Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, April 6, 2023
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 302
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2023
The House met at 1:03 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 21, Civil Forfeiture Act.
In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates on the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 21 — CIVIL FORFEITURE
AMENDMENT
ACT, 2023
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 1:04 p.m.
The Chair: We’ll call the Committee of the Whole to order.
We’re dealing with Bill 21, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023.
Clauses 5 and 6 approved.
On clause 7.
M. Morris: Clause 7 requires that, on request of the director, a “registrar of the court must seal the court file” relating to an application or related materials until the application is heard. And it says the court “must.” Just wondering if the minister can give an example of when these kinds of orders might apply. What kinds of circumstances?
Hon. M. Farnworth: An application for banking records, for example, would be an example the member is looking for.
M. Morris: So an application for what kinds of records? Banking records. Technically, it’s sensitive information that the director might come in contact with. Could it also include informant information coming from the police? No, IT won’t include any of that. Okay, thank you.
Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive approved.
On clause 10.
M. Morris: This clause 10 is quite significant, several pages. So we’ll slowly plod our way through here, because I think this is the crux of a lot of what we’re going to be talking about here with these unexplained wealth orders. Pretty comprehensive, when I was reading through these things here.
In the definitions sections, we’ll go to 11.05(f), “a prescribed individual….” We could go through…. We’ve got a parent, a sibling, a child, a sibling of a parent and a child of a sibling and then a prescribed individual or an individual in a prescribed class. I’m wondering if the minister can give me an indication of what that might look like.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Anybody we might have missed in the list above.
M. Morris: That won’t apply to too many, then, because it’s a pretty comprehensive list. I guess I was looking at a lot of these relationships with stepchildren and stepmothers. So is this what the prescribed entity would probably cover? Okay.
In relation to “‘settlor’, in relation to a trust, means a person who contributed any property to the trust estate, whether or not that person is the creator of the trust,” this is a field that I think is…. There’s some work being done right now with respect to a lot of trusts that really don’t meet the criteria that they were initially established under.
Would this particular definition capture everybody that had contributed to that trust in some financial way? Nodding the heads.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it would.
M. Morris: Excellent. I think that’s a great new provision here. Affiliated. There are a number of subsections under 11.06(1). I’m reading 11.06(1)(a)(iv): “if the individual is connected to a corporation or partnership, any person that is connected to the corporation or partnership” is affiliated. And then (v) is “a person who is affiliated with a person who is referred to in subparagraph (iv).”
Is this designed to cover these corporations…? This pretty much covers everybody in a corporation. Is that correct? It doesn’t leave anything for the imagination if somebody is…. Okay.
Hon. M. Farnworth: You’re correct in your assessment.
M. Morris: This might go a little quicker than I thought, then. Under 11.06(1)(d)(vii), “a prescribed person or a person in a prescribed class,” again, can the minister give an example?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s catching anybody we didn’t capture in the previous numbers above this one.
M. Morris: I take it, from reading through this, that this is…. In your earlier comments introducing the bill, talking about the U.K. and the work that they’ve done in putting this together…. Is this reflective of the work that the U.K. has done, in order to capture some of the holes that they had in their legislation? I’ll just leave the question at that right now.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah. This essentially mimics what they have put in place as well.
M. Morris: I’m curious. I didn’t do any research with respect to the case law that was developed as a result of the U.K. attempts at putting this legislation forward. Were there specific references in any of the jurisprudence that flowed from those few cases that were tried that questioned the affiliation and the connections of individuals involved in these orders?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No.
M. Morris: I’ll go down now to sub 11.06(2). Again, I can probably predict what the answer might be. “Subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) does not limit any other paragraph in that subsection.” So they could be all of the above? Is that what that particular section refers?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it’s all or any.
M. Morris: We’ll go down to 11.07, “Meaning of ‘beneficial owner.’”
“A person is a beneficial owner in respect of the whole or a portion of an interest in property held by a trustee of a trust if any of the following apply….” I’m sort of reading this out because I know there are a couple of folks watching that are really interested in this part of what this bill is about: “(a) the person has, in respect of the whole or a portion of the interest in property, a beneficial interest, other than an interest that is contingent on the death of an individual other than the person.”
Then “(b) the person has the power to revoke the trust and receive the whole or the portion of the interest” in the trust.
So if we have a trust that is set up for charitable purposes, would everybody that’s involved in financing that initial trust be considered a beneficial owner in a not-for-profit or in a charitable-purpose trust?
Hon. M. Farnworth: By this definition, most likely yes.
M. Morris: Probably.
You know, I’ve worked in law quite a bit over my years, and I’ve never seen anything quite as comprehensive as this, so my hat is off to the people who drafted this legislation as well.
When we get into 11.08, “Meaning of ‘connected,’” it says 11.08(b)…. I’ll read a little bit of it here first.
“A person is connected to a corporation if any of the following apply: (a) the person is a legal or beneficial owner or has control, directly or indirectly, of (i) shares of the corporation representing 10% or more of the value of the equity of that corporation, or (ii) 10% or more of the voting rights in respect of the corporation; (b) the person has the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint or remove from office the majority of the board of directors of the corporation.”
What is intended with the word “indirectly” in this particular section?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Just because you’re on a board of directors does not necessarily mean you’re the one who’s doing the controlling. It could be done through another person.
Let’s say, for example, an individual put their child on the board, an adult child. It could be a spouse doing it through another spouse, directing the individual on the board. So that’s how it works.
M. Morris: A couple things. I was wondering whether this might capture…. When we see the way organized crime operates anywhere, they take advantage of all the different loopholes. You have somebody that may not show up on the board, but he or she is behind the scenes. They provide their input through intimidation, through blackmail…. These are other criminal offenses that they might be involved in. Those persons would be captured under this section as well?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes. If not, we’ve reserved the right to prescribe them as well.
M. Morris: I love this.
When you look at the number under 11.08(1)(a)(i), it says: “shares of the corporation representing 10% or more of the value of the equity of that corporation, or (ii) 10% or more of the voting rights in respect of the corporation.” So 10 percent seems to be an arbitrary number. Is there some way that…? What was the reason for this number?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The 10 percent number is the one that’s also used in the corporate transparency register.
M. Morris: Would this take into account if you have a number of people that hold 9 percent that are affiliated with one individual that might be controlling these?
So he might have ten or 15 people involved in equity shares of a company, all holding less than 10 percent, but they would be attributable or connected in some way to him. Would this preclude anything from happening to the individual that was controlling those shares?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes. If they’re working together, even though they control less than 10 percent, yes. They would be linked.
M. Morris: They would be…? I’m sorry. I didn’t catch that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: They would be clearly linked. Affiliated.
M. Morris: This is comprehensive. I’ll probably exclude a number of questions that I’ve had on that.
I’ll go down to 11.09, under the “Application for unexplained wealth order.” The unexplained wealth order: “The director may apply to the court for an unexplained wealth order in relation to property requiring a respondent or a responsible officer to provide a statement that includes all of the following: (a) particulars of the nature of the interest or the portion of the interest in the property held by the respondent, including the extent of the interest or the portion of the interest in the property….”
Can the minister take me through the process that the director would go through from the point of making an application? Where does the information come to the director to the point where he’s putting all this information together, and he is now going to be in the process of making an application?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Most likely it would be that a police investigation is underway. They determine, or they feel, that there is unexplained wealth here. They would take that information to the director. The director has the ability to amplify that through his, let’s say, additional open-source information they have access to. They put that together, and then they apply to…. They would go to the court and apply for an unexplained wealth order. Then the court would make the decision on that.
M. Morris: As the director goes through, and the particulars reveal that there are others identified as interest holders in his or her investigation, would separate orders be applied for, or would they be added to the application that is going before the court at that time?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be…. You could do…. If you started out with one and then you became aware that there were others, you could get one for that person and one for that person and one for that person.
M. Morris: That’s interesting. It’s a lot of work for the director for sure. I guess I know from my own criminal investigative experience over the years, you start diving into something, and you find out all this connectivity to other agencies and other people and whatnot. What leads to…. Instead of a one-charge information, you’ll have a ten-charge information. But oftentimes it identifies other people where other charges will be laid. This is similar to the system that the director would use. I see nodding heads over there.
Again, I go back to 11.09 with my earlier comments just before we broke at lunchtime. The information that’s provided in this is pretty comprehensive. Again, I’m going to read some of it out here, because I do think that some of the people out in TV land that aren’t aware of this particular legislation need to pay attention.
It says that the director applies to the court for an unexplained wealth order requiring the “particulars of the nature of the interest of the portion.” I’ve read that one out already, so: “(b) particulars of the respondent’s acquisition and maintenance of the property or the interest or the portion of the interest in the property, including how any costs incurred in acquiring and maintaining the property or the interest or the portion of the interest in the property have been met.”
This tells me that I’m going to go to the respondent, and I’m going to say: “How’d you get this? Who’d you get if from? How much money did you pay for it and your maintenance over the…?” If it’s real property, if it’s a vehicle or serial numbered property, if you had to replace an engine, all those kinds of things have to be included in this.
“if any of the circumstances listed in section 11.11 (3) (b) to (e) apply, the information or particulars with respect to those circumstances as specified by the court; (d) without limiting paragraph (c), in the case of property held by a trustee of a trust, the information or particulars with respect to the trust as specified by the court.”
This tells me that you can dive right into the origins of that trust and how it has grown and how it has been used over an unlimited period of time, as we’ll get into later on with removing the limitation or extending the limitation. So I’m recording that correctly.
And: “any other information or particulars as specified by the court.” The director puts his package together, sends it to the court, and then the court is entitled to ask questions and ask for more information. Is that what this particular subsection says?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No. If we meet the test, then the court makes an order to the individual to supply the information that we are seeking.
M. Morris: In subsection (2), it says: “The director may apply for an unexplained wealth order before, at the time of or subsequent to (a) an application for another order under this Part, or (b) commencing proceedings under section 3 in relation to the property.”
I’m wondering. Does the time limit that is stated in 11.03, that 90-day time limit that was extended to 90 days, apply to this particular section too?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The 90 days is primarily for banking records. That is when it’s most likely to be used.
M. Morris: Sub (3) says: “An application for an unexplained wealth order (a) applies only in relation to property or an interest in property located in British Columbia, and (b) may be made whether or not, (i) at the time of the application, more than one person holds an interest or a portion of an interest in the property.”
I’m wondering. How would this apply, and how would we be able to capture somebody from a foreign country investing into real property that this section pertains to? They may never have been in British Columbia, but they have wired money or provided some kind of investment into this. Would that be captured in the order?
Hon. M. Farnworth: If the individual has the property here but doesn’t live here, we can still get the order to go after them. Of course, they don’t live here, so it is not easy. That being said, in most cases, they use a corporation, in which case, we would go after the corporation.
M. Morris: What about property other than real property? So serial numbered property — precious metals or other types of serial numbered property — that was purchased and held in British Columbia for a period of time. It was bought here, and they moved it out of the province. How would a situation like that be dealt with?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We would not be able to deal with that. We can only deal with stuff that’s actually within the province.
M. Morris: Probably a hypothetical question at this particular time, but is there any thought to…? Would there be opportunities for reciprocal agreements with other provinces like Manitoba, which has similar legislation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. We have agreements with other provinces, so we would be able to transfer the information to them, and then they would be able to go after the individual in the province where that person is located.
M. Morris: For clarification, then, would that province be operating…? What if that province doesn’t have a similar piece of legislation in place? Is there something in the reciprocal agreements that they can operate on B.C.’s information?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it would be on their own legislation. But most provinces have forfeiture legislation in place.
M. Morris: So if I get this, most of the provinces have civil forfeiture legislation in place. Would they have to have sections applicable to unexplained wealth orders in place before something like that could happen?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Now, it’s a little…. We can transfer some information to the other province, or they are then able to get other information from the police here in British Columbia in terms of pursuing things.
M. Morris: Yes, that was coming to my mind. I know that there are some provisions further on into this bill that talk about what the director can share and what they can’t share, as well, so I appreciate that.
I’ll go on to 11.10. It says: “The director must serve a copy of the notice of application for an unexplained wealth order and each supporting affidavit on (a) the respondent, and (b) the responsible officer, if any.”
Then sub (2) says: “The director is not required to serve the documents referred to in subsection (1) on, or otherwise give notice of the application to, any person other than a respondent or responsible officer.”
Does this prohibit or restrict the director from serving a notice on any other interested party, or, just for the simplicity of this section, they just serve on the respondent?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It restricts anybody from appearing in court to contest our action unless they’ve been named.
M. Morris: Subsection (5) says: “Unless the court orders otherwise, an application for an unexplained wealth order must (a) be scheduled for a hearing of not more than 2 days in length….”
I’m wondering why the two days was chosen, why this arbitrary number is embedded in the legislation.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll put it this way. If you’ve done the investigation, you’re seeking the unexplained wealth order, and you can’t explain it in two days, then you’ve probably not done a very good job, and you’re probably not going to get your order.
M. Morris: We’ve got some good investigators out there, for sure.
When we go back to the conversation we had before, where you have multiple-count information, that’s what I was looking at. Some of these could become very comprehensive and have a lot of information that needs to be presented for the court. That’s what I was thinking, because I have been in trials that lasted weeks, sometimes. Mind you, it’s having the witnesses that are under cross-examination through the process.
But is it just the courts that examine the information? There’s nobody else that is intervening at this particular time.
Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.
M. Morris: This is subsection (6): “An application under subsection (4) to shorten the period for filing and serving a response to the application for an unexplained wealth order, or an application to adjourn the hearing of the application, must be supported by an affidavit setting out (a) the factual basis for the application….” Who conducts the necessary work to ensure that the respondent’s affidavit is factual?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The respondent or the respondent’s lawyer.
M. Morris: So we’re relying on the respondent, who’s involved in unlawful activity, to say that his information is factual. Is there a process that the director goes through to corroborate that information and make sure that it is factual?
Hon. M. Farnworth: These are just the facts for why they need an adjournment. They have to say, “This is why we would need an adjournment,” and say that these are the facts why something needs to adjourn.
M. Morris: Exactly. I’ve seen the facts presented in court before, for adjournments, and it makes you wonder. I know the police officers sitting and listening to these facts being presented oftentimes have to shake their heads at these facts, because they know they are not accurate. I’m just throwing this out there. We have a presumption that all these bad guys are going to be presenting the facts in a truthful manner. I’m a little skeptical, after all my years dealing with the liars and the cheaters and thieves in the world, but we’ll see how this rolls out.
“The court may shorten the period for filing and serving a response to the application for an unexplained wealth order or adjourn the hearing of the application only if (a) the director consents to the order, or (b) the court is satisfied that (i) the order is reasonable in the circumstances….” This is reasonable, but is there any limit to the number of adjournments that can take place in this process?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Once we’ve initiated an application, it should be heard within 180 days. I think that should limit the issue around adjournments.
M. Morris: That 180 days is for the entire process to take place, despite the number of adjournments that might happen within that period, or does 180 days start after an adjournment has been granted?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It starts from right when the whole process starts, and it’s not a case of if there’s an adjournment, then it resets — that’s not how it works.
M. Morris: Subsection 8 says: “No person, other than a respondent or responsible officer, may oppose the relief sought on the application for an unexplained wealth order.”
Just looking at what-if situations that happen, can a respondent change? If a respondent — I don’t know — is incapacitated somehow, can another respondent step in or, the same thing, can an officer be switched out during the process itself? What would the process be if that was to be the case where somebody was incapacitated for a period beyond the 180 days?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The director does have the ability to ask for an adjournment, and if need be, we can easily bring another order against another respondent.
M. Morris: I, perhaps, missed that. Just looking for the section for the director’s authority to ask for the adjournment and go beyond that 180 days.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s 180 days but also as soon as practicable. So if someone was incapacitated that “as soon as practicable” would cover, I think, the situation that the member is referring to.
M. Morris: Pretty comprehensive legislation. I’m impressed.
In 11.11, “Unexplained wealth order”: “In this section, ‘politically exposed foreign person’ has the same meaning” as under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.” I’ve got a copy of it here. It includes the Governor General, Lieutenant-Governor or head of government, member of the Senate or House of Commons. Pardon me.
“Politically exposed foreign person” is a “(a) head of state or head of government; (b) member of the executive council of government or member of a legislature; (c) deputy minister or equivalent rank; (d) ambassador, or attaché or counsellor of an ambassador; (e) military officer with a rank of general or above; (f) president of a state-owned company or a state-owned bank; (g) head of a government agency; (h) judge of a supreme court, constitutional court or other court of last resort; (i) leader or president of a political party represented in a legislature; or (j) holder of any prescribed office or position.”
We can know what prescribed means.
I guess the question I have is that under this it says…. I’ll have to read it out here, so we get the general gist of it. When I was reading it, maybe I missed something. It says: “Unless it is clearly not in the interests of justice, the court must make an unexplained wealth order in relation to property if the court is satisfied that (a) the director has reasonable grounds to suspect that (i) the respondent, or a person affiliated with the respondent, directly or indirectly engaged in unlawful activity, or (ii) the respondent is a politically exposed foreign person or is affiliated with a politically exposed foreign person.”
I guess, when I read this, it says for (a) you have to be conducted or “engaged in unlawful activity,” and subsection (ii) says that all you have to be “is a politically exposed foreign person.” I’m just wondering. What am I missing here that that’s not clear?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The three sections all have to be read together. So you’d have to meet the test in the third section, but they’re all read together.
M. Morris: Okay, I appreciate that. Unlawful activity is any enactment, any law in Canada. Am I correct on that?
I see nodding heads. Okay.
Again, going back to the politically exposed foreign persons, I’m thinking about the allegations that we see of foreign influences. I think about where we see individuals that have been providing finances for various operations, here within Canada, that might be linked to one of these foreign persons.
It says: “(b) the director has reason to believe that (i) one or more of the circumstances listed in subsection (3) apply,” which are that the respondent “is a registered or unregistered owner of the property or the whole or a portion of an interest in the property;” he is “connected to a trustee of a trust that holds the whole or a portion of an interest in the property;” the respondent “is connected to a corporation….”
Again looking at the exposed foreign persons, I guess I go back to subsection (2)(b): “the director has reason to believe that (i) one or more of the circumstances listed in subsection (3) apply,” but “(c) one or more of the following constitutes a serious question to be tried: (i) whether the known sources of the respondent’s lawfully obtained income would have been insufficient for the purpose of enabling the respondent to acquire or maintain the property or the whole or the portion of the interest in the property held by the respondent.”
Would this be in a situation where we see what’s taking place with Russia and Ukraine and the oligarchs that have been obtaining wealthy mansions and properties in British Columbia…? Is this section trying to capture that kind of activity?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It could, but the practical reality of the situation the member is describing is already covered by the federal government’s special measures in relation to that. They have legislation already in place for that kind of thing. We can’t supersede that.
M. Morris: I guess I’m still trying to make the connection here with politically exposed foreign people.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Just an additional explanation to that previous answer: as I said, the feds have their special legislation in place. But let’s say an individual was not on that list, in the Russia-Ukraine situation, then yes, they could be captured by our legislation.
M. Morris: I’m missing something in here. Hopefully, the minister can set me straight on it. I did go over this a few times, wondering where the missing element was.
I go back to (2)(a)(i): “the respondent, or a person affiliated with the respondent, directly or indirectly engaged in unlawful activity….” That’s clear. He’s involved in or engaged in an unlawful activity. Or (ii): “the respondent is a politically exposed foreign person or is affiliated with a politically exposed foreign person,” but it has no connection that I read through in here to unlawful activity or something that we can connect to an unexplained wealth order.
I may have overlooked it. It’s not unusual for me to do that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: If we have suspicion that they are a politically exposed individual, the critical area is under section (c), which is that they must meet one of those three sections.
It’s either “(i) whether the known sources of the respondent’s lawfully obtained income would have been insufficient for the purpose of enabling the respondent to acquire or maintain the property or the whole or the portion of the interest in the property held by the respondent; (ii) the property has been used to engage in unlawful activity; (iii) the property or the whole or a portion of an interest in the property was acquired or is maintained directly or indirectly as a result of unlawful activity.” They would have to meet one of those three conditions.
M. Morris: I thank the minister for that clarification. We would read it, then: “The respondent is a politically exposed foreign person affiliated with a politically exposed foreign person” whose property was being used to engage in unlawful activity, and that’s all the director would have to present to the courts.
Okay, thank you for that.
Again, we get into…. We’ll go down to 11.12, which is “Contents of unexplained wealth order,” still under clause 10. It says: “In addition to addressing the matters referred to in section 11.09 (1), as applicable, an unexplained wealth order must do all of the following: (a) require a respondent or responsible officer to disclose to the director copies of the following: (i) any information or records in the custody or control of the respondent or responsible officer that are related to the statement referred to in section 11.09….” What if those records are held outside of British Columbia, outside of Canada or outside of North America?
Hon. M. Farnworth: They’d have to produce them or provide a reasonable explanation to the court as to why they can’t produce something.
