke, again, emergency act provisions to remove an Aboriginal protest on a pipeline blockade. Okay.

I guess, then, that’s saying there’s complete ignorance from your ministry in terms of this deployment as well as the cost. Then I’m going to assume that the minister has no knowledge of the actual cost that the government actually incurred to get rid of this blockade.

Hon. S. Fraser: A question for the Solicitor General. These questions are regarding a different ministry. I do not have the information. I’m not making any excuses for that. He is asking direct questions regarding the Solicitor General and the operation of that ministry. I’m not fluent on that. That’s not what I do.

E. Ross: I’m not asking about the Solicitor General’s duties or the actions. I’m asking about whether or not the Indigenous Ministry was consulted or involved in any way, or even communicated the idea of removing a blockade. Yeah, okay. If there was no involvement of the Indigenous Ministry in the Solicitor General deploying the RCMP — and covering the RCMP’s costs, to boot — then I’ll leave that where it is.

In terms of, basically…. Let’s say, for lack of a better word, independent power projects of B.C. I’m specifically talking about Kitsumkalum. Now, Kitsumkalum has already done years and years and years of consultation on the northwest pacific transmission line.

The consultation is complete, and that consultation ended with a formal legal agreement signed, on behalf of the government, between B.C. Hydro and Kitsumkalum. That agreement actually talked about the Kitsumkalum’s consent to build a transmission line in their territory in exchange for the cooperation of the government and B.C. Hydro to actually build Kitsumkalum IPPs.

Since 2012, they’ve been working at trying to get this completed, and now Kitsumkalum finds that all of this might be for nothing. So I’m asking the Indigenous Minister here: what is your ministry going to do not to consult with the IPP projects…? That’s already done. What is your ministry going to do to actually fulfill the accommodation portion that is written out in this agreement between B.C. Hydro and Kitsumkalum?

Hon. S. Fraser: In response, the agreements with Kitsumkalum….

For the record, all ministries and Crown corps have direct relationships with First Nations across the province. This question is relating to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. They are best placed to answer that question.

[11:55 a.m.]

E. Ross: Okay. Thanks, Minister.

My last question is…. The MOU that B.C. and Canada signed with the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs basically revolves around jurisdiction rights and title. It really has nothing to do with the blockade of the pipeline. I know the rights and title issue. It’s basically implemented through three different mechanisms: the B.C. treaty process, the courts or in specific agreements between government, in really specific circumstances.

In this case of the Wet’suwet’en, it’s unclear. In fact, no information has come out of the ministry in terms of the subject matter and content.

Can I ask…? In the mandate that B.C. has, is private land on the table for discussion? Are rights-of-way on the table for discussion in terms of the jurisdiction? Meaning, will private land owners in the area that you talk about, or rights-of-way — including highways, pipelines, hydro lines — all be subject to Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chief laws, as opposed to Canadian laws or B.C. laws?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. The member, I think, suggested that the information is not available, but the MOU, all one page of it — or two pages, I guess — is available. It’s been online and available for a while; it’s been public. So the information of the MOU is there. But private land and rights-of-way are not on the table.

The Chair: Member, we’ll take one more question, and then we’re going to have to note the hour.

E. Ross: Chair, noting the hour….

Hon. S. Fraser: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We are now adjourned for lunch. Have a good day.

The committee adjourned at 11:59 a.m.