M. Morris: So they must. If they don’t, then the courts would consider that they refuse to provide that.
Are there any special provisions that the director has to obtain that information? If the individual says that it’s located in Paris, France, and it’s located here in some kind of an institution, is there any way that the director or anybody can obtain that information? That has to be fully on the shoulders of the respondent?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We can compel information from inside the province — from public institutions or financial institutions, for example. We wouldn’t be able to compel from Paris, France, for example. But that being said, then, if the respondent was not providing information that had been requested, I think the court would obviously draw a somewhat negative inference from that.
M. Morris: I guess this goes hand in hand with my thoughts on this anyways. I look at the revisions to the Criminal Code with Bill C-75 and the reverse onus issues that were taken away. I know when I read that bill back in 2017 or 2018, I looked at it and said: “Oh my goodness, this is going to cause 20 percent more workload for the police and the prosecutions and whatnot.”
I’m thinking that the courts are taking a pretty hard look at reverse onus situations. I’m wondering if any argument came up in the U.K. with respect to any reverse onus situations. If we’re dealing with $1 million properties or multi-million-dollar properties and somebody has…. The title is sitting in a bank deposit account somewhere offshore or out of the country, and it’s his responsibility to get it out, how…?
I’m trying to predict what may happen down the road here and if there are any kinds of ways other than asking the guy to produce it, and he says, “Well, I can’t, because it’s over there, and there’s nobody around to get it. I’ve got the only key” kind of thing.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the shortest and best answer I can give you is: you do that at your own peril.
M. Morris: At the mercy of the court, I guess, at the end of the day.
We do see, and I’ve seen it over the years too, where you have these individuals that commit these crimes, and they take their proceeds of crime or they take a lot of the evidence that you need and they end up in the Cayman Islands or in some faraway spot. You never see them again, and the file is left on the table for a long time. In a situation like that, we’re at the mercy of the court. If the court says: “Well, he needs to produce it, and if he doesn’t, then we’re going to forfeit it….” Then that would be great.
What would happen if they make a ruling returning that property because they feel it unreasonable? Has that scenario been looked at and examined in light of developing this legislation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I mean, at the end of the day, the evidence is presented to the court. They will make a ruling on an unexplained wealth order. What comes back, what’s presented — they look at that. They’ll make a decision. It is independent. What you want to see is a strong enough body of evidence that they say (1) yes to the unexplained wealth order, and (2) if there is not a satisfactory explanation, then a forfeiture order is given.
At the end of the day, that is up to the court. As you and I both know, that’s their role. They are independent of you and I and of the director and of the police.
M. Morris: No, I certainly am aware of that.
Is there an appeal process for a respondent on this? Can they JR it? Is there another level of court they go to if they’re not happy with the court’s decision?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, they would have the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
M. Morris: I will go to section 11.12(4). We’re talking about: “If a respondent or responsible officer claims that any information or records required under subsection (1) (a) of this section are privileged, Rule 7-1…of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applies in relation to the claim….” The reference to rule 7-1 is to be read as a reference to the statement referred to in 11.09(1).
“A respondent or responsible officer must allow the director to inspect and copy, during normal business hours and at the location specified in the statement referred to in section 11.09 (1), the originals of any records of which copies were disclosed to the director.” So under rule 7-1, if the respondent or the officer is claiming that the documents are privileged….
I guess I’m curious as to what would happen if the respondent exercises…. Does he exercise rule 7-1 in privileged, or does he provide the information first to the director, and it’s the courts who determine whether or not it’s privileged under rule 7-1?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. A respondent who’s wanting to claim privilege must specify the information, the records and the type of privilege being claimed and must provide that information to the director. Then the director can challenge the claim, in which case, the court may determine whether or not the claim to privilege is valid.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
M. Morris: So the information that the respondent or officer claims is privileged probably would be held by his law firm or his legal counsel. Would it have to come to the director, to the court, or would it go straight from the legal counsel to the court without the director seeing it?
Hon. M. Farnworth: A list of the information would go to the director, but only the court would actually see the information.
M. Morris: Those would be my questions for clause 10.
Clauses 10 to 12 inclusive approved.
On clause 13.
M. Morris: Under clause 13, referencing section 14.01, I go down to (b)(a), where the new amendment says: “(a) holds a registered interest in the whole or a portion of an interest in the subject property.”
The old section says “owns a registered interest.” I’m wondering what the reason for the change in definitions from “own” to “hold.”
Hon. M. Farnworth: Legal advice is that “holds” is a more consistent definition.
M. Morris: The other part in this was, under (b): “did not directly or indirectly engage in the unlawful activity that is the basis of forfeiture under this Act, but, in the case of subject property that is a financed vehicle, does not include a specified interest holder.” So this amendment appears to separate financed vehicles from the process here. I’m just wondering what the rationale, the reasoning was for that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are two types. There are specified interest holders and protected interest holders. There’s a different process for each one, and the two don’t combine well.
Clause 13 approved.
On clause 14.
M. Morris: Reading through clause 14, it’s a new process for dealing with vehicles that are financed. I’m just wondering if the minister can explain the new process that these amendments provide for in dealing with financed vehicles. I see the rationale for doing this now, but I’d just like to know the process a little bit better here.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Previously, we couldn’t use the administrative process to seize financed vehicles. This change allows us to do just that.
Clauses 14 and 15 approved.
On clause 16.
M. Morris: Section 14.06 under clause 16 deals with how notice is to be given to interest holders. It says: “Notice to a known interest holder must be given (a) by sending the notice by ordinary or registered mail to the last known address of the person, (b) by sending the notice by email to the last known email address of the person, (c) by sending the notice by fax to the last known fax number of the person, or (d) by delivering the notice by a prescribed method.” I know that’s open to the imagination once we get rolling here.
Under (2), it says:
“Notice given to a person in accordance with subsection (1) is deemed to have been received by the person as follows: (a) if the notice is sent by ordinary or registered mail, on the seventh day after deposit with Canada Post; (b) if the notice is sent by email or fax before 4 p.m. on a day that is not a Saturday or holiday, on the day on which the notice was sent; (c) if the notice is sent by email or fax on a Saturday or holiday or after 4 p.m. on any other day, on the next day that is not a Saturday or holiday.”
I had to read that a few times.
I’m wondering. If the notice was sent before 4 p.m. or on a Saturday or holiday — and I’m wondering about Sunday; is Sunday considered a holiday? — is the time received calculated to the next day? So if it’s Saturday, do we go straight to Monday, and anything after 4 p.m.?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be considered the next business day.
M. Morris: Is this consistent? I know we’ve got this modern world now delivering documents and whatnot, so is this consistent with the other legislation that we have throughout the province here?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is.
Clauses 16 and 17 approved.
On clause 18.
M. Morris: This bill bounces around from a few different sections. This deals with if no notice of dispute is received by the director.
Here, under 14.09, under the act itself, it says: “If, by the 7th day after expiry of the dispute period, the director does not receive a notice of dispute to forfeiture under this Part of a subject property, the subject property is forfeited to the government for disposal by the director.” What is the process used to discharge the registration of a vehicle, for an example?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We use the real personal property registry.
M. Morris: It says: “in the case of subject property that is a financed vehicle, discharge the registration of all specified security interests and any other charges or interests in relation to the financed vehicle.”
I’m just wondering the process that the director would take to deregister, I suppose, the respondent or the officer or the company or whoever had this vehicle that has been forfeited. What is the process there? I know this is a significant change to try and help the director out in clearing the backlog of vehicles that they may have under seizure right now and in the future.
Is it just a simple thing of contacting the ICBC motor vehicle registration branch and saying: “This no longer belongs to this guy; we have it”?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, we just go online, discharge it and delete it. In the personal property registry online, we would just go online and delete it.
M. Morris: If we’ve got a $400,000 Lamborghini that’s registered to a respondent or an officer, you’d just delete that registration. How do you…? Is it reregistered to the Crown, to the corporation, until such time as it’s sold again?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, we simply delete it. We don’t register it in our name. We go on to ICBC, and ICBC gets to register it in the name of the Crown, the province.
M. Morris: A pretty simple process.
Clauses 18 and 19 approved.
On clause 20.
M. Morris: “Notice of remaining proceeds,” 14.12:
“If the amount of the proceeds resulting from the disposition of a financed vehicle forfeited under section 14.09 exceeds the total of the following amounts, the director must give written notice to each specified interest holder: (a) an amount equal to any costs incurred by the director in relation to seizing, towing and storing the vehicle if the costs are incurred after the earlier of the following, as the case may be: (i) the date of an order made under section 11.02 (3) in relation to the vehicle; (ii) the time of forfeiture under…14.09; (b) an amount equal to any costs incurred by the director to dispose of the vehicle; (c) an administrative fee…in the prescribed amount.”
I guess first is: what would the disposal costs be that the director would be facing? And an example of what the administration fees might be on this as well.
Hon. M. Farnworth: There’ll be the registration fees with ICBC, for example, and an auction fee, once the vehicle is auctioned.
M. Morris: I guess this might pertain to an earlier question. I asked the difference between 11.02(3) and 14.09, but what circumstances would result in a forfeiture under 14.09 earlier than an application under section 11.02(3)?
Interjection.
M. Morris: No, I meant 3, section 3.
The Chair: There’s been a request for repeating the question.
M. Morris: Oh, I’m sorry. I’m trying to read my scribble on here.
What circumstances would result in the forfeiture under section 14.09 being earlier than an application under section 3?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s unlikely that that would ever happen, but it is there at the suggestion of legal counsel as something we should include, for the possibility might happen, however unlikely that that is.
The Chair: Shall clause 20 pass?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
The Chair: So ordered.
Shall clause 21 pass?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
The Chair: So ordered.
Member on clause 22.
M. Morris: Actually, Chair, if we could go back. Clause 20 encompasses several pages here before I get to 21, and I did have another question with respect to clause 20.
The Chair: Okay. We’re happy to take questions on those. We did vote on them and approve them.
Is there agreement of the committee to redo those votes when we get to them?
Leave granted.
The Chair: Okay, we will do that. Thank you. So we’re going to go back to clause 20.
On clause 20 (continued).
M. Morris: I appreciate the leniency of the House.
Just in respect to section 14.13, the notice of interest in remaining proceeds. Under sub (3): “A specified interest holder must deliver the notice of interest to the director within 180 days after the date on which the specified interest holder is deemed to have received notice given under section 14.12….” This is an inordinate period of time. I’m just wondering what the rationale is behind the length of time here.
Hon. M. Farnworth: This is the time that a bank or finance company has to be able to reclaim their money.
M. Morris: Under 14.14, it talks about if the director receives a notice of interest “as soon as practicable after receiving a notice of interest…the director must pay to the specified interest holder out of the civil forfeiture account in accordance with section 27 an amount equal to the amount owing to the specified interest holder in relation to the applicable specified security interest in the financed vehicle at the time of forfeiture,” and it goes on.
Subsection (2) says: “For the purposes of subsection (1), the amount owing to the specified interest holder in relation to the financed vehicle does not include (a) an amount owing in relation to a prescribed charge or a prescribed fee arising under the terms of the security agreement, or (b) an amount equal to the portion of a prescribed charge or a prescribed fee arising under the terms of the security agreement that is greater than a prescribed amount.” I’m wondering if the minister can clarify. What exactly does 2(a) and (b) mean?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It means that if the finance agreement contains additional remedies, they can’t reclaim them from the director.
M. Morris: Then the last question I have with this clause is…. It says, under (3): “If an amount is payable under subsection (1) to more than one specified interest holder, the director must pay the amounts into court rather than to the specified interest holders.” I take it from this section, then, that the court is responsible for disbursement.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.
Clause 20 approved.
On clause 21.
M. Morris: This is dealing with cannabis. I was happy to see this section brought in, because it has proved…. There are circumstances out there that are frustrating a lot of the various law enforcement agencies.
I’ll read it. I know there are hundreds of people out there watching and wondering what this new bill is all about.
“Instrument of unlawful activity” with respect to growing cannabis: “In this section, ‘cannabis plant’, ‘dwelling house’, ‘grow’ and “medical cannabis” have the same meanings as the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act.”
It says: “In proceedings under Part 2 or 3 or section 14.11, proof that cannabis plants were found growing at property in any of the following circumstances is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the property is an instrument of unlawful activity.”
We’re targeting grow ops, basically, and real property that is being used for grow ops or any other property.
“in the case of real property that is not a dwelling house, (i) the growing of cannabis plants at the property is not authorized under the Cannabis Act…or (ii) the number of cannabis plants that are medical cannabis growing at the property is greater than the number authorized under the Cannabis Act of Canada; (b) in the case of a dwelling house, the number of cannabis plants growing at the dwelling house is greater than the sum of the following: (i) the total number of cannabis plants that are medical cannabis that each adult who ordinarily resides at the dwelling house is authorized under the Cannabis Act…to grow at the dwelling house.”
So the total number.
Then, “(ii) the number of cannabis plants determined by the following formula: 5 x A,” in that A is the “number of cannabis plants referred to in section 56 (c)” of the Cannabis Act, which is four. So five times four is 20. This seems like an arbitrary number.
I’m wondering where that number came from, and what was the basis for making that determination?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The number is in place because it is significantly more than what the grower may be…. Let’s say you have a medicinal licence to have, let’s say — I don’t know — 20 plants or 40 plants. Five times is a significant increase, and that’s the target. It’s that significant increase over what you’re licensed to be growing.
M. Morris: I was just wondering whether it had any reflection on the values that we were looking at, a value of $75,000 and more. We looked at…. What are 20 plants worth? Is it worth $75,000 or more per ounce?
No? It didn’t have anything to do with that. Okay.
The other part…. I asked this question right at the beginning, about the laws of general application as they apply to our First Nations communities. I know the police can get search warrants, on reserve, on First Nations communities to search for stolen property or drugs or whatever the case might be. So the laws of general enforcement and all the tools that are attributable to those laws or supporting those laws are in effect on reserve.
If we have an organized crime group that has established a presence in a First Nations community and is using it to sell, produce, grow cannabis in that community…. I’m wondering whether this section would apply. If we see that it’s being distributed from a trailer that’s set up on reserve land, a movable commodity, is that seizable, as well, if all the provisions of this act here are met?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The short answer is no. What you are talking about is on reserve lands. Then these amendments would not be applicable on reserve lands.
M. Morris: So the Civil Forfeiture Act is not a law of general application in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Civil forfeiture is not criminal law; it’s civil law. Our legal advice is that it’s not applicable on reserve lands.
M. Morris: Civil law in the province of British Columbia…. Any civil statute that we have is not enforceable on First Nations reserves and land. Finance companies can’t go in and seize vehicles in First Nations communities, for a lack of payment or whatever the case might be. I’m curious about this.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It could probably be seized, but it’s unlikely that we could forfeit it. That’s the advice that we’ve got.
M. Morris: If it’s seized, what would the remedy be? What would happen to the property that is being seized as a result of these provisions, then?
Hon. M. Farnworth: If the member is.… What we could do is…. If we could go on to another section. We will get a definitive answer for the member, if that assists him in the course of his questioning.
M. Morris: I appreciate that. It is an important issue. I know many of my colleagues…. I’ve had questions from other law enforcement agencies across the province on this issue as well. So I would appreciate an answer on that.
I will go on to…. It’s still under clause 21, under “Presumption – failure to comply with unexplained wealth order.”
Under 19.07, it says: “Subsection (2) applies if a respondent or responsible officer, as applicable, on or before the latest date on which the respondent or responsible officer was required to comply with any requirement in an unexplained wealth order, (a) did not provide all of the information and records required to be provided under the order, or (b) otherwise failed to comply with a requirement of the order.”
It says: “In proceedings under section 3 (1) in relation to the whole or a portion of an interest in property it must be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the interest or the portion of the interest in the property held by a respondent, if any, is proceeds of unlawful activity.”
I’m wondering if there are any circumstances where the director would make a second or third attempt to obtain that information that has been missing from the responder or officer.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be no. If you’re not answering, then you’re deemed to be unlawful, and you’re going to get the consequences that flow from that.
M. Morris: This process is in the hands of the courts, and the respondent and the officers have been asked to provide the required information under this bill. Is this a paper exercise for the courts — so that there’s nobody in court, the judge is just in his chambers, and he’s reviewing all the evidence provided by the respondent or the officer, in relation to the information that the director has held? Or is this actually a hearing, before the judge, with the director?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is absolutely a court hearing.
M. Morris: Thank you for that. Would the respondent or the officer be in court at the time this is being heard?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.
M. Morris: In essence, this would be a trial or a hearing. Would legal counsel…? Would there be cross-examination by counsel for the respondent or the officer, as well as the director or the prosecution?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be the director affidavit evidence. If the court ordered it, there could be cross-examination.
M. Morris: So the court is operating on the basis of an affidavit provided by the director and the written response by the respondent or an officer. Then is it up to the discretion of the court to hold an in-person hearing? I’m hearing both here. I’m not quite sure on the process.
If there’s an affidavit, the court already has the affidavit. If it’s an in-person hearing, it’s either to clarify the contents of the affidavit, I assume, and clarify the information provided by the respondent and the officer to the court itself. Do both things happen?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is an in-person hearing, with affidavit evidence that is provided by the director.
M. Morris: This is in respect to the unexplained wealth orders. Is this the same process that is used in a normal civil forfeiture that is going before the courts for disposition for a forfeiture? Do both use the same process as an in-person hearing?
Hon. M. Farnworth: This is just to get the unexplained wealth order. Anything to do with forfeiture is, in essence, then, back to the judge with the presentation of the information. In essence, that is kind of like a trial at that point.
M. Morris: I think clarity is coming.
This is in the process of getting the unexplained wealth order. If the court is in agreement with the evidence that has been presented, he says that we do have an unexplained wealth order, and then forfeiture takes place after that. Is it the court that provides the forfeiture order at the conclusion of this particular hearing? Or is it a separate process that the director has to initiate?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The director takes the information to the court, seeking the unexplained wealth order. They present the information. The court says: “Yes, we’re going to grant the unexplained wealth order.”
Then the respondent, let’s say, is not able to explain how they’re living on $10,000 a year and have a multi-million-dollar house and really fancy car. The court decides…. We’d take that back, put that before the court, and then we would commence an action for forfeiture of whatever material property is suspect.
M. Morris: I know this is a new tool that we’ve injected into civil forfeitures — a good tool. We have the hearing to determine whether or not the unexplained wealth order should exist, and the courts deem that it shall exist.
There’s another procedure, then, you’re saying now. Once we have the order of the court saying, “Yes, we have this unexplained wealth order,” the director then goes and uses the provision of the Civil Forfeiture Act to forfeit the property that has been included in the wealth order?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That would be correct. So the unexplained wealth order — you’re not able to explain it. We would then commence an action under the Civil Forfeiture Act to get forfeiture.
M. Morris: Without going back through some of the other sections that we’ve already talked about…. I’m assuming that some of the earlier things, like under section 3 of the Civil Forfeiture Act…. Would the respondent or the officer be required, then, to resubmit the information required under that process for forfeiture, or would the director just use the existing information that was presented to the court and review it? Would there be another opportunity for the respondent to have any input into the forfeiture part of this unexplained wealth order?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes.
M. Morris: Thank you. That does clarify it, in my mind and for everybody watching, I’m sure.
I’ll go on now to, still under clause 21, section 19.08(1): “The director may, within one year of the latest date on which a respondent is required to comply with a requirement in an unexplained wealth order, amend the director’s pleadings in proceedings commenced under Part 2 to address any matters arising from the unexplained wealth order.” I’m wondering if the minister can clarify the intent of section 19.08.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, that’s because, during the course of the unexplained wealth order, we may learn some things, so we’re able to amend our pleadings to take that into account.
M. Morris: That makes sense. The person has probably acquired more wealth in the interim while the process was going on, knowing the way some of these criminals operate.
Going on to 19.09, “Adverse inference – unexplained wealth order”:
“Subsection (2) applies in relation to a respondent against whom an unexplained wealth order is made if either of the following apply: (a) the respondent or responsible officer does not provide all of the information and records required to be provided under the order, or otherwise fails to comply with a requirement of the order; (b) a court finds that (i) a fact included in a statement provided by the respondent or responsible officer in accordance with the order is not true, or (ii) a record provided by the respondent or responsible officer in accordance with a requirement of the order is not authentic.”
Then sub (2) says:
“In proceedings under Part 2 or 3 the court may draw an adverse inference against a respondent to whom this subsection applies.”
I’m wondering if the minister can elaborate a little bit on that adverse inference.
Hon. M. Farnworth: An adverse inference may be because the court finds that the person withheld information because it may make them look guilty, which they probably were.
Clause 21 approved.
On clause 22.
M. Morris: This is a fairly lengthy clause as well. It goes on for several pages in this particular bill. But I’m wondering if perhaps the minister can provide an overview of the genesis of clause 22 rather than going through each section. I will have a few questions to ask on some of them, but if he can just give the genesis to what this particular section does with respect to suspension and extinguishment of interests and property and finance vehicles.
Hon. M. Farnworth: This will probably assist the member. What section 22 does is it provides an interest in property that takes precedence over other public bodies. For instance, if the director commences a forfeiture proceeding, and then later, another ministry raises a debt that can be backdated, it would impact the property available for forfeiture. This section gives forfeiture the priority.
The section also supports the director’s ability to use the less costly administrative forfeiture process for vehicles that a person involved in unlawful activity has financed. Previously, the director had to utilize the more costly civil forfeiture finance vehicles, and as we know, as we’ve dealt with that, the administrative forfeiture process was in section 20. It makes it clear in terms of the precedence in terms of the forfeiture in the interest of the property.
M. Morris: Under clause 22, section 20.04, “specified period”:
“beginning on the date that the director takes an action referred to in subsection (2) (a) or (b), as applicable, and (b) ending on the following date, as applicable: (i) if the director withdraws from proceeding under the Act under section 14.08…or discontinues proceedings commenced under section 3, the date of the withdrawal or discontinuance; (ii) the date on which a court makes or refuses to make a forfeiture order; (iii) the date of forfeiture under Part 3.1.”
Again, to clarify, the proceedings commence…. Under 3.1, it’s not forfeiture; it’s just the beginning of the process under section 3.1. So proceedings under 3.1 — they don’t imply forfeiture. It’s just the beginning of the process. The actual forfeiture doesn’t take place until after the hearing is heard. I was just a little concerned with the dates.
Interjection.
The Chair: All right, there’s been a suggestion for a short recess. We will recess for approximately five minutes.
I appreciate the approval, Member. This committee is in short recess.
The committee recessed from 2:48 p.m. to 2:54 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
The Chair: All right, Members, let’s draw this committee back into order.
Of course, we’re here with Bill 21, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023, with our Minister of Public Safety. We are on clause 22.
M. Morris: I appreciate the patience of the minister and his staff there as I go through all these timelines in the different sections here.
Under sub (2) of 20.04, it says: “Section 20.05 applies if the director does either of the following in relation to a financed vehicle or the whole or a portion of an interest in a financed vehicle: (a) registers notice of forfeiture in the personal property registry under section 14.04 (1) (a); (b) commences proceedings under section 3.”
I guess that was what confused me. Section 3 seems to be the initial…. It starts the process. Then, “registers notice of forfeiture in the personal property registry….” is the completion of the forfeiture process, if I understand correctly here. So if those two are met, then section 20.05 applies. Is that what that says?
Hon. M. Farnworth: This section applies to the commencement of forfeiture for either section.
M. Morris: Okay, thank you for that.
Under section 20.05: “All rights or remedies of the owner of a financed vehicle under a security agreement or section 62 of the Personal Property Security Act are suspended during the specified period. (2) During the specified period, the following legal proceedings in relation to a financed vehicle may be commenced but no further steps may be taken, and no orders may be made, in the proceedings other than discontinuing the proceedings.”
Under (a), it’s “a legal proceeding for possession of the vehicle;” and (b), it’s “a legal proceeding that may result in an order directly or indirectly reducing the amount of money that would otherwise result from the disposition of the vehicle or the whole or a portion of an interest in the vehicle….”
I guess just a little clarification. What does that mean? What happens, generally, that has brought this to bear within the statute?
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: What it means is that they can’t sue us to get their vehicle back while we are in the process of getting a forfeiture on that vehicle.
M. Morris: This is only with respect to the respondent, so nobody else can have any legal proceedings at this particular time.
Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s correct.
I’d also just make the observation in response to your question that we had on the cannabis issue. When we finish with this section, we can provide you an answer that you were looking for.
M. Morris: Still under clause 22, under 20.06, “Interests extinguished and proceedings limited after forfeiture,” it goes on to say: “…all rights or remedies of the owner of the financed vehicle under a security agreement or section 62 of the Personal Property Security Act are extinguished (a) on and after the date the forfeiture order is made under section 5, or (b) at the time of the forfeiture under section 14.09.”
From experience to date, how often do we get to this point with the vehicles that have been seized under this particular legislation in a year? Is this a common occurrence? Is this new? Is this something that is new to the process?
Hon. M. Farnworth: What the member is talking about is actually quite common, but what this section does is it streamlines the process, because the current process is actually quite costly. So this will make it much more streamlined, less costly and more efficient.
M. Morris: In sub (3), it talks about…. I will read the whole thing:
“…if a financed vehicle or the whole or a portion of an interest in a financed vehicle is forfeited to the government under this Act, the following legal proceedings may not be brought or maintained on or after the date the forfeiture order is made under section 5 or the time of the forfeiture under section 14.09, as applicable: (a) a legal proceeding for possession of the vehicle; (b) a legal proceeding in relation to the forfeiture of the vehicle, the disposition of the vehicle by the director or any proceeds from the disposition of the vehicle, including a legal proceeding for damages that is commenced or maintained by an uninvolved interest holder.”
It goes on down to subsection (4)(d) and (e). It says, “a legal proceeding for damages brought by a party to a security agreement against another party to the agreement,” so subsection (3) does not prohibit this from happening. It also doesn’t prohibit “in a case where a party to a security agreement retains possession of a financed vehicle under a forfeiture order made in respect of the vehicle or the whole or a portion of an interest in the vehicle, a legal proceeding seeking possession of the vehicle brought by another party to the agreement.”
It says that those two scenarios can proceed in this. I guess I’m curious as to why these can proceed and the others can’t.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Once they forfeit your vehicle, the creditor can still sue you.
M. Morris: So this action would be against the respondent or the officer, and not the province?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yup, it’s correct. If you still owed $10,000 on the vehicle, they can sue you for the $10,000 on the vehicle.
If the member could just rephrase that question, just ask that question again, that would help — the one that he was looking for the answer for.
M. Morris: With respect to the cannabis? Yeah.
I’m just wondering. This particular legislation is of general application. Are vehicles that are used for illegal purposes or a building that has been used for unlawful purposes that is portable — a trailer or something like that — on reserve land…. If it’s found to be in contravention of this one dealing with cannabis or any other matter that could be involved with this legislation, including an unexplained wealth order — whether those items can be seized on First Nations property and removed and forfeited.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, police can seize. If the property is then not on the reserve, then they could seek forfeiture.
M. Morris: Just a follow-up to the minister’s answer. This was an unresolved question from before.
If it’s movable property, like a trailer that has been used for selling cannabis, it might have illegally obtained cannabis. They might be growing 25 plants within that trailer. It would be subject to seizure under those provisions of that particular section. Bring a tow truck in, hook it up and pull it away. It’s seized, and the proceedings would follow the proceedings outlined under this legislation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s the police that can seize the property. We can’t seize the property. Civil forfeiture can’t seize the property, but the police can seize the property.
M. Morris: Just one more follow-up. So the police are conducting their investigation. They find that this property has been used for selling drugs or whatever the reason might be. It’s mobile property. They can seize it and then send the information to the director, and forfeiture action would result from that. Is that what I hear?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s correct.
Clause 23 approved.
On clause 24.
M. Morris: Clause 24, “Requirement to not disclose the request.” Again, it’s excellent information in here. The requirement to not disclose the request says: “In this section, ‘relevant organization’ means a specified organization as defined in section 22….” I believe that information under section 22 says, “If the director requests that a relevant organization,” which includes “a person, an unincorporated association, a trade union, a trust or a not for profit organization.” Quite a broad definition under that this particular definition.
In this section:
“If the director requests that a relevant organization disclose an individual’s personal information to the director, the relevant organization must not, during the six-month period after the organization receives the request, disclose to any person, other than a person in respect of which solicitor-client privilege exists, either of the following: (a) that the director has requested the relevant organization to disclose the individual’s personal information; (b) that the relevant organization has disclosed the individual’s personal information to the director.”
My question would be: what if the organization doesn’t comply?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There is no penalty for non-compliance.
Also, when I sit down, I just want to make sure that…. Did we pass section 21?
The Chair: Yes, 21 did pass.
M. Morris: So there’s no penalty section in this if they don’t comply, which is…. The information that these organizations have can sometimes be critical for the file.
Somewhere in here it talks about a six-month period that they can’t disclose this information or disclose the fact that they were talking to the director. Is there an ability to extend the six-month period?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Instead of using this section, we could, for example, use a court order, in which case yes, we could.
M. Morris: Interesting. Okay, thank you for that.
Then the information being requested by the director of these organizations can be subpoenaed. Is that how that works?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are other provisions in the act that would allow us the ability to obtain the information that was being sought.
Clause 24 approved.
On clause 25.
M. Morris: “Information sharing” is the next one, 22.002. It says:
“(2) Despite any other enactment or law other than a prescribed enactment, the director must not use or disclose specified information except as authorized by this section.
“(3) The director may use or disclose specified information as follows: (a) for the purposes of administering this Act, including any proceedings…(b) for the purposes of a prosecution for perjury or for proceedings for contempt; (c) in accordance with an order of the court made on application by the director in proceedings under this Act.”
I’m curious. I’ll go back to sub (2) on this: “Despite any other enactment or law other than a prescribed enactment….” I wonder if the minister can tell me what a prescribed enactment might be. There are a lot of safeguards being put into the director being availed of this information. I really appreciate that, but I’m just curious as to what this “prescribed enactment” might be.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Part of the answer could be that I’m not allowed to tell you, but the reality is that if there are future changes…. I think that probably the best way would be….
Yesterday in the second reading, when I talked about the difference between the U.K. model and the Irish model, the Irish model uses a tax system, and the U.K. model uses, in essence, the reverse onus: “Explain how you got this.” If we were to do that — and I indicated yesterday that I could well see that — then we have to be able to talk to each other. The two approaches have to be able to talk to each other. This would allow for that.
M. Morris: I appreciate that. I look at the exercise in drafting this particular bill, and any other bill, for that matter, and the conversation that must take place between the people that are drafting this. They must come up with some solutions or some scenarios that cause them to put this particular provision in place there. That’s why I was asking the question — if there’s something out there that triggered their interest in this.
I know how personal information is protected, safeguarded to a significant degree in this province and across the country, for that matter. Having this particular provision in there, which gives the director the ability to go to these organizations and get that information, I think, is pretty significant. It’s a lot of authority there. I’ll look forward to see whatever that prescribed bit will be coming from that.
Still on clause 25, it talks about “…the director must not be required, in connection with any legal proceedings, to give or produce evidence relating to any information or records obtained by or on behalf of the director under this Act,” but it doesn’t apply “in respect of legal proceedings referred to in subsection (3) (a) or (b),” which we’ve already talked about.
And: “To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict with sections 32 [use of personal information] and 33 [disclosure of personal information] of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, this section applies despite that Act.”
I guess I’m just reading that to emphasize, to the people that are watching this with bated breath, the safeguards that are around this particular provision and giving the director that particular authority.
Clauses 25 to 27 inclusive approved.
On clause 28.
M. Morris: Clause 28, respecting section 23(2) is repealed, and this part is substituted: “After commencing proceedings under section 3 that relate to personal property that is serial numbered goods or the whole or a portion of an interest in personal property that is serial numbered goods, the director may register, in the prescribed manner, in the personal property registry notice that the proceedings commenced may affect the personal property or the whole or the portion of the interest in the personal property referred to in the notice.”
This appears to be a discretionary provision for the director. Is this true, and why would it be discretionary?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The personal property registry does not permit a person with a registered interest to file a form. This operational limitation has led to an inefficient workaround where the director types in all of the contents of the prescribed form into description boxes in the personal property registry. Amending this section to no longer require registration by filing a prescribed form will improve efficiency. Requirements for registration to the personal property registry will continue to be established by regulation.
Clauses 28 and 29 approved.
On clause 30.
M. Morris: I’ve got to keep flipping pages, because some of these clauses are multiple pages.
This says: “Division 4 – Director Entitled to Possession of Property.” “This Division applies to property if (a) the director has reason to suspect that (i) the whole or a portion of an interest in property, other than real property, is proceeds of unlawful activity, or (ii) property, other than real property, is an instrument of unlawful activity, and (b) the property referred to…is in British Columbia and in the possession of a public body.”
Is this the section where the director takes possession of, or takes precedence over, all property that has been seized by a public body for other reasons but that happens to come to the attention of the director through civil forfeitures, and the director is now taking possession of goods or property that has already been seized by a public body?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this case, what the member is referring to is…. The director will depend on the referrals from the police and other law enforcement agencies. Police often seize property during an investigation, either for criminal forfeiture or further investigation. At any time during or after the investigation, the police may refer the property to the director. Conversely, at any time during or after the investigation, the person from whom it was seized may apply for its return.
Property owners often rush to have property returned, specifically to avoid forfeiture proceedings. The cost of pursuing property in a rush scenario is a significant burden on the director and the courts, as legal costs and court time are increased under time constraints. That’s what this is all about.
M. Morris: That makes sense. So the “Notice of interest” that follows this, the director publishes a “notice of interest in relation to subject property on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the government.”
If he publishes the notice of interest in relation to subject property, he must: “(a) subject to subsection (4), within 40 days after notice is published, give written notice to each of the following: (i) the person from whom the property was seized; (ii) a person who is a registered owner of the property or the whole…” and a prescribed individual. And then “(b) within 120 days after notice is published, (i) commence proceedings under section 3 in relation to the property, (ii) initiate forfeiture in relation to the property under Part 3.1, or (iii) withdraw the notice of interest.”
I’m looking at the 120 days after notice is published. So we’ve got 40 days where he publishes the notice. Then 40 days later, he has to give written notice to the person, and then within 120 days after the notice is published, commence proceedings under section 3. It’s quite a lengthy time.
So we seize all these cars, which is a lengthy process, and six months later, then you can commence proceedings under section 3. Is there a reason for that? I know we talked about that 120-day period pertaining to registered finance obligations and whatnot. I’m just wondering what the purpose of this timeline is, for these purposes here.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The time frame that the member has outlined is to be able to consider the evidence that has been obtained. Then, obviously, we can’t have an unlimited time that we’re able to retain possession or to retain the property — in this case, the vehicle, for example. This allows the time for all the things that need to take place and to be able to consider the evidence that has been collected.
M. Morris: So the police have the goods, the vehicle, in a compound, and they’ve been conducting their investigation. The director would publish this as soon as the police provide the director with their package of information? Then further investigation, over this 160-day period, is necessary in order to complete the application under section 3, or the application?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It would start from when the director gets the evidence from the police, but that timeline is a maximum. That, that you’ve outlined, is not necessarily what it would be. It’s going to be dependent, obviously, on the evidence — ready to go and take it the next steps.
M. Morris: On section 23.05, “Director deemed to be entitled to possession”:
“On publication of notice of interest in relation to subject property, the director is deemed to be lawfully entitled to possession of the property.”
It says:
“The director’s lawful entitlement to possession of subject property under subsection (1) ends in the following circumstances: (a) the director withdraws the notice of interest in relation to the property; (b) the director fails to comply with section 23.04 (2) (a) or (b)” within the time limits that we’ve talked about; or “(c) if a court, by order, (i) establishes a right of possession in the property with a person other than the director or the public body, or (ii) authorizes a person other than the director or the public body to have or to take possession of the property.”
Does this provide authority, for the director, for all property under a section 3 application, or property not yet seized under this act but seized and in possession of the RCMP, or some other act?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Any property in the possession of a public body, including the RCMP.
M. Morris: Thank you for that. “Notice of dispute,” under 23.06: “A person who claims an interest in subject property may dispute a notice of interest by delivering a notice of dispute to the director in accordance with this section.” So just any person.
Does the director’s authority override any of the provisions or the reasons why the property was originally seized by the RCMP, or is this notice of dispute solely focused on whatever action the director takes?
Hon. M. Farnworth: If the member could clarify. Was he asking if the director could overrule? Is that what he was asking?
M. Morris: When I first read this section, it appeared to me that…. Another government agency — the RCMP or an independent police department or another public body — seized a vehicle as a result of their investigation, and the director is now taking that vehicle. The police force has turned that vehicle over to him. Is the notice of dispute only focused on the director’s forfeiture action under section 3, or does the notice of the dispute also include the reasons why the police may have seized it in the first place?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It would only be the directors.
Clauses 30 to 32 inclusive approved.
On clause 33.
M. Morris: I find this is an interesting section as well. Under clause 33, “Section 35 (1) is repealed and the following substituted: (1) There is no limitation period for the director (a) commencing proceedings under section 3, or (b) initiating forfeiture in relation to property under part 3.1.” There’s no limitation period.
When I read this I get quite excited, knowing what kind of files are out there across the province and have been lingering out there across the province. So does this provide the director the ability now to go back in time to any property that has been seized by any police department, for as far back as if they still have that property, and take action under this particular bill?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it does.
M. Morris: Just a comment on that. Probably that’s one of the most significant sections in this particular bill. I’m sure there are police agencies out there that are clapping their hands with delight, and I hope there are a few people out there that are going to get a comeuppance here as a result of this. This is very interesting.
The remainder of the bill deals with transition provisions that I’ve looked through. There’s nothing within those provisions that I can see, so I don’t have any other questions pertaining to the remainder of this particular bill.
Clauses 33 to 44 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 3:31 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 21 — CIVIL FORFEITURE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
Bill 21, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes.
The House recessed from 3:37 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Beare: I call the estimates of Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 3:41 p.m.
The Chair: The committee will recess for a few minutes as we wait for the minister and the staff.
The committee recessed from 3:42 p.m. to 3:49 p.m.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
The Chair: We are in estimates for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
On Vote 34: ministry operations, $57,912,000 (continued).
M. Lee: I wanted to just bring us back to the point the minister was making just before the break and the move to this main chamber. The minister talked about regional solutions between Blueberry River First Nation and the other Treaty 8 Nations. I just invite the minister to comment on that some more in terms of as we manage through cumulative impacts, which is something, certainly, the minister referred to in making that statement.
I also invite the minister to comment on some of the other provisions within the Blueberry River First Nations agreement which, I know from the briefing, suggested that there are opportunities for review and some flexibility, let’s say, in terms of the constraints as to the measures that are being set out in the agreement around disturbance and other economic activity under the terms of the agreement.
When the minister refers to regional, is the minister suggesting that that also creates opportunities for spreading the effort as to how we deal with the cumulative impacts from economic activity on Treaty 8 lands for all nations, keeping in mind that there are also time junctures in the agreement itself that provide for review and some opportunities for further changes, let’s say, in terms of how the constraints around disturbance and economic activity are set out in the agreement?
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and welcome to the Chair. I’m pleased to be in this chamber dealing with the estimates of the ministry.
The question that has been raised by the hon. member involves regional solutions. He asked me to comment on why those are important. I said before the break that they are central to the cumulative effects management and mitigation that is needed if we’re going to make progress on the land base.
He asks why. I think the answer is very simple. There is one land base. There are several herds, if you will, of different caribou and one set of species, if we’re thinking wildlife or deer or whatever. They migrate in the entire region.
Of course, there’s the other reason I raised previously, which is that Treaty 8 is broken into a number of First Nations. But it’s one treaty and one treaty people. Finding common solutions amongst them is likely to be the most effective way to proceed.
As to the specific question, the Blueberry River First Nation agreement provides for various reviews along the way — year one, year two, year three — inviting us to examine how we are doing at each stage. Do we need to make course corrections? Are there things we could be doing differently and better? That’s the logic and wisdom of that agreement. We’re pleased that that has been taken into account.
M. Lee: Well, let me just say — I meant to say this earlier, but the minister just commented on it — in terms of welcoming all the members’ visitors in the gallery, it’s more visitors, I think, than we usually see on a Thursday afternoon before a long weekend.
The minister just commented on the state of these estimates. I’ll just say in front of our visitors that I will commend the team now that’s been around the minister for two days of supplementals, two days of budgetary estimates and only one bio break. I’ve taken note of that, let the record show. Thank you for that. That’s also suggesting that there will be no further bio breaks between now and when the House rises at 5:20. That’s just to be clear. I’ve got an hour and 25 minutes, so we’ll make the most of it.
I will just say to the minister…. Of course, we had an earlier discussion about the importance of all of the lands for Treaty 8, for all the nations. It demonstrates, though, certainly, the comprehensive nature of the Blueberry River First Nation Agreement, first, and then the consensus document for the other nations. So with these parallel streams, for the reasons that we talked about earlier, there is some additional benefit — recognizing that there are overlapping claims, recognizing that there is a desire, under the consensus agreement for the other Treaty 8 Nations, to work together.
In view of the minister’s response, there are opportunities to alleviate the burden, let’s say, on one particular area under claim for one particular Treaty 8 Nation. If this…. I wanted to hear the minister again walk us through what the minister may anticipate could happen here, recognizing that we still have to walk a year with the other Treaty 8 Nations in terms of the consensus document.
Is there a growing possibility, let’s say, that there’s a recognition that we can look at…? We talk about impacts on wildlife management and that that can be looked at in a broader way on a regional basis. That presumably could take some pressure off the land base for one particular nation when we see it more broadly.
Hon. M. Rankin: The member invites us to anticipate what might happen in the future. I can say what already is in place. In each of the Blueberry River First Nation Agreement and the other Treaty 8 agreements, there’s a commitment found to a single regional wildlife table, which I think is a very specific example of what we’re talking about — species that wander around the territory without any reference to what the boundaries are between one Treaty 8 First Nation and another. So, therefore, the nations have recognized that. We have worked at a regional level on wildlife, which is a very, very significant example.
I can also say that on restoration and healing the land, we expect there to be two restoration funds to coordinate between each other, so the restoration activities aren’t duplicated. Each nation and restoration fund should have information about what is planned and current projects that are underway to restore the land. That’s another example of a recognition of the need to avoid duplication in the context of restoration.
But my expectation is that these processes will continue to work in parallel and, where necessary and when it’s in everyone’s interests, to find common ground.
M. Lee: To come on to section 16.1, “Honouring Treaty 8,” which refers to the acknowledgment by the province that “Treaty 8 was a sacred understanding between the Indigenous people in northeast British Columbia, the province and the citizens it represents,” that honouring of Treaty 8, as the minister and I have discussed, including in this committee stage on estimates, includes sustained provincial Blueberry River First Nation public communications, education and community services.
I know that there are other provisions in the consensus document, including with the Doig First Nation as well, and other Treaty 8 Nations, around public education, in how government, in terms of understanding amongst the public, is to be worked through with the nations.
I will just ask the minister. I do understand, certainly, that there was something planned. At the Fort St. John Chamber of Commerce, it was there publicly announced. There had been some indication that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the Minister of Forests would be attending this public forum, in order to help inform and educate local community members, presumably non-Indigenous members — it’s open, obviously, to all public members — about the nature of the Blueberry arrangements and the Treaty 8 arrangements.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
I understand there have been some concerns expressed by local nations, including the Doig Nation, about how that came about. Perhaps there were concerns — I think I’ve seen a letter that expressed concerns — that it wasn’t complying with the consensus document. Can I ask how that process unfolded and what corrections are being made by the minister and his office in terms of how future consultation or public information sessions should be conducted with the nations?
Hon. M. Rankin: I wanted to address the question of communications, public education and the like — and our efforts to ensure that communities are kept informed. I can say to the member that we have, I think, a very strong track record, in the northeast, of information-sharing.
We’ve had a regional…. What’s called the Northeast Roundtable that has been around for several years. It consists of local government, regional government, snowmobile operators, hunters, stakeholders from across the spectrum, and we bring them updates regularly about regional initiatives by government, including, of course, these important negotiations. Our provincial staff, in addition, frequently meets with local mayors, regional directors and industry leaders, with updates on the negotiations, to the extent possible.
There was a specific question raised with respect to a meeting of the Fort St. John Chamber of Commerce. The Doig River Chief, Trevor Makadahay — with whom I spoke yesterday actually, and I’m grateful to him — brought to our attention in a letter that the planning for the date of that event had not been something with which he had been involved. We thank him for that, and we’re committed to work together to ensure that that goes forward in collaboration with him and other Treaty 8 Nations in the ordinary way.
I hope that’s sufficient for the member.
M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s update on that. Certainly, I’ve had the opportunity, with the member for Peace River North, to visit with the council at Doig River. Obviously, they’re one example of a Treaty 8 Nation that ought to be involved in the ongoing communication and public awareness of these complex arrangements.
There is work, as the minister referred to, in terms of the stakeholder tables, but just before I go to that element of his response, just on the first part, in terms of creating more public awareness and understanding…. We know, of course, that with the pace of change, complex legal agreements — as the minister and I have discussed here in estimates — in the Blueberry River First Nations case are due to the nature of a very important court decision relating, in part, to cumulative impacts on the territory of the Blueberry River First Nation.
In terms of understanding the changes and the requirements that are set out in a fairly complex agreement, it does take, of course, that level of dialogue which includes First Nations themselves. I appreciate that there are provisions in the agreement that relate to that. I would hope that, as government goes forward, it will continue to put resources into this area.
Of course, even with redacted agreements — which are soon to be unredacted, in the sense of the full disclosure of the set of agreements without redactions, as the minister confirmed earlier — there is still an understanding as to the obligations set out both by the First Nations themselves and by government — the restrictions around some of the disturbance on the lands and what that means for future economic activity and how nations are working together to look at regional solutions, as the minister referred to. Apart from examples of the wildlife table, it’s not necessarily immediately evident to a member of the public that that is some of the approach that’s being utilized here.
I do think this is an important area to continue to put resource to, and I’ve continued to have that discussion with the minister about it. I think this chamber event is a small example. This is, of course, what the minister and his team do on a day-to-day basis — manage relationships. I appreciate that’s what the minister has done here to address that concern.
When we’re talking about public awareness efforts and resources towards even helping the public to understand the Blueberry and Treaty 8 Nations, both the consensus document for the other Treaty 8 Nations and the formal agreement with Blueberry River First Nation, can I ask: what level of resource and plan does the ministry have going forward in this area?
Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member puts his finger on a very important aspect of the work we’re doing — namely, public awareness and understanding. That is centrally important.
I think it’s, perhaps, not totally unusual, but I’m pleased to see it in the agreement itself. There is a recognition. There are provisions that talk about what we call honouring the treaty — meaning, people need to be aware that we have this ancient treaty that we’re implementing. The courts have told us we must, and of course, we’re committed to doing that. It’s not every agreement that has such a provision that contemplates public engagement to that degree. We’re very pleased to do that. We see this as a centrally important feature.
As I said to the member in earlier questions, it’s the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship that is primarily engaged in this work. We have been assisting, of course. But they are very much responsible.
There are provisions…. We’ve talked about wildlife, land use, land management, restoration. That will take substantive engagement. We want to ensure that goes forward with the community involvement, and that’s why we have been very, very pleased to have this Northeast Roundtable for so many years. That has been such an effective forum for dialogue.
I’m also pleased to say, and I hope the member is aware of this, that the former mayor of the Dawson Creek, Dale Bumstead, has been retained by some of the Treaty 8 Nations to help with this work. He’s a very honoured member of the community.
He’s working with the First Nations, but of course, he was a highly successful local politician in the community, and his commitment to this work is really appreciated by government and, I think, will make a real difference on the ground in the northeast.
M. Lee: Well, I will, in view of the minister’s response, just have further dialogue if the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin enables me to do that, to join him in his estimates process with the Minister of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship around the stakeholder side of things. We’ll leave that there for the time being that way. But thank you for that.
I will turn to a discussion here relating to land and dealing with considerations around transfer. There is currently an effort under Crown land and reconciliation, a joint effort with this minister’s ministry as well as a second ministry — whose name is set out as, of course, the Ministry of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship — relating to working through a potential involvement of transfer of what I understand to be 70,000 hectares of provincial Crown land.
There are constraints and challenges in terms of working through land requirements to resolve issues relating to overlapping titles. I’d ask the minister if he could provide us with an update as to that initiative.
Hon. M. Rankin: Perhaps a bit of clarification for the question from the member. To which provision is he referring? Is he referring to treaty land entitlement? Is he referring to this agreement, or is he referring to other things? There are many things in the northeast going on. I just want clarification as to which he’s referring to.
M. Lee: I’m not referring to this agreement or the Pacific Northeast; I’m making a general comment. My understanding in terms of dealing with some of this initiative first…. This is the Crown land reconciliation initiative, as I understand it. I understand that that is a program between the two ministries.
Perhaps if there’s not a clear understanding about what I’m referring to, I can just ask the minister to generally comment on the current considerations around third-party interests, land transfers, compensation for land as we look at dealing with various assertions of land title claims from nations.
I understand there was a figure of 70,000 hectares that might be involved here. But if that doesn’t ring a bell, the minister can just respond by giving a general understanding as to what’s being considered, and then I will ask a second question as a follow-up.
Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for the clarification. I think it’s important that I say at the outset, when we now engage on the broader conversation about land, that the province has consistently and firmly been of the view that fee simple lands, privately held lands, will never be on the table except if there is a willing-buyer-willing-seller situation. I think that’s something that I need to say at the very outset.
Nevertheless, the province is committed to returning land in recognition of the inherent rights to self-determination and self-government, and we’re trying to find different negotiating paths to do that. We understand that the existing legislation, the Crown land legislation, if you will, is primarily involved in managing rather than transferring land.
Our systems — Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and the Ministry of Forests, which is responsible for Crown land programs — are simply not designed to deal with the transfer of land. They’re more designed, of course, for the management of land, which is what you would expect.
We are committed to trying to find better processes to return land where applicable. There’s a lot of work underway to deal with this. We’ve made strides since 2017 to get Crown land back to First Nations, having more than tripled our commitments in that regard.
I perhaps can wait for further questions from the member. He alluded to third-party interests, and, of course, those are very much at the fore, and how we address those is one of the challenges that, of course, such an exercise would entail.
M. Lee: In reference to third-party interests…. The minister recognizes I said those words, but, also, he did say that, generally speaking, the principle is it must be a willing buyer, willing seller. If that’s the case, then that obviously makes some constraints on the ability of the government to deal with some transfers of Crown land.
In circumstances where there is a willing buyer and willing seller, how is the compensation arrangement and assessment dealt with and considered by government?
Hon. M. Rankin: I’m pleased to recognize the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin in the House, because the illustrations I’m about to provide relate to his communities.
I indicated that we work on acquisition of private land if, and only if, a willing-buyer, willing-seller scenario occurs. I’m going to give two examples of where that’s been done. I start by saying, in each case, we seek an independent third-party market evaluation of the land before any compensation, any money, is exchanged.
The examples I provide are…. In 2020, the Xatśūll First Nation in the Cariboo was seeking a ranch that was critically important, they thought, to their future. And we, using the incremental treaty process, bought that land and, in effect, are holding it for that eventual day when the treaty would be finalized.
More recently, a few months ago, a very generous Ross Beaty — some of you in the House will know of that philanthropist and very much involved in conservation — actually acquired land from a company called the B.C. Cattle Company ranch.
The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and I were at a meeting, both virtually and in real time, at which he generously returned that because he became aware that the Canoe/Dog Creek First Nation was anxious to have that treaty land. It was the only way to get to a water body. It was part of their culture to try to get back access to the water. And through an enormous act of generosity — $16 million of generosity — that land was returned and made available to the First Nation. We had the benefit of attending a very uplifting ceremony where that occurred.
But those are two examples I can give the member of both how we proceed and where we proceeded on this willing-buyer, willing-seller basis.
M. Lee: Thank you for recognizing the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. Certainly, I’ve had much discussion with the member, including from other third-party holders of land in our province, recognizing the importance of how government works through some of these processes. Hopefully, that member will acknowledge that, with that discussion in hand, there’ll be further discussion with the minister responsible for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship by invitation in terms of some of the other stakeholder arrangements around land management and planning.
I will just turn to another topic here, which is the MOU between Canada, British Columbia and the Wet’suwet’en, February 29, 2020. I understand that we will have a discussion in this House on Bill 18 on the recognition of the Haida Nation and that there may be some follow-on discussion at committee stage at least where we could have a similar discussion. But I thought I would at least, with the time we have here, have some discussion with the minister.
I would hope the minister will appreciate — as we get into committee side on Haida Nation recognition, in that Bill 18 — that we’ll have a further opportunity to discuss some of these considerations.
With the Wet’suwet’en…. The desire that’s set out in the MOU was to have the governance…. Well, in sub 4(b), for example: “Clarity on the Wet’suwet’en governance structures, systems and laws, that will be ratified by the Wet’suwet’en and will be used to implement their title to the extent required to understand the interface between the Crown and Wet’suwet’en jurisdiction.”
What is the status at this time in terms of obtaining that level of clarity and bringing together what has been both hereditary and elected leaders within the Wet’suwet’en Indigenous community?
Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for raising a difficult and complicated issue — the issue involving the tripartite memorandum of understanding between the Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en, the federal government and the government of British Columbia. The member has asked about the status of that, and I can say to the member the MOU discussions have occurred, but only intermittently, since June of 2021. They’ve been impacted by COVID, of course, and federal elections and lack of engagement by the Chiefs at the negotiating table.
The key part of the work that’s going on is internal work within the Wet’suwet’en Nation family, and those internal negotiations are proceeding, we’re advised. We are hopeful that we can resume negotiations amongst the three parties in the near term.
M. Lee: I understand that there was a level of funding provided to support the work of the Wet’suwet’en under the MOU. Can the minister confirm the amount of that funding and what it has been put towards in terms of governance capacity building, for example?
Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for the question. I have said in this House previously that in 2021, the province provided $7.22 million to the Wet’suwet’en to support their work, under the tripartite MOU, to do work in expanding governance capacity, to engage in the unity-building exercises that I referred to earlier and, of course, to participate in negotiations to reconcile rights and title. Those are complicated negotiations that we hope to resume shortly, as I said previously.
The funds also support capacity for further work on Wet’suwet’en priorities. They’re very much involved in ecosystem monitoring, where we’ve had great work done together; landscape-level planning; and also enabling renovations to the Lake Kathlyn school property near Smithers, which the community bought with a grant we provided, of $1.23 million, in 2020. Meetings are continuing to occur. My deputy minister advises that he, in fact, will be going to Lake Kathlyn school later this month to address issues with the Wet’suwet’en.
The MOU is a government-to-government-to-government understanding that outlines the work that all the parties must do to advance reconciliation. One of the priority topics, clearly, is the development of Wet’suwet’en reunification, because we can only progress so far under the MOU. Unless we have the support of community leaders, that productive dialogue that could lead to lasting solutions cannot take place. We’re looking forward to hearing from the Wet’suwet’en on the status of their unity-building work under the MOU and how the funding has been allocated for those important purposes.
M. Lee: I appreciate the summary from the minister. As we look at the MOU terms themselves, in clause 1, under “Immediate,” it states that Canada and B.C. recognize that the Wet’suwet’en rights and title are held by the Wet’suwet’en houses under their system of governance.
Would the minister agree, when we look at this provision, that aboriginal rights and title is considered to be a communal right?
Hon. M. Rankin: I would agree with the member to the extent that the rights at issue — aboriginal rights, rights that are confirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 — are collective rights — not individual rights, collective rights. We’ve been working hard to engage community leaders to do the unfinished business of reconciling Wet’suwet’en law and provincial law and implementing the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa case, which is over a generation ago, I’m sad to say. It’s been 25 years since Chief Justice Lamer famously told us to get on with it and work together to negotiate a resolution.
Our government has taken on that hard work, and we are proud of that hard work. It is difficult, as I said, and we are committed to it. We are resolute in our determination to undertake rights and title negotiation at the table rather than in the courtroom, as the court admonished us to do. Indigenous self-determination is a key tenet of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. It is a key objective of the Declaration Act that everyone in this House stood and unanimously supported that day in late November 2019.
Doing this hard work will resolve issues on the land, conflicts of which we’re all aware, healing the community and benefiting everyone, Indigenous and non-Indigenous who live in that region.
M. Lee: I certainly appreciate the importance of the work and the long-standing nature of the need for the work. I am asking these questions, of course, to gain further clarity in this House as to the government’s approach to this recognition.
Before coming back to the use of the words “collective rights,” I know, in talking to other First Nation leaders, that the nature of this MOU and the recognition of rights and title in a fairly direct way is significant. Let me just go there for a moment, then, to ask this question. Are there other examples, by this government, for recognizing rights and title in such a straightforward manner in the context of an MOU with other nations in this province?
Hon. M. Rankin: I really appreciate the member’s question. There are so many examples, but I’d like to give two that I think are really critical, one very current and one ten years ago.
Ten years ago, in June 2014, the Tŝilhqot’in Nation, led by the Xeni Gwet’in and then and now Chief Roger William, went to the Supreme Court of Canada and had the court declare that they have Aboriginal title to what’s called the declared title area in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region. There are other Aboriginal rights beyond that, as the member knows, that were also confirmed by the court that day.
Over the last decade — literally, decade — the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia have tried to pour meaning into the court’s bald declaration of Aboriginal title. What does it mean? What does it mean to the forest industry? What does it mean to haying? What does it mean to so many other areas?
That process has involved subsequent negotiations predicated on the collective right of the Tŝilhqot’in, the title that the court declared, now ten years ago, in June of 2014. We’re looking forward to attending a celebration of the court case in June, in the Nemaiah Valley.
So much work has gone on in that period, and the lesson we have learned, the lesson we’re trying to apply in Wet’suwet’en is simply this. We can have a court tell us, or we can negotiate on the ground what it means, how to best implement that title for people of British Columbia.
That takes me to the second example, which is involving the Haida Nation. Just in the last few days, Bill 18, the Haida Nation Recognition Act, was introduced into this House for first reading and will be coming up for debate shortly. The Haida Nation has had a constitution for decades. They have had a Council of the Haida Nation, which has been their governing body representing the nation for years.
We think, based on that proud history of effective governance, that we are prepared to move forward, ideally to settle a lawsuit, and recognize such a thing as Aboriginal title, Haida title, in Haida Gwaii.
We do so because we know the experience that occurred in the Tŝilhqot’in context with Roger William’s successful litigation that I’ve just referenced. We believe and have sought to do the same with the Wet’suwet’en. We will try to do that elsewhere. We believe the court told us, in no uncertain terms, in Delgamuukw, to do this work. We are doing that work, and we are committed, proudly and resolutely, to achieve the results through negotiation rather than litigation.
M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s response. The minister should know that the purpose of my question is contextual. It’s to confirm my understanding and the reaction I have from other discussions with other First Nation leaders in this province.
I would think the first example the minister provided…. I do recognize, of course, that in the nature of nations having to go to court to validate their own title and rights…. The decision ten years ago that the minister referred to — I’ve had the opportunity to discuss that with Chief Roger William as well. I appreciate the significance of the decision.
My question was around government recognizing rights and title in a quick, short, succinct manner, as it does in paragraph 1 of this MOU.
I think, for the second example the minister provided, we will have more discussion on Bill 18. Hopefully, Mr. Chair, if you’re in the chair or your colleagues are in the chair, there will be some recognition of latitude. I’ve already noted that I’m trying to have the discussion here in estimates, but we’ll have it, as well, on Bill 18, to a certain degree.
The minister has provided an example there which I don’t believe is the same as what I’m asking. Let me just say this. It is significant. I have the feedback from nations that say: “Well, we would like to have the same recognition of rights and title in a simple one-liner.”
Keeping that in mind, and recognizing that the minister will refer to Delgamuukw and the court decision and other considerations — which were dynamic, to say the least — around the time this MOU was entered into…. “Dynamic” is not the best word for that, admittedly.
Let me just ask the minister. Recognizing, as well, that this is Canada recognizing the rights and title, what level of work would have gone into that to come to this assessment? I ask that question because…. Will other nations be able to have a similar, simple statement as well, to recognize their rights and title? I’m just trying to get a sense as to how the process worked to get to this statement to confirm rights and title for the Wet’suwet’en peoples here in this document.
Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member. He asked for examples of other places in which we have made recognition of First Nations rights in such a fashion. I thought I would give him another recent example, not an example that maybe is on the front page of papers but which is critically important to the nation affected. It’s the Gitanyow governance accord of 2021.
I’d like to read, if I may, what we said in article 1.2 of that agreement. The member can find it online. It’s a public document. Bear with me as I try to translate some of the words that are in there. “Canada and British Columbia recognize that Gitanyow Aboriginal rights and title are held by each wilp” — that is, house — “in that wilp’s lax’yip,” territory, “and that each wilp, through its Simogyet,” the Chief, “has authorities and responsibilities for that lax’yip,” territory, “in accordance with Gitanyow Ayookxw,” or laws.
A simple statement. The kind of statement the member asked whether it exists in other places. There’s a recent example that one can find on the ministry website. So we have made additional statements of that kind.
We can find similar statements in the Lake Babine Foundation Agreement. There are others across the way where we do this by negotiation. It’s centrally important to First Nations. It doesn’t perhaps draw the same kind of attention as in other places, but this is the kind of hard work that’s going on.
Now, of course, that governance accord doesn’t end with that simple one-sentence statement that I read. There are elaborate arrangements that are contemplated, government to government to government. But that’s the kind of work that we are proud to be undertaking in every corner of this province.
M. Lee: Well, thank you. I appreciate those examples. Certainly, I will share them with others as we go, because I think that’s important — to understand that the government continues to progress relationship in this good way. That’s my personal comment.
In terms of section 1, then, on the collective versus communal right discussion, just so I understand the minister’s distinction…. When the minister says it’s a collective right, does that suggest, then, that the hereditary leadership has authority or some level of…? I appreciate that this gets into the governance issue, but I just want to ask the minister in this way so he can articulate the challenge here.
When we talk about recognizing this as a collective right, what does that mean vis-à-vis the Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en versus some question as to whether they’re representing the collective community of the Wet’suwet’en peoples?
Hon. M. Rankin: The member asks about collective rights again, and I’d like to say that we believe, founded on constitutional principles, that Indigenous rights, also referred to as Aboriginal rights in the constitution, are the collective rights of distinctive Indigenous societies flowing from their status as the original peoples of Canada.
These rights are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which, of course, defines Aboriginal people to include First Nations, Métis and Inuit people. The UNDRIP, the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, further articulates the minimum standards, and we had considerable dialogue earlier today about what those standards entail.
The member refers to the MOU entered into by the governments of Canada, British Columbia and Wet’suwet’en. The statement at issue is: “Canada and B.C. recognize that Wet’suwet’en rights and title are held by Wet’suwet’en houses under their system of governance.” We are working precisely to define what that means in our negotiations.
M. Lee: In the end of the minister’s response…. I believe that is also spoken to in the first provision I referred to, which is seeking the clarity on the Wet’suwet’en governance structure, system and laws that will then be ratified by the Wet’suwet’en.
Recognizing there is work to be done around the governance; recognizing it is for the Wet’suwet’en peoples to determine that, not for government to determine…. There will be some level of ratification, though. That’s what’s intended by the language of the MOU, certainly from the government of Canada and British Columbia’s perspective.
Presumably, that ratification…. What is involved with that ratification will be determined as the governance negotiations progress and are finally concluded. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Rankin: I just want to say that I agree with the member’s characterization. I think he put it clearly. The Wet’suwet’en system of laws…. Under that system of laws, the ratification will occur.
As the member himself pointed out, it’s for the Wet’suwet’en to determine how best that can be done under their system of laws. Clause 4(b) of the MOU that we’re discussing speaks to the clarity of how that would occur; talks of the Wet’suwet’en governance structures, systems and laws; and ratification by the Wet’suwet’en under their system of laws that will be used to implement this talk of the Crown and Wet’suwet’en jurisdictions coming together in that way.
This is the work, I repeat, of the negotiations that we are hopeful to resume shortly. We very much want to get back and have the ability to conclude these important negotiations. These are historic negotiations. We were told by Chief Justice Lamer in the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa case to do this work. It took a generation for us to do it, but we’re doing it.
M. Lee: Just to confirm that Miles Richardson is still engaged to be an interlocutor that would help to facilitate some of the conversations amongst various levels of government, including with the Hereditary Chiefs and other involved parties. Is that the case, to confirm that?
Secondly, relating to 4(a), what level…? When we say transparency will be included here, does this extend to the general public, including neighbouring nations, as well as non-Indigenous communities?
Hon. M. Rankin: I think there were two parts to the member’s question, the first with reference to Miles Richardson. He was engaged in September 2021. He continues to be engaged as an interlocutor. We’re not directing him what to do. He’ll do what he wishes to best achieve resumption of dialogue. I should say that Miles Richardson — as the member, no doubt, is aware — is the former chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission, former president of the Council of the Haida Nation and a very respected Indigenous leader. For him to assist us, we were very grateful to secure his services at a difficult time. We hope that his good work will lead to productive results going forward.
The second part of the member’s question relates to clause 4(a) and transparency. I can assure the member that, as we do in all of our work across the province in negotiations with Indigenous peoples, we are very much alive to the need to ensure non-Indigenous people and, as the member suggests, other nations not directly engaged in our negotiations are apprised of our work. To that end, I’ve met Mayor Gladys Atrill of Smithers. I’ve met with the regional engagement group. I met with other community leaders in that part of the world, making sure they’re aware of the work as it progresses.
The transparency will, of course, become more clear once we have something more on the table to bring to their attention. There’s no sense in having discussions when the engagement is not taking place in a fulsome way. But we expect that to resume. We, of course, will continue to rely on the regional engagement group and others in the community to make sure that they’re well aware of our work.
M. Lee: Just to squeeze in some other additional questions here, just one more on this MOU. In clause 2(a), when we talk about “no impact on existing rights,” this presumably would exclude the existing approved natural gas rights-of-way like for LNG Canada. Presumably that’s the first confirmation in terms of existing rights-of-way.
Secondly, would it also exclude, in terms of no impact, an approved certificate for the Pacific Trail Pipelines?
Hon. M. Rankin: I think I can be clear on this answer. Clause 2(a), I think, speaks for itself. It says: “There will be no impact on existing rights and interests pertaining to land until jurisdiction is transferred to the Wet’suwet’en.”
M. Lee: Well, when the reference in 2(a) says “until jurisdiction is transferred,” that would suggest that those existing rights will then be impacted after that transfer occurs. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Rankin: I start by saying that this MOU is an understanding. It’s a government-to-government-to-government understanding. It really is not…. I suppose the member will be aware of the formality of the kinds of agreements that lawyers enter into. This is a one- or two-page document negotiated to begin to outline the work that everyone has to do to advance reconciliation work with the Wet’suwet’en.
I think, until that work is done, we have to sort out jurisdiction, have to sort out interests. I’d rather not parse this MOU the way an agreement might be parsed by a court of law. I would simply say that it outlines the work that needs to be done. This is of course a key part of that work, and until that work is undertaken, I think it would be inappropriate to try to parse it any further.
M. Lee: I appreciate and understand the minister’s response. Certainly, I would note 2(c) of the same MOU has wording which is MOU-type wording. “In some cases, the jurisdiction that is transferred to the Wet’suwet’en will be exclusive, and in some cases, it will be shared with Canada or B.C.”. “In some cases” is used in both references, so I do think that noting that clause in connection with the minister’s response, it’s to be determined. So I appreciate that response at this juncture.
Let me just go to two other quick topics, if I may. The relationship that is the focus with Indigenous nations in our province includes, of course, in terms of the minister’s focus, Métis Nation B.C. I have had the opportunity to talk to the Minister of Children and Family Development, both on the Bill 38 debate, at length, in committee stage on that bill, as well as in estimates just a few weeks ago.
I’m going to ask this as a combined question, but just note that I’ve had those discussions, and there has been a lengthy discussion between myself and the minister about the lack of recognition and inclusion of a specific definition, which is “Métis child.”
The minister has reasons for that, she explained. It’s partly federal, partly otherwise. But I want to just at least have the minister acknowledge that despite the fact that we have reconciliation and other framework agreements between this government and Métis Nation B.C., there seems to be some gap, let’s say, in terms of recognition of Métis children by this government in the course of a bill that gives self-government rights to Indigenous nations.
I make that point and invite the minister to make a comment, if he wishes, about that. The other point I wanted to raise, which I did not have the opportunity to raise with the Minister of Education, is that I understand that in terms of ongoing funding that’s provided by the government to support education initiatives for Métis Nation B.C., recognizing that they have over 98,000 registered members in province of B.C., that that annual amount is $50,000.
We know that the members of the Métis Nation B.C. are spread throughout the province, some regionally focused like in Quesnel, as the member for Cariboo North has introduced me to members of the local Métis community there. There are certainly other more consolidated community memberships for the Métis peoples, but they are also all over the province, so to speak.
In terms of support for educational initiatives, K to 12, could I ask the minister: recognizing the importance of the framework document with Métis Nation B.C., why is it that this government provides so little funding for education for Métis people and children?
Hon. M. Rankin: I’m glad that the member raised questions relating to the Métis Nation B.C. I had the distinct pleasure a couple months ago to go to Surrey and speak at the governance assembly of the Métis Nation B.C. I met with the senate of the Métis and had private conversations with that group as well — the wise Elders, if I can call it, of that community.
The member’s right. Métis Nation B.C. has a rigorous process of identifying who its members are, tracing them back to the Red River and to the origin story, if you will, back in Manitoba.
They are indeed, as the member correctly points out, some 90,000 strong across the province of British Columbia, particularly, I think, in the eastern part of the province, in the Kootenays and Cranbrook; but Quesnel and other places; and indeed, Surrey and everywhere else. They are here and we are working in a new relationship with the Métis.
We have a partnership that supports the Métis people and their efforts for self-determination. We have a whole-of-government approach. It’s a distinctions-based approach, to use the language of our action plan.
In late 2021, the province and Métis Nation B.C. signed a letter of intent. It’s an opportunity to phase out the previous agreement which we had, which was called the relationship accord. We’re working toward a more modern agreement together. We have a working table where officials are working together to increase our collaboration and accountability and cross-government engagement.
We’re developing shared priorities and reviewing current funding and future needs. There are many new and expanded programs from government available to Métis people — supports in child care, justice, digital connectivity and health care.
Specific questions on funding in the education context, of course, should not be directed to this minister but to the Minister of Education. And I think that relationship is one that is evolving in a very good way.
Noting the hour, I move the committee….
The Chair: We’re just going to hold on a second here, Members. We are finishing now, I believe. Unfortunately, we’ve run out of time for more questions. We do have a couple of other reports that we’ve got to give, so if you could move Vote 34.
Hon. M. Rankin: I will therefore move the vote, if I may.
Vote 34: ministry operations, $57,912,000 — approved.
Vote 35: treaty and other agreements funding, $116,159,000 — approved.
Vote 36: Declaration Act secretariat, $4,431,000 — approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:22 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., Monday, April 17.
The House adjourned at 5:23 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 1:04 p.m.
The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.
We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
On Vote 34: ministry operations, $57,912,000 (continued).
M. Lee: I just wanted to take this opportunity — I know that the minister has already had the opportunity — to provide greetings to our visitors in the gallery here: representatives, First Nation leaders with the Northern First Nations Alliance. I know that the minister has had updates and, in many ways, some good dialogue. They’ve had opportunities to meet with the Premier and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions as well. There are some further next steps as well.
Just to acknowledge that we had a fairly good exchange and dialogue during supplemental estimates, talking about the importance of their feasibility study and the initiatives and the considerations of the facilities, locations, that are available to them, securing those locations and then moving forward.
We had some significant discussion, as well, in terms of some of the accelerated funding, or funding that’s being provided and whether any of that could be made available to this particular effort. I understand that those discussions may well be ongoing.
This is partly with the 3Nations society, in terms of the service that they’re looking at in the northwest, locationally. I just ask, partly because we have the visitors in the gallery. I didn’t actually have any intention to raise it here at this juncture, other than a follow-up perhaps. So it does give me the opportunity to ask for a follow-up.
Between the two days of supplemental estimates, the minister did re-read the feasibility study and make good, positive comment about the scope and the depth of that work in the proposal. So I’d ask if the minister could please provide an update as to the current considerations of the proposal, including securing the sites that this alliance needs to do in order not to lose the opportunity that’s there in front of them while they continue to build out the funding capacity for the facilities they have in mind.
Hon. M. Rankin: I would like to welcome the representatives of the Northern First Nations Alliance who are here. I’ll recognize them, if I may, for the record: Linda Morven, Brenna Innis, Arthur Renwick, who is the chair, Charlotte Ellis and Jeannie Parnell. I’d like to make them all welcome to these proceedings today and thank them for their continuing advocacy.
I know the Premier had an opportunity to meet briefly with one of the representatives, and I know, as well, that today was a meeting with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I understand that those discussions are ongoing.
As the member indicated, I had the opportunity to read a very thoughtful and detailed feasibility study when this came up during the supplementary estimates process. I want to assure the member that our ministry will continue to support in the collaborative work going on, and I look forward to a debrief with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions as to next steps.
M. Lee: I appreciate, as we were discussing yesterday with the minister, the role of leadership the minister plays alongside, of course, the Premier in the nation-to-nation relationship with the nations that are represented here by the Northern First Nations Alliance. This is the second visit for many of these members and representatives — to come a fair distance. I do think that as we took the opportunity and the time to have a detailed dialogue and review as part of the supplemental estimates, it was really, in the context of this budgetary estimates now, another opportunity to consider how we continue to work with government to manage the priorities that need to be addressed.
Clearly, the minister will recall the tragic stories that I read into the record, including from one of the grandmothers, losing her granddaughters to addiction and how, through the lack of supports, it’s a challenge. We know, of course, that in the Terrace area, in the areas that my friend the member for Skeena represents as well, there needs to be greater accessibility to detox and wellness recovery centres. This is certainly an important area. It’s not a closed proposal. It’s an open proposal, meaning it’s open to other members of the communities in the North.
I know that the minister recognizes the importance of the study itself, but I do understand, as well, after the discussion I had with the Northern First Nation Alliance representatives, that time pressures are on, and that’s the reason why I understand or would expect they’re back here. They’re back here meeting, accepting the invitation of the minister from mental health and addiction recovery to meet.
I understand there’s some further follow-on, as the minister mentioned. I do urge the minister in his discussions with the colleagues, both the Premier and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, that the pressures of making sure they don’t lose the opportunities of the sites that are available to them at this current time. This is part of the reason why they’ve come to visit here in Victoria.
Maybe I’m just going to stop there and ask for a quick comment from the minister, because I know we have tight time here. But just to say: does the minister have any sense at this time, as far as the ongoing discussions that are occurring, whether there is any time frame in mind to get to a decision point so that this alliance can find the right levels of support they’re looking for?
Hon. M. Rankin: I’d like to underscore what my colleague across the way has said about the fact that the people he referenced, the alliance members that are here today, have travelled a great distance. I recognize and put on the record our recognition of the hard work that they’re doing in their community to address this tragic situation and try to find durable solutions to it.
I do recall the stories the member referenced from our debates on supplementary estimates. I can report to the member that I had the opportunity to meet, away from this place, with the mayor of Terrace, Sean Bujtas, and I can assure the member that topic was very much on our agenda.
I can also say we have a commitment under the action plan, which I’d like to read. It’s very much aligned with what the member is advocating — our action plan item 4.13, again, developed in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous leadership.
It says this: “We will increase the availability and accessibility of culturally safe substance use services, including through the renovation and construction of Indigenous-run treatment centres and the integration of land-based and traditional approaches to healing.”
That is a joint responsibility of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. As I’m sure the member is aware, there is $177 million in the current budget for Indigenous-led treatment and recovery operations. This is very much in line with that commitment.
M. Lee: In view of the minister’s response, I just have one more question and one more point to make.
Certainly, I do appreciate, as we’ve been discussing, the 89 DRIPA action plan items. Certainly, this one, as an example, 4.13, is an important one. But given the wording of what the minister read into the record, it is, as they say, all fours with the proposal and the feasibility study of this northern health alliance.
I talked about, during the supplemental estimates process, when we’re looking at the $75 million that the government chose to provide to selected First Nations under six separate existing agreements, given the focus of the DRIPA action plan and this particular item, 4.13, the recognition that, as the ministry reports out on all the initiatives that government has done with First Nations in this province, it really seemed to myself and the member for Skeena that this $21 million shovel-ready project was ideally situated in the current mandate, the current time frames, obviously recognizing the real needs of the community, the families, the children and the grandparents.
This is why I would have expected government to act. And I know that members of the northern health alliance are looking for government to respond in an appropriate, timely way, because they are losing a potential opportunity to maintain the site that they really believe in, and this is spoken to in the feasibility study.
Again, just one other quick question. Can the minister give us a better sense of the understanding — first, that the government understands the urgency and, secondly, in terms of the timing, recognizing again 4.13, that this project, this proposal which has been the subject of a very well-put-together feasibility study, is ready to go?
I would hope that what’s happening with the next steps is the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is focusing on how to get this done. I’d just like to get that further sense from the minister.
Hon. M. Rankin: I just want to start by acknowledging and respecting the member’s advocacy for this project. He undertook that in the supplementary estimates process. I’m pleased that we’re talking about this issue again.
There is a sense of urgency. The government does recognize that. I think there’s $177 million earmarked for this realm of issues of which this is an example. It demonstrates the government’s recognition of that and the sense of urgency that it deserves.
I can only reiterate that the meeting with the minister responsible, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, took place over lunch. We’re now a little after lunch. You can understand I have not had an opportunity to sit down with her and be debriefed on the conversation and her thoughts. I will, of course, undertake to do that.
M. Lee: I appreciate that response, and hopefully, representatives here appreciate the willingness of the minister, as well, to communicate that response. That doesn’t mean we’re going to take a break so that the minister can go talk to his colleague just yet, because I have the time that I have left. So hold on to your seats.
That was a constructive discussion, and hopefully, it’s the next step as we continue to help navigate through various ministries with various First Nation partners.
Before the break, we had a discussion. The minister was referring to article 19 and parsing through, as they say, examples of how government has implemented or approached FPIC, free, prior and informed consent. He referred to Bill 38, the children and family services act, the Adoption Act work in section 7 Tahltan.
I will have an opportunity, I hope, to indeed talk about section 7 agreements under DRIPA and the Tahltan agreement in the larger context around agreements with nations and MOUs. There is a set of questions there that will come, including Blueberry, Treaty 8, Wet’suwet’en and the like. I don’t think that would be a surprise for the minister in terms of where I would go with that.
I just want to say in the context of article 19 and the minister’s response, my sense that I wanted to confirm from the minister is that it’s consistent. The mere fact that the minister cited specific examples of where FPIC is being utilized…. Obviously, we understand that government as a whole recognizes the importance of FPIC, and that is generally understood.
That’s generally all of the early consultation involvement. I know the minister could go on at length about what that is and how government operates. I’m not asking for that, because I recognize and acknowledge that.
What I’m referring to, though, is: is the minister intending, by giving specific examples of how FPIC has been followed…? Does that mean governments, in those particular areas, are saying to nations: “We are very clear about the approach we utilize, and here are some examples as to where it’s been utilized, but it’s defined here”?
If it’s not specific to those instances, then we know we take, again, article 19 as part of a general obligation under DRIPA, which is a holistic understanding. Again, if the minister follows my question, I’m basically asking for a distinction between the holistic approach and the specific reference to how FPIC is utilized.
Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question, again, on article 19, which we dealt with before lunch. I’d just remind the member that the wording of the section is critically important, that states have an obligation. They must — they shall — consult and cooperate in good faith in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent.
The onus is on the state to do that deep consultation in good faith, which is something that hasn’t always been part of our history, I’m sad to say, but which now is an obligation that, I believe, not only is found in the declaration section I read but also is part of our section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, responsibilities that our government and Canada and all the provincial and territorial governments must also meet.
To the member’s question about interpretation, it is our belief that the spirit of the article that I read, article 19, infuses our approach to everything we do in British Columbia with Indigenous peoples. There’s an enormous range of supports with respect to economic consultation, rights and title, land management, a variety of measures — from treaty to comprehensive reconciliation agreements to any number of things across the landscape that we are working on to meet our obligations under article 19.
Indeed, that obligation predates article 19. The member will know that the Environmental Assessment Act has similar language that predates the Declaration Act becoming the law of British Columbia. So we have a variety of legislation, including the one I mentioned, as well as policies that underscore this commitment as we work to the co-management of the land base in our province.
M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s response. I’m just going to continue to move forward here. There are so many issues and considerations, of course, that we can cover. I’m selecting particular items, with the time that we have.
I wanted to certainly acknowledge the exchange of letters that the minister and I had since the last estimates last year. On July 6, 2022, I wrote to the minister a letter regarding the clarification into…. The re: line was: “Clarification on approach on section 7 agreements under DRIPA.” The minister responded in a letter November 7, 2022, to my points that I raised in the letter. I certainly acknowledge the minister’s response.
The letter that I wrote back in July was written between myself in my capacity as critic and the minister. It was intended, if the minister can appreciate…. The purpose of the letter was to highlight, let’s say, the understanding that we had in the official opposition in reviewing section 7 of DRIPA. And getting clarification, particularly because the Tahltan agreement, which includes the Declaration Act consent decision-making agreement for the Eskay Creek project, is an important agreement that the minister has referred to throughout this discussion, including in respect of implementing the spirit of article 19.
I just ask the minister…. As we look at the point that was made in his letter back to me that, for example…. When there was an expectation, for example, that section 7 agreements would require consequential amendments, the point that was made, of course, was: well that wasn’t necessary here because the Environmental Assessment Act 2018, the amendments that were made to the act, already considered the requirements around this level of consent.
I would like to, with that in mind, spend a few moments here discussing with the minister that particular…. Again, recognizing the minister is not the Minister of Environment. I recognize that. But I do think, given the nature of the cross-section of agreements we’re talking about — we’re talking about UNDRIP; we’re talking about the section 7 agreement; we’re talking about the application of getting to consent on the Environmental Assessment Act.
I do think the decision-making agreement is instructive, as to saying to a First Nation…. Here we have the Tahltan Nation, the Tahltan Central Government on behalf of the Tahltan Nation, agreeing to this consent decision-making agreement. I would expect that this helps provide some clarity to other nations and other proponents, parties, that are working through the consent process under the Environmental Assessment Act.
So I’d ask: what are the sorts of learnings from this decision-making agreement that’s there? Recognizing how we define consent in the absence of a decision-making agreement like this, which clearly spells out the process, the milestones, and provides that level of clarity. In the absence of a section 7 agreement like this, what guidance and what understanding does the minister have in terms of some of the challenges to get definition around working to consent under the Environmental Assessment Act?
Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for referencing our correspondence regarding section 7. It’s a cornerstone of, as I said, the way in which we believe that the article in the Declaration Act that addresses free, prior and informed consent is being addressed in our government in a very robust way. I’m proud of the fact that the federal government did not see fit to go as far as we have. We’re working on it — in examples I could provide, where — we are actually implementing it. That’s the stage we’re at now with the Tahltan, as the member knows.
I think, just to set the stage, the sections 6 and 7 of the Declaration Act deal with shared decision-making agreements, providing statutory decision-making for First Nations. So the mechanisms in sections 6 and 7 of the Declaration Act allow for the negotiation, as the member knows, of joint- and consent-based decision-making agreements with Indigenous governing bodies, the Tahltan central government being one of those Indigenous governing bodies.
So that is why in June 2022 we signed the first consent-based agreement under section 7 in history and began negotiating the actual decision-making agreement with the shíshálh Nation in August 2022, dealing with docks, in that case. Assessment of a gold mine, in one case; dock management, in another, which is centrally important to the coastal nation, the shíshálh First Nation.
We’re committed to continuing this work to bring about more of these kinds of agreements in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples. The values, the principles, the learnings — to use the member’s words — that are at the fore, I think, are predictability, accountability and transparency. Those are the values. Those are the principles.
Those values suffuse, also, the Environmental Assessment Act, which the member referred to, which contains the kind of language that’s found in section 7, which came later.
Whether there are joint decision-making agreements or consent-based agreements under the sections, it’s all about addressing the legacy of colonialism and allowing the province to work shoulder to shoulder with Indigenous peoples on decisions that affect them.
We’re at the implementation stage now on a couple of these agreements. We’re working hard, but one of the learnings, to use again the member’s word, that I think is important is the need to emphasize the word “informed” in “free, prior and informed consent.” Getting the information that we agree is centrally important before the decision is made, agreeing on the way in which the information is collated, making sure we’re talking apples to apples, not apples to oranges — that gives us a unique opportunity in collaboration to avoid some of the unnecessary conflict that has marked our relationship in the past.
All of that supports a very robust decision-making process. That’s the hard work we are doing now. That’s the implementation of section 7. I couldn’t be prouder of how all of government is leaning into that in so many different areas.
M. Lee: Appreciate the response from the minister. Because he mentioned it, I’d just like, to the extent it’s appropriate at the committee stage here, to ask for an update on the status of the agreements coming forward with the shíshálh Nation in terms of the dock management matter.
Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for the opportunity to update this House on the important work going on in the shíshálh territory, what they call the swiya.
I can tell the member that we are building on excellent work that was done by Barry Penner, whom the member may know, a former student of mine at law school and former member of this place. He was commissioned by a former government to do an excellent report which he produced on dock management, a dock management plan for the area, and created, I think, a very useful decision-making framework that we’re building on.
What’s going on at the table, I can assure the member, is essentially the implementation of the work that Mr. Penner did. The logical next step is to kind of bring it to a close in a robust section 7 agreement. That’s the work that’s going on.
Our efforts, as you would know, of course, are to engage not just the shíshálh people but the users, the community at large, to ensure that they understand the merits of this. Again, I commend Barry Penner for getting us to the place where this important work can be concluded.
M. Lee: I appreciate the mention of a former colleague of ours in the House. He was the MLA for Chilliwack-Hope for 16 years and the former Minister of Environment, certainly, and Minister for, as it was termed then, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I think some of our members would have seen Barry in the House recently, actually. He was around. So thanks for that.
Just back to the Tahltan agreement, though. Certainly, predictability, accountability and transparency, as the minister says, are in the agreement, and it’s an important element under the Environmental Assessment Act itself.
When we talk about other nations working through the Environmental Assessment Act, though, to get to consent, I appreciate the importance of information and informed consent. Let’s focus on that first.
In terms of, again, learnings that the minister understands from his colleagues as to how these processes are working, even with the environmental assessment — which, as we all know, is an important fundamental step as we continue on many of these projects — how is that being defined, in terms of informed consent, ensuring that the knowledge base, the information, the data points between all parties, including the nations involved, are having a clear understanding as to the impacts on their territories and other considerations?
How is that information being defined in an apples-to-apples way, as the minister said? As importantly, when is the test of informed consent met?
Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for asking further questions about the section 7 Tahltan agreement, the first one that has been achieved. The member may have been present. I cannot recall. But on June 6 of last year, Chad Day, president of the Tahltan Central Government, former Premier Horgan and myself signed here in Victoria the agreement called the Declaration Act consent decision-making agreement for the Eskay Creek project.
The company involved is Skeena Resources, and their representatives were on hand and very proud and pleased, as well, to be part of this exercise.
That agreement is on the website, as it is required to be under the Declaration Act, by the way. It’s a public document. The member may have had a chance to read it. Part 5 talks about the role of the proponent to provide information to meet certain standards, not unlike those we’ve referred to: predictability, accountability and transparency. Transparency is writ large through the agreement.
Of course, we, the government of British Columbia, had a statutory obligation to meet and work closely with a number of listed individuals and organizations, local governments, other companies, other First Nations — all articulated in the act. And that’s what we did. That is also part of the process that is before us.
Part 7 of the agreement talks about the assessment processes and provides a lot of specificity as to just how this environmental assessment would go forward. Finally, part 8 — it’s not the end of the agreement but the last part I wanted to focus on — is an elaboration on what the decision-making process under the agreement would be.
So I think the agreement is a model of transparency. I think it’s a model of clarity. It has attracted the support of Skeena Resources, who’ve been an extraordinary partner throughout this entire process, and has led to interest in other agreements that other mining companies are currently engaged in negotiating with Tahltan.
M. Lee: To the minister, I appreciate the response, and I’ve had the opportunity, certainly, to talk to members of the Skeena Resources team, one of whom has been a constituent in my riding of Vancouver-Langara. So I certainly do appreciate the work that they’re doing with the Tahltan Nation.
The agreement itself, as the minister describes, does set out, in fair detail, elements around the role of the proponent, as the minister mentioned, but also environmental assessment and the assessment process. When I look at the assessment process, for example, I recognize that I was speaking to informed consent. I was speaking to what the test might be. The minister responded in the manner that he did.
I will, next, take another example, though, because there is specificity here, which is to the extent that consent, I’m sure, is based on risk. That’s a component of consent, I would expect.
We have section 7.37 and 7.38. So 7.38 sets out what will be a risk assessment for the Tahltan. They refer to the Tahltan risk assessment factors, which is set out again in detail on schedule C, 18 risk factors; “Tahltan Knowledge,” which is set out in a fairly detailed definition at the front of the agreement, which is about 13 clauses long and refers to other elements as to how it builds consensus and community engagement taken by the Tahltan Central Government, for example.
In the absence of an agreement like this…? Again, as the minister has picked up on the word that I’ve been using about learnings, I’m very focused on understanding, as other proponents and nations work through the environmental assessment process.
In the absence of an agreement like this, are these the kinds of factors that are being deployed, to the minister’s knowledge and understanding, by other ministry staff here in the Environment Ministry — as to determining and assisting or working with proponents and the nations involved themselves as to helping define what free, prior and informed consent will look like, and when all parties will know that they’ve satisfied that requirement to get to consent?
Hon. M. Rankin: I would say that the word “template” is not appropriate in these circumstances. I would say that the risk factors that are listed in the Tahltan agreement are of course pertinent to the Tahltan and what their aspirations and concerns were on that project.
They’ll be very different — and are, I’m sure, going to be very different — when the final agreement with the Tseshaht is produced, because of course, it’s a different sort of project. So it would be very hard to find a template. Indeed, free, prior and informed consent isn’t only achieved through section 7.
We are engaged in so many different agreements across the province. I referenced one before lunch, which was the Blackwater mine, where the two Indigenous nations at issue in the territory managed to achieve that support, that level of consent, in a totally different manner without the need of a section 7 agreement. So I would suggest that it’s much more nuanced than the notion of a template that the member has alluded to a moment ago.
M. Lee: Perhaps, not to get too distracted by the use of that word, if I look at the risk assessment factors. They would typically deal with areas relating to high sensitivity, environmentally sensitive areas, within the territory; quality or quantity of groundwater; consideration of sacred areas; important habitat areas; ecosystems or species of importance to the nation; harvesting areas; archaeological sites, burial sites, certainly; historical village sites.
These are the kinds of factors that are listed under consideration. I would expect that these would be the same sorts of factors not to be comprehensive or conclusive, recognizing that as the minister has said, each nation is distinct on their territory. Certainly, I’m just trying to get to an understanding as to whether there is a clear understanding as to the nature of the factors that need to be considered when we’re talking about consent — at least in the sense of the Environmental Assessment Act.
I appreciate that not all paths to that consent under that act go through section 7, certainly, because otherwise, we’d be even more challenged with getting there. But I would just say that the range of factors that is expressed in the Tahltan agreement….
I’m asking the minister: is that not some level of clarity as to the sets of factors that ought to be considered between a nation and other proponents as they come forward to try and manage through the consent requirement under the Environmental Assessment Act?
Hon. M. Rankin: I think I would say that the principles would be the same in the agreements such as the one that we’re negotiating currently with the shíshálh under section 7: predictability, accountability, transparency, administrative fairness. Those principles will be the same. The risk factors may overlap. But I would suggest that it’s a negotiation, and what is important to one nation, as the member himself referenced, is not necessarily what’s important to another. But I suspect there would be a great deal of overlap.
I would summarize by saying that the principles we expect to be — we will insist will be — the same, but the factors will be different nation to nation, with the possibility of overlap in certain circumstances.
M. Lee: I appreciate the distinction the minister has made. That is a distinction that is underlined by…. When I review his letter again, the statement that was made was: “The Tahltan recognize the importance of transparency for the proponent on the processes and the factors that go into the decision.”
Again, if we just look at the importance of the principle of transparency, which both the minister and I have agreement and recognition about the importance of…. Would the minister comment, then, on the importance of ensuring there’s transparency at the beginning of a process, as the parties sit down — to understand the pathway to get to consent and the factors that are important to the nation?
Again, outside of a section 7 agreement, but when we’re just talking about working through consent in other contexts, including the Environmental Assessment Act, is that a general understanding as to how to get to consent? Is it to have that level of transparency?
Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you very much. Maybe I will speak to the Environmental Assessment Act, as the member references, in a moment.
Section 7 of the Declaration Act itself, I think, puts a statutory mandate on us, as government, to achieve a certain level of transparency when it says in subsection 7(3) that within 15 days after the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council “authorizes the member to negotiate an agreement under subsection (1), the member must make public a summary of the local governments and other persons the member intends to consult before or during the negotiations.” So there’s a certain requirement that must be achieved by anyone — any member of the executive council, minister — who is about to engage on one of these negotiations to make sure that the public knows exactly who they are intending to consult with.
The next part of section 7 builds in more transparency in saying that any agreement that is achieved, like the one I referenced a moment ago with the Tahltan, must be published in the B.C. Gazette and is not effective until the agreement is published in the Gazette or at some later date specified in the agreement. So the scheme of the statute itself requires transparency at the beginning. The member asked about what happens at the beginning.
The pathway to achieve consent is then something that is reflected, as well, in section 19(1) of the new Environmental Assessment Act, which contemplates a process order, working with the proponent, aimed at achieving that consent. Requirements are imposed upon the environmental assessment office to work with neighbouring nations, to work with others, to achieve the level of transparency that we’re talking about.
I think the statutory guarantees in both statutes should give the member some comfort that, although processes will be different, that principle of transparency is reflected.
M. Lee: The reference that the minister makes to section 19 of the Environmental Assessment Act…. I appreciate that we are in that nexus, let’s say, when we’re talking about environmental assessment and the importance, fundamentally, of Indigenous nations’ consent for the project and to get to that path to consent.
The processes that are set out in this section, for example, that the minister refers to…. What I’m doing here is to just use an example, and I don’t mean to only limit my question to section 7 agreements. If we put section 7 agreements aside, we’re just talking about other processes that don’t involve the section 7 agreements, because they don’t reach that stage. The minister mentioned Blackwater, for example, with the local nations there.
The kind of processes that are set out in section 19 would have the same level of transparency around factors that the nation considers important. Those factors would be determined and provided up front, at the beginning of the process, so that all parties that are working through this process, including in section 19, would have a clear understanding as to the factors that are important to the nation and to what degree meeting the risk assessment, or other assessments that are necessary to ensure that the nation will ultimately be satisfied on the terms, information or otherwise — that they will provide their consent.
That is what I’m asking about — what that process looks like at the front end and the nature of disclosure and transparency around the factors that are important to the nation.
Hon. M. Rankin: I’m not able to read into the record section 19 of the Environmental Assessment Act. I’m happy to do so. It sets out very clearly the scope of the required assessment, the information requirements. It’s a very detailed section of a statute administered under the authority of another minister.
I believe the member should take comfort from the clarity and the kinds of requirements that are specified, statutorily required for any proponent who wishes to engage in an EA process and engage with the neighbours, as they must, the Indigenous peoples in the area of the project concerned. I think those requirements that will also be elaborated on by regulation, and so on, should be sufficient for the member’s purposes here today, but I’m happy to continue the dialogue on that statute if he wishes.
M. Lee: We’re likely just speaking about the practicality and what is happening in the so-called field as other proponents work through, with nations, this process that’s set out in the Environmental Assessment Act. I understand the minister’s response. Another way of coming at this discussion, though, I think, is around…. I would expect the minister is generally aware of the capacity constraints and limitations of nations to get through an environmental assessment process, for example, or any other degrees in which they’re being consulted.
If I could ask the minister to comment on the complexities of the environmental assessment processes nations…. Some nations, of course, have a significant degree of experience in looking at mining activities, as the Tahltan Central Government has, for example. But other nations may not have had as much depth of experience, given the nature of their composition or their history within the region through generations.
Having said that, what is the understanding of government in terms of the challenges of nations having to meet the requirements and whether that’s leading to much strain on the government structures for nations but also in terms of the resourcing, having the resources, the funding available to fund, whether it’s external consultants or otherwise that nations might employ, on a contract basis or otherwise, to help get through the assessment process? What does that current challenge look like for the minister in his understanding of how nations are working through various processes to get to consent?
Hon. M. Rankin: Yes. The member has identified an issue that is obviously a very important one. He points out, I think correctly, that some First Nations have enormous internal capacity or history of working with consultants who do this difficult work on environmental assessment. Others are much less able to participate effectively.
That is why often the proponents of these projects provide direct funding in recognition of the need to have a robust engagement with their neighbours as they consider a project in the territory of a particular nation or nations. There’s funding very often available from the proponent. The environmental assessment office itself has funding for participating nations, and that is frequently made available, where requested, in order to address the important issue the member alludes to.
I can say that the need for resources, though, has been brought to the attention of our government as a challenge, and we are committed to doing better about that. We recognize the member is absolutely right to note this concern, so we’re developing a meaningful process with Indigenous peoples, because we recognize more resources are often going to be required, and we want to make sure that the participants, the participating Indigenous peoples, have the resources they need to do so.
The Premier has, himself, been very clear on this topic. I quoted him yesterday. I’d like to do so again. He said: “Our government knows that First Nations governments have responsibilities and authority and jurisdiction for their land and people, and as a First Nation government, they need resources to be able to do that work.” We accept that.
M. Lee: Well, I think what I’ll do is come back to that discussion, but I wanted to note it in the context of environmental assessment and this context.
One other point that I would just draw from the Tahltan agreement is recognition of cumulative impacts. There’s a mention in the agreement itself relating to coming up with…. Section 4.5(b): “…developing a cumulative effects methodology that will identify and consider cumulative effects relevant to the Project.” We know, of course, that that is an important consideration in terms of the impacts of economic activity on territories for nation and lands. What is the expectation of the minister in terms of when we’re including provisions like this that are considering cumulative effects methodology?
Of course, I will next turn to the Blueberry and Treaty 8 set of agreements. But just in the context of the Tahltan, and recognizing the utilization of focus by this government on cumulative effects, can the minister first just generally describe what is intended by that provision? What’s the expectation to come from that?
Secondly, is this a provision that is being deployed across agreements? What’s the intended scope of that?
Hon. M. Rankin: The member is absolutely correct. Section 4.5(b) of the agreement with the Tahltan requires the development of cumulative effects methodology. I think this is consistent with other aspects of the agreement, which talk about Tahltan knowledge, traditional knowledge. That everything is connected to everything is certainly fundamental to the world view of the Tahltan and so many other Indigenous peoples, so cumulative effects is nothing new to Indigenous people.
I must say it’s only in recent years that cumulative effects have been part of modern environmental assessment methodology. So it’s both Tahltan knowledge and our recognition as governments that cumulative effects are part of environmental assessments.
I suppose, just to get to an example that might be relevant to the member: if this mine proceeds, there’ll be increased traffic on Highway 37 as ore is taken to port at Stewart. As a consequence of that, there’s a fear that there will be more moose mortality with road accidents occurring. What is the impact on those who depend on moose for a primary source of food, for example? That’s just one example of why a First Nation — in this case, the Tahltan — would be interested in having the cumulative impacts assessed in the work that’s going forward.
I think this agreement will accelerate our joint work to assess and manage impacts on First Nations and to heal the land, as we call it in the Blueberry context, and find a new path forward for First Nation resource management in their traditional territories.
M. Lee: But just to understand, though — I appreciate the specific example the minister provided — we’re talking about the overall cumulative effects methodology that would be applied, the cumulative effects relevant to the project.
There’s a technical understanding of the length of the mining project, the impact on the mining activity, the impact on groundwater, presumably, and any waste material that’s provided or produced from the mining activity, and the reclamation plan of the project. These are just examples of the kinds of considerations I would expect that are part of this.
Now, this is also risk assessment. But in terms of cumulative effects, that is…. I appreciate again that the minister can draw upon his team’s experiences from negotiating the Blueberry and Treaty 8 set of agreements.
Again, there are lots of learnings here to go around. I’m just trying to understand, though, as we go forward, in terms of expectations between government and the nation and the parties involved, as to what the end state is and the ability — again, Tahltan Central Government has lots of depth of experience and is well-advised, I’m sure — and capacity of another nation, let’s say, to be able to do this assessment.
What is expected, and who determines whether that’s a satisfactory end assessment, in terms of cumulative effects?
Hon. M. Rankin: The member provided, I think, examples — I would agree with all of them — of what are typical effects, environmental side effects from projects. Groundwater was a great example. There were others that he mentioned that are typically at the fore.
At the beginning of the dialogue that a proponent or the government would have with the nation, there would be an identification of the interests and values that they have, with respect to their title lands. That is what, at the beginning of that dialogue, increasingly — I would say not historically but increasingly — cumulative effects are at the fore. We certainly learned that in Blueberry. It took a Supreme Court of British Columbia judgment to make that clear to all concerned.
Elsewhere in the world, cumulative effects has become part of modern thinking about environmental assessment. First Nations and their advisers in conversations with proponents and government would, no doubt, be increasingly aware of cumulative effects as the science evolves, as our understanding evolves and as the traditional knowledge, as always, dictated.
We think this is likely to be a core principle, going forward, without, of course, suggesting it would always be the case, because every project is different. Some are more straightforward in their predicted impacts than others.
M. Lee: Just to make a response statement, not to suggest there’s another question. Just to say that, again, predictability was certainly a principle that was mentioned and referred to in the letter back to me in November 2022, around the Tahltan agreement. My questions are really around that, in part, in terms of having a clear understanding as to how parties understand and how they’ll work through this cumulative effects methodology expectation.
I would just turn my next line of questioning to the Blueberry agreement. Obviously, there’s been at least three briefings that I’ve had on this agreement with the minister’s team.
Under section 10.1 of the agreement relating healing of the land and the people — the minister just referred to the importance of healing, certainly in restoration — the provision leads off by stating that the parties to the agreement shall establish the BRFN-B.C. restoration fund on or before March 31, 2023.
Can I ask the minister for an update on the establishment of that fund minister?
Hon. M. Rankin: Yes, I can confirm that the fund has been established.
M. Lee: Just in terms of the nature of the fund itself, could the minister provide a general overview as to how the fund is comprised in terms of the governance of that fund?
Hon. M. Rankin: Thanks to the member for the question about the restoration fund. Blueberry River First Nations and British Columbia have established that restoration fund with joint oversight and Indigenous-led delivery. There will be moneys put into the agreement by the end of 2025, a significant number of dollars, of course.
First payment on that has been made before March 31 of this year. The fund is soon to get up and running, and the governance arrangements are being finalized, but there’ll be a core staff and governance policies will be put in place. They will be approved. They will have the authority to approve restoration plans and proposals as they go forward.
M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister and the update. As I look back at the agreement itself around the fund, there is reference to, under 10.2, requirements around governance, “including clear policies on accountability and transparency that will be developed jointly through those appointed by the parties to form the joint board structure of the BRFN Restoration Society.” I appreciate the minister’s response in terms of funding and status of the formation of the society and board, which sounds like it’s still in progress.
The section goes on to say — I’m just taking this as an example, because I’m reading the provision; I’m just looking at the drafting here: “The parties further agree and will ensure, in the policies developed to guide the restoration society, that all moneys provided…are to be incremental existing to obligations, not duplicate.” What level of oversight will the government have of the governance policies of the society?
Hon. M. Rankin: The member asked about the level of oversight and governance arrangements. I’m pleased to announce that the society was incorporated. The Blueberry River First Nation Restoration Society was recently finalized and legally created. The details, I think, will be announced in a formal way in the days and weeks to come, but I can tell the member that the fund will be jointly managed and governed by the First Nation and by the government of British Columbia.
M. Lee: I understand the Blueberry River First Nations, like other nations, have had their own journey, let’s say, in terms of governance. As we come forward through the significance of this agreement, is there any need the government sees to provide any supports for the governance activities of the Blueberry River First Nations as they meet the provisions of this agreement?
Hon. M. Rankin: The member refers to governance arrangements and the journey that the Blueberry River First Nations have been on. I can say that the agreement has significant capacity funding to support governance — as a key component, for sure, of any effective agreement is its governance arrangements.
As to the governance with respect to the particular First Nation — in this case, the Blueberry River — I would, of course, be reluctant to speak on behalf of that nation. I would invite the member to ask the nation to speak for itself.
M. Lee: Yeah, I was obviously just referring to the level of support by government.
In terms of the complexity of the arrangement that’s been entered into with the nation, I understand that they had legal counsel in North Vancouver. The negotiating team for government…. Can the minister just describe the composition of the negotiating team on behalf of government and where they were situated?
Hon. M. Rankin: I would confirm for the member that of course it’s true. The Blueberry River First Nations under then Chief Yahey chose to seek a judicial review, which was the subject, as the member well knows, of a very lengthy and complex judgment.
We as government were faced with the choice of whether to appeal that judgment or not. I had many members on the opposite side, the member’s party, telling me that we should appeal immediately. We chose a better route, I think — a route that was successful in achieving a resolution. I’m very proud of the government team.
The member asks who was involved in that successful negotiation. I think it’s fair to say the Land, Water and Resource Stewardship ministry was the lead ministry. In terms of support, our ministry led the negotiations. I say plural “negotiations” because there were two tables. There was the Blueberry River First Nation, the successful litigant, with one table. And I went up and had the opportunity to meet with all the other First Nations, along with my colleague, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
We met in a big room in Fort St. John with all of the other nations and asked them to trust us to enter a negotiation that would achieve the results that so many of us are proud of today. So there were two sets of negotiations that ensued.
Now, the ministries that were involved. I mentioned Land, Water and Resource Stewardship as the lead. The Ministry of Forests, because there’s an enormous amount of forest activity that involved restoration of the land, etc., as the member knows. They were integrally involved. The Ministry of Environment. Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. The B.C. Energy Regulator. And the Environmental Assessment Office was tangentially involved as well.
So I would call this an example of team government at its best, working as one team over a period of about 18 months in difficult negotiations at two separate tables, achieving a complicated agreement that puts us on a footing to a better future in the northeast.
M. Lee: Thank you for that response. The definition of “claim area” on page 9 of the agreement — could the minister just walk us through how that claim area was identified?
Hon. M. Rankin: The claim area on page 9 that the member references was the claim area that the litigants identified in the Yahey decision, and that was accepted by the court. That is the basis of the document on page 9.
M. Lee: Just something…. We established that the other consensus agreements that are entered into with certain Treaty 8 Nations, and others to follow…. Are there considerations that the government is needing to address in terms of any overlapping claim assertions?
Hon. M. Rankin: Madam Chair, if I may, at the end of this answer, beg your indulgence to have a break for my team, that would be much appreciated.
The member will know that in the agreement, there are specific measures set out to address the need for collaboration amongst First Nations in specific areas because there is indeed a perennial issue of overlap. It’s particularly acute in Treaty 8 because all Treaty 8 Nations share Treaty 8 territory. Some areas, obviously, are more essentially important to the Blueberry than they might be to the Doig, than they might be to the Halfway, than to the West Moberly, etc.
That is true, but they’re all Treaty 8 Nations, and they all share the Treaty 8 territory, and there’s always been overlap in areas that the different nations have used to practise their treaty rights. So where these areas of overlap occur, including Blueberry River, the nations will have to work together to form agreements on how to better craft a balance of responsible resource development and treaty rights that are to be protected in these areas.
There are some measures in the five agreements signed with the Treaty 8 Nations to continue to work together in those areas. And as I said at the outset, this issue is a perennial one, particularly in Treaty 8 territory, historically.
With that, I request a break.
The Chair: This committee will stand in recess for ten minutes and resume exactly at three o’clock.
The committee recessed from 2:48 p.m. to 3:02 p.m.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order.
Recognizing the member from Vancouver-Langara.
M. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the prompt there.
In terms of the other nations, the Treaty 8 Nations, that have signed revenue-sharing agreements and letter agreements…. In mid-January, January 18, I had a briefing on those agreements. But just to come back at that in light of the statement that the minister made just before the break….
In terms of the overlapping claims, I appreciate the jurisdictional nature of Treaty 8. Can the minister just walk through how…? What’s the expectation of government as to how the nations, the Treaty 8 Nations themselves, will cooperate with each other in terms of managing through the impacts that have been addressed partly through the restoration fund and other limitations on economic activity, in terms of the disturbance in the lands at service from oil and gas activities and the like? What’s the expectation of government for the nations themselves to sort through that level of coordination and overlap amongst the claim areas?
Hon. M. Rankin: I think I’m right in saying this is the first time that we’ve addressed the other Treaty 8 Nations. The member’s questions have been about Blueberry River. It gives me an opportunity to answer his question, but in a broader context.
The consensus document…. The agreements among the other Treaty 8 First Nations are critically important, because we all know we need to provide predictability in natural resource decision-making in the northeast. Everybody wants that. I certainly heard a great deal from local governments. I’ve heard a lot from industry, and that is absolutely understood.
We believe that these agreements align with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, because they’re, at bottom, about self-determination, cultural revitalization, decision-making on lands that they have traditionally occupied, as well as their support for what we call healing the land, the important role of restoration, and honouring the treaty.
I got back to first principles. This entire set of negotiations was founded on a lawsuit that the province lost — a lawsuit that said there had been breach of Treaty 8 by the cumulative effects over time, such that the nations could not exercise their treaty rights anymore. That is what has led us to this place.
These agreements support important government objectives, including responding to that decision on cumulative effects, but also to achieve lasting and meaningful reconciliation, and to ensure a vibrant, stable economy in the region.
We need to plan for climate change, and that’s also contemplated in some of the negotiations that have been taking place at the insistence of First Nations.
The set of initiatives relating to the other Treaty 8 Nations I think provide an unparalleled opportunity to share decisions, and for the healing of the land to begin. We will make decisions on the land, together with Treaty 8 partners, that will ensure all member nations can meaningfully exercise their rights, while building a healthy, stable and secure future for everyone in the region — Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike.
We’re making a significant investment in restoration, and that will take over 10 years to achieve, if not longer, because it’s taken us many, many decades to get to the place we are now. I think we want to demonstrate to everyone who lives and works in the northeast that there’s a new way of working together, that it’s possible to steward the land and resources and still remain prosperous.
It’s important work for all of us, and leaving the land in a good way for future generations is something we are deeply committed to. With that context, I’ll try to answer the member’s specific questions.
The question was about the ways in which First Nations will work together, the Treaty 8 Nations, to address restoration and other matters. There are overlaps. I mentioned that in the answer to the member’s previous question.
On January 20, we announced agreement on a consensus document with four of Treaty 8 Nations: Halfway River, Doig River, Fort Nelson and the Saulteau First Nations. And then subsequently, we have reached agreements, signed off, with the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations and McLeod Lake Indian Band.
This consensus document that we’ve achieved lays out a comprehensive path for our governments to walk together and work together on topics of shared interest, including land protection measures, the restoration that the member has asked of and a whole new revenue-sharing approach to resource development. They are historic agreements that we think are going to chart a whole new path for a better future together in the northeast.
M. Lee: I do appreciate the minister’s response. As he might recall, when we were both at the Prince George resource conference, we had some informal discussion there, certainly, about the importance of ensuring that British Columbians, including British Columbians in the Peace region, understand why it is that this agreement has come into place.
I think that the court decision is not necessarily well understood in terms of the requirements there dictated by the courts and the nature of this agreement. I will come on to some of the efforts that government has attempted to do to honour the treaty and the sections relating to public understanding.
This is, obviously, in an estimates process, part of that understanding and clarity that we can get at in the time that we have. So keeping that in mind, let me just ask a few questions that stem out of the minister’s response there.
Now that all of the, if I have this correct, Treaty 8 Nations, including Blueberry River, of course, have entered into agreements with government around this challenge, there was a time where…. I understood that the reason why the amounts and the agreements were redacted was in the sense of ongoing negotiations with, presumably, West Moberly, Prophet and McLeod Lake.
But now that that has been completed, will unredacted copies of the agreements be made available publicly?
Hon. M. Rankin: The member asks about the full disclosure, unredacted copies of the agreements. The member will remember that we initially had worked with the nations as being a shared announcement that we achieved to put out the information that was put out, save and except the material that was redacted.
Of course, the agreements I mentioned that have just been signed but not yet, if you will, released, involve West Moberly, Prophet River First Nations and the McLeod Lake Indian Band. They’re not yet public. I can assure the member that our intention is, indeed, to publish, in due course, the full agreements.
M. Lee: I appreciate the response, and the minister can appreciate, as well, that when we hear from local MLAs in the area — the member for Peace River North, Peace River South and others…. You know, there’s lots of…. In the absence of all true disclosure and clarity, there can be lots of different conversations that can be had. So I think it’s important that there is that level of transparency, and the minister certainly appreciates that.
As we look at the coordination that’s expected here…. I mean, there are a couple of questions around the consensus document, the nature of it, which is dated March 22, 2022. But let me ask you about that dating here. Why is the document dated March 22, 2022? Was that something that the nations were coming to agreement on before layering on top of it? Perhaps the minister can just walk us through how we got to these agreements: the consensus document dated March 22, 2022, and the letter agreement on top, plus the revenue-sharing agreements dated in January.
Hon. M. Rankin: It gives me the opportunity through the member’s question to talk about, as I think he’s asked, how we got to this consensus document with the other Treaty 8 Nations.
The sequence is as follows: on June 29, 2021, the B.C. Supreme Court released its decision in Yahey v. British Columbia. As I said earlier, that confirmed that Treaty 8 protects Blueberry River’s way of life from interference, including their ability to hunt, fish and trap. That’s what the court concluded with respect to Blueberry.
But since the court ruling, the province and other Treaty 8 Nations began to work together to figure out a way forward, to improve the lands and resources and how they could be managed together. Because obviously, as I said in answer to an earlier question, there are often no clear lines of…. There’s an enormous overlap amongst the Treaty 8 Nations, which is not surprising as it was entered into with the nations of the northeast as a group.
So after the decision in the fall of 2021, the province was approached by the other Treaty 8 Nations, who recommended we find a way to work together to reconcile the cumulative effects concerns that they had for their communities, as opposed to going to court, which, of course, was their option. So we agreed, of course, to establish a set of negotiations. We started with a task force to work with the six other Treaty 8 First Nations on new and creative solutions to address the issues highlighted by the court and to identify regional solutions.
We believe that regional solutions are likely to be the lasting solutions. That is, I think, at the very centre of our work together. We co-developed a mandating document, and the consensus document, dated March 22, 2022, sets out the party’s shared commitments and solutions. Then in July of 2022, the provincial task force advised the participating Treaty 8 Nations that the consensus document had been approved by the provincial government for implementation. In other words, we received a cabinet mandate to proceed and to include revenue-sharing.
The initiatives set out in the consensus documents are intended to protect Treaty 8 rights and the environment and ecosystems that support them, and also to ensure responsible resource development and economic activity in the northeast. We think that’s crucially important work, and we’re in the midst of implementing the agreements and moving forward in that direction now.
M. Lee: In terms of implementing the work under the letter agreements, there’s a provision that’s set out in section 7 that the term of this letter agreement will conclude on March 31, 2024.
What is the expectation by government in terms of what will be implemented and accomplished to get to a document or arrangement beyond March 31, 2024, to have application and governance over the need to have shared solutions here?
Hon. M. Rankin: The member refers to the letter agreement that expires on March 31, 2024. I should just focus on the fact that there is a letter agreement that deals with such matters as wildlife planning in the lake, and there’s a separate revenue-sharing agreement that, of course, because it deals with fiscal matters, is better handled in another document.
The member asked what happens after March 31 of 2024. We will assume that future phases of this work will continue. They’ll be co-developed. There will be an iterative process, and of course, the agreement allows for the extension, if the parties agree to do so.
This letter agreement is intended to take us to March 31, 2024, but with every expectation that some form of continuing engagement would occur thereafter.
M. Lee: Perhaps I’d just invite the minister to follow on the tail end of his response when he says that there will be an expectation of a continuing engagement. Can the minister expand on what the minister is referring to there?
Hon. M. Rankin: The member invites us to spend a little more time on our expectations of continuing engagement after the letter agreement expires on March 31, 2024.
I think the best place to address that is the actual consensus document which was co-developed, of course. It lays out a path for the governments — B.C. and Treaty 8 Nations — to walk together, to work together on a variety of topics of shared interest. Those include such things as a new approach to wildlife co-management that promotes improved shared understanding and management of wildlife, which was a big issue and remains a large issue, new land protection measures and land use plans.
I think it’s fair to say — and the member would, I think, agree with me — that historically Treaty 8 have been excluded from robust land use planning agreements. We’ve had varying degrees of success involving land and resource management plans in the past. The objective here is very clearly to ensure a greater role and improved understanding of how to best manage the land through land use plans.
There is to be in the…. The agreement contemplates a cumulative effects management system linked to natural resource landscape planning and restoration initiatives — critically important; pilots to advance shared decision-making on planning and stewardship activities; a multi-year shared restoration fund to heal the land, which, of course, we’ve discussed today; the new revenue-sharing approach, which would be in a separate document but would support the priorities of Treaty 8 First Nations; as well as activities to promote respect for Treaty 8 through collaborative promotion, anti-racism training and awareness-building, education and community services.
The member alluded to the fact, if I’m not mistaken, that there’s a lack of understanding among British Columbians at large about treaties and the nature of our responsibility. I’ve heard the phrase “We are all treaty people” in the northeast because it’s a recognition that we’re all in this together. There are two sides to that treaty. The need to expand upon that and have greater education so the population is more aware of our legal obligations on treaty rights I think is something that is contemplated.
All of those principles, all of those planks, if you will, in the platform of the document that we ended up calling a letter agreement but was the initial consensus document, can be things that we agree together to go forward. Some may be no longer an issue. Others may require additional work. That is why we have the ability to extend and modify the agreement in the future, and we expect that we will do so. The terms of the consensus document are non-exhaustive and may be expanded to address the impacts of treaty rights, which may require further mandating documents. We’re open to that.
I can’t do much better than that to help the member in understanding what would happen after 2024 except to provide the expectation that many of the planks, if you will, that I’ve described would need to be carried forward so as we can continue to make progress in the right direction.
M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s comments here, and we will turn, in a moment, to some of the local public dialogue and public awareness–raising activities and opportunities. But I’m not sure that British Columbians in the northeast see themselves as treaty people. I understand what the minister means, certainly. But I think the everyday person on the street, so to speak, probably doesn’t fully appreciate the history of our lands and the composition of Treaty 8. This is the challenge, of course.
But on the document. When we compare it to the comprehensive nature of the Blueberry River First Nation document, it just raises the question over the next year, given that we’re talking about between what has just been March 31, 2023, and coming to March 31, 2024. Recognizing the importance of all Treaty 8 Nations and the significant work that is spelled out in the consensus document, is there any expectation by this minister that the nations…?
Has there been any indication to date that even with the redacted version of the Blueberry agreement, the other nations will be looking for a similar comprehensive type of document to set out all of the aspects of the programs that are spoken to in the consensus document?
Hon. M. Rankin: The Blueberry agreement is distinct from the consensus document relating to other Treaty 8 Nations for a very specific reason that the member will be, of course, aware of. In that Blueberry agreement, there is acceptance that the province, if we do what we say we are committed to doing, will satisfy the court judgment.
In other words, we will be meeting the declarations that the court made as part of its judgment and, therefore, can continue to allow resource extraction activities so long as these commitments contained in the agreement are met. That is a legal requirement that, of course, is not necessary with respect to the other Treaty 8 Nations for the simple reason that they were not litigants and that no such declaration was made with respect to them.
I can say, though, that if one goes through the list of measures, which I’ve talked of earlier in my last answer, in the consensus document and then in the letter agreement, there’s enormous overlap. There’s a great deal of commonality, but that one part is clearly necessary in order to satisfy the court’s judgment.
M. Lee: I appreciate that in the minister’s role in terms of focusing on relations with First Nations, a consensus document of the nature that has been entered into back in March 2022 provides that roadmap in meaningful terms and principles and initiatives that are set out with some concrete measures.
The complexity, of course, of the Blueberry River First Nation Agreement in comparison is in part, as the minister stated, driven by the requirements of the court and the parties to meet those requirements under declaration No. 4. of the decision.
I, for the moment, can understand that. In terms of the commonality of approach, including around restoration, there certainly is overlap in the context of similar provisions and importance of restoration spoken to in both sets of documents.
As government builds out the restoration plan, with the ongoing move, we’re going to be having an ability to…. Presumably the arrangements that are engaged with government will set out, potentially in a more detailed way, some of the learnings from the Blueberry agreement. Would that be fair to say?
Hon. M. Rankin: I think it’s fair to say the Blueberry River agreement is a…. It reflects an interim approach, which we hope and expect will lead to a regional approach that will engage other Treaty 8 Nations over time. We have a one-year agreement that reflects the interim nature of what we are engaged in.
The consensus document, I think, is the expression of a co-developed consensus with the other Treaty 8 Nations, and the member will agree that it’s much more forward-looking, aspirational, principles-based as opposed to the kind of document that one would expect in settling a lawsuit. But we think that the fundamental way to address cumulative impacts, which is what has given rise to so much of this, will be founded on regional solutions. We think those regional solutions are likely to be the most effective solutions.
As we co-develop approaches, as we work together both with other Treaty 8 Nations and Blueberry, we are hopeful that we’ll be able to work in a more collaborative way in order to achieve the kind of lasting, regional solutions that will help us address, at bottom, cumulative impacts, which led us to this place in the first place.
Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 3:39 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND
FOOD
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); J. Sims in the chair.
The committee met at 1:04 p.m.
The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call Committee of Supply to order. We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
On Vote 12: ministry operations, $93,246,000 (continued).
J. Sturdy: I’d like to take the opportunity to explore the issue of the Agricultural Land Commission Act and regulations, and circumstances where local governments’ bylaws are inconsistent with those regulations.
I will maybe preface this a little bit by talking about the definition of “agriculture,” which is certainly well described under the minister’s bylaw documentation, the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the regulations. There are extensive definitions of farm uses, of what agriculture is and what it is not, of what is permitted, what is permitted non-farm use, what is potentially prohibited and what may be prohibited, in terms of local government.
The minister’s bylaw states quite explicitly that it is a provincial responsibility to ensure that local government bylaws are consistent with the Agricultural Land Commission Act and that agriculture receives “fair and consistent treatment.” Further, it states that if there is a need for substantial variation from the minister’s bylaw, then local government must resort to section 481 of the Local Government Act and become a regulated entity. There are really a very limited number. As the minister, I’m sure, is aware, there are only four municipalities that are currently regulated.
It does raise the issue of what is a substantial variation. I have a couple of examples I’d like to share with the minister and get a sense, from the minister, of how she would interpret this, and for whose responsibility it is to ensure that farmers actually have opportunity.
I could say one example…. I won’t give names, but I can certainly do that if the minister would like me to. We have an example where there’s a farmer who is moving forward with a farm-building development — for argument’s sake, let’s call it a dairy building — with a capital cost of a million dollars, approximately.
It is in a local government development permit area — in this case, it’s a municipality — and the local government is requiring road frontage upgrades, very significant ones — bike paths, conduit for telecoms, paving to road centre lines, crosswalks, ornamental streetlights, etc. These frontage costs are running in around the $2 million range.
Here we have a farm which is a permitted use, it is a legitimate use, and local government is imposing costs on it that are twice the value of the capital costs that the farmer wants to invest. In essence, it has the impact of making this investment uneconomic and, essentially, prohibited through regulation and expense.
A second circumstance, not in a municipality but in a regional district, in an unincorporated area: again, a bona fide farming operation. I think everybody agrees that it is a legitimate farm use. It’s not one that may be prohibited, but local government has chosen to reduce the scale of the development of the proposal, of the construction. So it becomes, again, uneconomic.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that you wanted to put a 100-stall milking parlour in, and local government said: “Well, no, you can put 40 in.” Or let’s say farm-gate sales. We know we’re allowed to have 300 square metres of farm-gate retail sale space. Local government says: “No, you can have 120.”
Let’s say it’s a winery or a brewery. Again, it meets all the criteria of permitted use. Agricultural Land Commission regulations say 125 square metres of liquor retail. Local government says: “No. You can only have 60.” That, again, makes it uneconomical, especially in the latter case, where, in anything outside of an urban area, you’ve got a very short season to try and generate income to pay for that investment, in terms of a summer season.
These kinds of limitations by local government, through scale reductions, render the opportunity essentially prohibited. It doesn’t make any sense. I would argue that these deviations are substantial, and if local government wishes to pursue them, then they should be obligated to apply sections 481, 552 and 553 of the Community Charter.
I see in the minister’s drafting bylaws that affect the ALR, the minister’s bylaw: “Per section 2(1.1) of the regulation, bylaws affecting the ALR must not prohibit designated farm uses nor regulate them to the point of prohibition.” I would argue that the examples I provided do exactly that.
As well, in the minister’s bylaw regulating farm uses in the agricultural land reserve, local government bylaws “must permit the widest possible range of permitted uses within the ALR.” Again, I would argue that these are limiting opportunities.
My question to the minister, I guess, is: how is this to be resolved?
I think we see the Agricultural Land Commission quite rightly comes down on local government and requires local government to conform when a local government is proposing a use that is incompatible with the Agricultural Land Commission. “I want to build a warehouse on this agricultural land.” The ALC will say: “No, you can’t do that.”
I haven’t found any examples where the Agricultural Land Commission says to the local government: “That farmer is allowed to do that, and you have to let them do that” or “You cannot impose those onerous financial obligations on that business when they want to do what is a permitted and legitimate use.”
Whose responsibility is it to ensure…? Or who advocates — I guess that is my question — for the agricultural community, for that farmer? As I’m sure the minister appreciates, local government has significantly more capacity and resources to be able to challenge it. Does the local government have to…?
I’m not going to suggest solutions. Maybe I’ll leave it to the minister to tell me what the solutions are.
Hon. P. Alexis: We do have the tools to address these situations, but we need specifics. In order for the ministry to make a determination about regulating a local government, we need to investigate specifics. So I would encourage you to suggest a meeting between the two of us. You can give me the details and the specific information so that we can do a deeper dive.
J. Sturdy: Could the minister, then, perhaps, give us some clarity on…? Is it the ministry’s responsibility to investigate and to ensure that local governments are conforming? Is it the ministry’s role, or is it the Agricultural Land Commission’s role?
Hon. P. Alexis: It is the ministry’s responsibility, and we have the tools. But I urge you to meet with me so we can go over in detail the issues that you’re faced with.
J. Sturdy: Well, I know there are people watching right now that are watching me ask these questions, so I could ask some basic questions that I would hope the ministry could answer, because they’re, I think, outlined in the regulations.
Let’s talk about a winery or brewery whereby the Agricultural Land Commission allows for, on the liquor retail side, 125 square metres inside and 125 square metres outside, a patio. Local government has said, “No, you can only have 60 square metres inside and 60 square metres outside,” which is probably smaller than this room, frankly. It’s a pretty small space.
Is local government entitled to make that…? I’d call it a downzoning — or to shrink that opportunity.
Hon. P. Alexis: To answer your question, yes, they can. The maximum permitted is 125 square metres, but in some local governments, that’s not the case. Some local governments have different set of rules to the maximum size. As far as the ALC goes, 125 metres is the maximum — up to 125 square metres.
J. Sturdy: So how does that square…? Isn’t that, in essence, prohibiting that particular use? If it doesn’t make economic sense and you’re limiting that opportunity, how does it square with the idea that these bylaws should provide the most opportunity to farmers and not be so restrictive or prohibitive that they essentially prohibit them through regulation? How does that align with an ability to impose those limitations?
Hon. P. Alexis: Without more detail, we can’t provide you with answers as to why local governments are limiting the size of the structure. I really encourage you to meet with me, with the team, so we can go over the specifics and understand the context and the details.
J. Sturdy: I’ll certainly take the minister up on that opportunity. Would she like to see the proponents at the same time, so they can explain their circumstances? Or would I do a briefing, or just the opportunity to provide a briefing?
Interjection.
J. Sturdy: Okay. We’ll set that up as soon as possible. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.
I. Paton: We have representation from the land commission today. I don’t know why I’ve become sort of one of the chosen ones, but I get phone call after phone call and email after email to my office with people frustrated with land commission decisions and turndowns on appeals. It’s endless. I look at it, and I go: “Where does common sense fit into some of these decisions?”
I’d just like to start with trying to educate the public and myself as to the order of, for instance, housing. Perhaps the minister, through her staff, could explain it to me. When a person on a farm has one principal residence, if they want to build a second residence, where do they start? They go to their local regional district or their municipality? Is it still 970 square feet, based on the size of the acreage, whether it’s smaller than 20 or more than 20? Or perhaps it’s 40. I’m not exactly sure on that.
Variances. I have examples. I have lots and lots of examples. I have an example right on my own road, a neighbour that I’ve known. I grew up with him, and we went to school together, a dairy farmer. He has one house on the property. His daughter and her husband, with a new child, would like to come back and put a house on it, but it’s a very small property. It’s only 19.8 acres. They have a ’70s two-storey box. They want to put in another house. But they’re going: “So 970 square feet? Are you kidding me? Could we at least make it 1,200 or 1,400?”
My question is: how can we get answers for these folks on variances so that they can have a house, when they have a husband and two or three kids, for something bigger than 970 square feet? I guess it’s a little complicated, but I’d just like an explanation of the whole process of going through this and how you can get a variance for a bigger home as a secondary residence.
Hon. P. Alexis: A landowner can have up to three residential units on a property in the ALR without application to the ALC. The ALR use regulation permits a principal residence with a total floor area not greater than 500 square metres, a secondary suite in the principal residence, and a small additional residence not more than 90 square metres on a parcel up to 40 hectares in size without application to the ALC.
The secondary suite and small secondary residence can be used for farmers and non-farmers, to house extended family, for farm labour accommodation or as a rental property to supplement the landowner’s income, provided they have the approval of their local government. Farming families who require more housing than provided for in the ALR use regulation continue to have the opportunity to apply to the ALC if the housing is necessary for farm use.
I. Paton: So I guess if we back up again…. I’m being told a lot of things that I already know. But can I get a yes or no…? If you’re the next generation that comes along on a farm and you want to be part of that farm and you want to live on that farm and the daughter is married now and they have two or three kids, is it easy to get a variance to get a home bigger than 970 square feet?
Hon. P. Alexis: Just so that we’re on the same page, what we’re actually talking about is non-adhering residential use applications. We don’t refer to them as variances. I just wanted to make sure that we’re talking about the same thing.
In the fiscal between April 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023, the ALC has approved 75 percent of all non-adhering residential use applications. I just want to add…. We just checked in Delta. For the member’s benefit, there have been three additional resident applications in Delta since 2019, and all three were approved for homes that ranged between 150 and 200 square metres.
I. Paton: If we go back to the differentials between acreage size, if the acreage is over 40 hectares, a second residence can be built up to 186 square metres. If the parcel size is 40 hectares or less, the second residence can be up to 90 square metres, or roughly 970 square feet.
My question, to further dig a little deeper…. If my neighbour goes to the city of Delta, takes forward the permit plans, the drawings of the house, but it’s 1,250 square feet, can Delta put that through as is, or does Delta flag that to the Agricultural Land Commission as a non-adhering farm building?
Hon. P. Alexis: The city would flag that the owner would need to make an application for a non-adhering residential use application to the ALC. So the owner would have to make that application.
I. Paton: If you don’t mind, if I can throw out a specific situation, let’s take a situation of a retired gentleman in Pemberton. He wants to build a new house on a property they’ve had for many, many years. He finally gets approval to build the new house, but in the meantime, he wants to live in the older house that they were in, and they want to keep that because they have a daughter that’s coming back, who’s married as well. So a typical situation.
He has been told that once the new house is built, he must demolish the old house because it’s over the 970 square feet. It’s actually 1,300 square feet. It makes absolutely no sense to me. So I’m just wondering, through your staff, in a situation like this, why that would be turned down upon appeal, which it has been turned down.
Hon. P. Alexis: Just for context, 73 percent, or eight of the 11 applications for landowners to reside in their existing principal residence while constructing a new principal residence, were approved. That was between April 1, 2022 and January 31, 2023. Also, I’m sure you’re aware of this, but the ALC Act specifies that the ALC must not approve an additional residence larger than 90 square metres unless it’s necessary for farm use. I don’t know if that describes your specific situation that you’ve described in Pemberton, but this is the context.
I. Paton: So if any government in the history of British Columbia shouted out that there’s a housing crisis, that we need more houses for our residents in British Columbia, this is the government that I’m facing right now.
The other day…. I’ll quote a former Minister of Agriculture: “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 with an agricultural lens and the additional residences are there to support the farming operation, they will approve those applications.”
I could ask the question: how many applications for three more houses on a farm have taken place in the last three or four years? I’m not going to do that. That’ll take forever. However, the government announced just the other day that anywhere in the province of B.C., you can take a property with a single-family home on it and split it into a fourplex.
My question is: does this apply to agricultural land? A farmer with his house on a single plot on the farm can now tear that house down and put a fourplex up.
Hon. P. Alexis: The legislation does not permit ALR land to be used as fourplexes. I’ll point out it was this government that introduced legislation to allow for a secondary residence without application to the ALC to bring about more housing flexibility.
I. Paton: One other land use question. Hopefully, as folks know, I’ve tried to be as keen as possible with saving good farmland in our province. My dad, as you may know, was chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission at one time.
I spoke adamantly at a public hearing in Langley a while back to preserve 300-and-some-odd acres of land which is owned by the federal government and farmed by the Heppell family. I have a private member’s bill, as you know, to try and save and preserve 600 acres of land in Delta at Brunswick Point and to have a covenant put on it to make it permanently agricultural land and a resting place for waterfowl.
My question: as we try our best to save good-quality farmland with classes of 1, 2, 3, why would an arm of the government, the ALC, recently exclude 150 acres of land right on the edge of the Fraser River in Richmond?
Hon. P. Alexis: The prudent decision by the province to remove the Ecowaste landfill from the ALR ensures the site will continue to support the responsible disposal and recycling of commercial and housing construction waste in Metro Vancouver.
Unlike the land that you’ve referenced, the Heppell farms and Brunswick Point, the landfill’s removal from the ALR will have no impact on food production or usable farmland. The site holds no soil-based agricultural value and has been used as an industrial landfill, with permission from the Agricultural Land Commission, since the 1980s.
I. Paton: I really can’t quite buy into that comment. That strip of Richmond along the Fraser River, historically, where the Gilmore farms, the London farms, the Zylmans…. There are so many farmers that farmed all that land. That is prime…. It’s no different than the…. The Fraser River, a million years ago, went through there and deposited beautiful alluvial soils in Delta and Richmond.
You’re suggesting that it has no agricultural value whatsoever? I guess my question, if you could finish that answer for me…. My 80-acre farm in Delta — would it be acceptable use for me to create an eco-waste compost facility on my particular farm?
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I just want to remind people in here that you should really be talking through the Chair rather than using the pronoun “you” when we’re answering or asking questions. Please and thank you.
Hon. P. Alexis: Thank you, Madam Chair.
No, the ALC Act no longer permits the placement of industrial waste in the ALR. So, no, your farm couldn’t be a landfill in the future.
A. Olsen: Nice to be with the Minister of Agriculture in budget estimates. Congratulations on your appointment.
I just have time for a few questions today. I’m wanting to ask about ALC enforcement on Vancouver Island. I’ve been told by a number of people that there is currently no enforcement of the ALC on Vancouver Island. Perhaps the minister could confirm that. If there is indeed enforcement capacity, perhaps the minister can provide some context as to what that capacity is.
Hon. P. Alexis: The ALC Island compliance officer position is vacant, and the ALC is actively involved in the hiring process to fill the position. In the interim, the ALC compliance supervisor is responding and providing coverage.
A. Olsen: I have been getting reports that very little enforcement action is happening. I think it’s just important. I’m not going to ask the minister another question about this. I think the point of the question was to clarify that. Clearly, there’s a gap that needs to be filled. My hope is that this should be good enough to pass the message along that the enforcement is not occurring as it should.
I’m going to move to the abattoir on Saltspring Island. It’s a volunteer board–run community asset. Actually, it’s a facility the former minister and I met early on after the election in 2017. They have been struggling with the business model as it is. They’re struggling to be able to provide a service to support a wide variety of farms, and a wide variety of animals are prepared there.
I’ve reached out to the ministry to ask if there are any support programs for community-run organizations like this. I guess I’d characterize it…. If this abattoir isn’t able to find a way to get support, over and above what they’re already doing with the volunteering, the fundraising and that, it goes away. If it goes away…. That’s a community asset that is serving not just the island but the surrounding islands. Indeed, there are animals coming over from Vancouver Island.
They’re looking at a matter of about $30,000 to support them. Is there any way in the supplemental budget that was granted…? Hundreds of millions of dollars were given to this ministry. Yet on an asset like this, are there any funds available to support the Saltspring Island abattoir with $30,000 or $40,000 a year in order to keep them going?
Hon. P. Alexis: One of the programs that’s being introduced from the new funding is the food processing growth fund. That’s a $20 million fund that abattoirs will be eligible to apply for. I’m happy to meet with you and get more information, and we can walk you through details after this.
A. Olsen: Thank you for the response. Those are the exact kinds of responses, I think, all the critics in estimates are looking forward to. “Yes, meet. Let’s talk.” That’s good. I appreciate it.
I want to ask a question with respect to…. This might get into, maybe, the minister’s perspective a little bit, but I’m wanting to talk about some issues that I’ve raised in question period with other ministers in the past around the conflict between traditional food harvesting by Indigenous people and western agriculture.
Many complaints have been made that we’ve got the perpetual beach closures for clam harvesting, a practice that was part of the wealth of the W̱SÁNEĆ people, as an example. This is just one. There are many across the province being impacted by runoff from farms and the impact that farms have on creeks and streams.
As the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fish…. Is that right? Is fish somewhere else now?
Anyways, as the ministry that was formerly responsible for fish, no doubt the Agriculture ministry has an impact on the fishery and the role that the Ministry of Agriculture should be playing in ensuring that, especially farms near fish-bearing streams or farms that are near estuaries…. Minimizing their impacts.
What work is the ministry doing to ensure that we can protect all the food production in the province?
Hon. P. Alexis: The agricultural environment management code, or AEM, is a regulation that was created in 2019 by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
The AEM code phases in nutrient management requirements for nearly all agricultural sectors over multiple years, affecting how manures and fertilizers are managed, stored and used to grow crops. My ministry supports producers’ nutrient management goals in three main ways: (1) extension and outreach; (2) decision support tools; and (3) nutrient management planning, training and program development and delivery.
Of note, just recently, we announced the climate-ready seafood initiative, which is a $2 million fund that has now gone to the Tula Foundation for administration to look at the impacts of climate change and agricultural activities on the shellfish sector and seaweed sector specifically.
A. Olsen: I had one more question lined up, but I’m going to just shift gears here and go back to this. I think the question that I was asking was….
I recognize that there’s a bunch of ways that the question could have been answered. The question is around Indigenous food harvesting and the impact agriculture has on Indigenous food harvesting. We’ve talked a lot about this in the forestry sector. There’s no doubt that forestry practices have an impact on a wide variety of food sources for Indigenous people.
[J. Routledge in the chair.]
The agriculture industry also has dramatically impacted traditional food harvesting right from turning our…. I’ll give an example of this. Wetlands that are in the ALR, areas where Indigenous people would harvest food, harvest medicines, harvest other plants for making nets, for making rope, for doing a variety of different things in our industry have had the agricultural land reserve designation placed on top of them.
For 100 years, people have fought the land for what it was, which is a marsh, a wetland that, left in its natural place, produces a wide variety of things. But because it had the ALR land designation put on it when, 50 years ago, it was created, now what happens is it gets drained. It gets ditched. It’s great for farming in a peat bog. There’s one example of it in Central Saanich that I could use. But we’re consistently fighting the land for what it is and what it has always been.
There was great sadness that was expressed by my late uncle Dave Elliott, PENÁĆ, expressed by his late mother when that land was turned into farmland, and fought for decades, calling it something that it’s not. Forever, that land has been trying to get back. You can drive by that land today, and you can see that it is still struggling to get back to what it actually is, which is a peat bog, a wetland. It stores water.
In fact, as a peat bog and as a marsh, it’s phenomenal. It’s a phenomenal resource for the farms downstream, because it holds back a ton of water. But no, instead, what we do is create a ditch. We’ve straightened the creek. We mainline that water straight out into the inlet with all of the runoff that comes from all the farms on the way. Then it has dramatic impacts on all of the other food harvesting that happens.
I guess what I’m asking the minister is: do we define food production in this province with just the very narrow kind of Western agricultural perspective, or are we willing to open it up and to recognize…?
I recognize this might ruffle some feathers. But really, there’s been food harvesting that’s been happening in the waters and on the lands since time immemorial in the territories that have been literally set aside and rendered inoperable because we have been, in some respects, fighting the land; in other respects, modifying the land; hydrological efficiency, turning creeks and streams into water pipes. The outcome of that has been that, yes, we’ve been able to attract Western agricultural production and get some food production out of that, but at the sacrifice of Indigenous food production.
This is really a question about, in the minister’s mind, and in this ministry, where the balance is. Is there a place for Indigenous food production and industrial production of those products where we would traditionally harvest?
Hon. P. Alexis: I’m going to respond by citing three different actions. The first one, as the member may know from previous debates, is that the ministry established and supports is the B.C. Indigenous Advisory Council on Agriculture and Food. We take advice from this group on a range of policy and land use issues.
The second initiative is the ministry has recently accepted a strategic framework around regenerative farming. The vision — I’m going to share it with you, if you’d like — is that “British Columbia’s food systems follow the principles of sustainable agriculture to continuously improve our lands, water and ecosystems.” One of the goals of the work is Indigenous agriculture and support for Indigenous interest as it relates to both Western and Indigenous agriculture.
The third one is a new program. It’s the Indigenous food affordability and food security program which deals with food security specifically as it faces Indigenous communities. The program’s main objectives will be to provide Indigenous communities with opportunities to become more food self-sufficient, provide agricultural training and extensive services, and provide opportunities for Indigenous communities to grow and harvest traditional foods that are often at the heart of Indigenous communities.
All of these are very important to the ministry.
I. Paton: I’d like to move back a little bit to land values of farmland in British Columbia. I want to get back to the 150 acres in Richmond that were recently taken out of the land reserve, the ALR, by this government.
Now, Harold Steves is a true-blue NDP. He was a former MLA. He’s revered by so many in this province for his views and values. Harold Steves goes on to say that he estimates that the property would be worth $1 billion if it were pulled out of the ALR and rezoned as industrial land, selling at approximately $7 million per acre.
The Chair: Excuse me, Member. You actually aren’t supposed to be reading from your phone.
I. Paton: I was told I could use this in estimates, just not in question period or in the House. Madam Chair, thank you for pointing that out.
In fact, Steves pointed out that Country Meadows…. “‘As far as I’m concerned, if the government did remove this land out of the ALR, all hell is going to break loose,’ Steves said. In fact, Steves pointed out Country Meadows Golf Course,” which is almost next door, “also in the ALR, used to be a demolition site for old cars. Now it’s a golf course, and perhaps later it will return to farming.”
So I move on, Madam Chair. Thank you for putting up with that.
Bill 52 came through, and Bill 52 was going to solve so many things in farmland and agriculture in this province. And there was so much outrage to Bill 52 that there was a Facebook site called Changes to Bill 52 that had over 5,000 people join up.
I want to quote the former Minister of Agriculture regarding Bill 52. “The old government let wealthy speculators drive the price of farmland out of reach for young farmers and allowed some of our most valuable agricultural land to be damaged. We are protecting farmland in B.C. to ensure land is available now and for the future generations of farmers” — well, that’s a bit of an oxymoron because we just took 150 acres of farmland out of the ALR in Richmond right along the side of the Fraser River — “so people in British Columbia have a safe, secure supply of locally grown food.”
When we talk about farmland values, there are recorded values of farmland increases throughout Canada, province by province. In 2017, farmland values were up by 2.7 percent. Now, in 2022, B.C. leads the country in increased farmland values at 18.1 percent. The average for all of Canada is 8.3. We lead the country.
My question to the minister: will she admit that keeping B.C. farmland values in check has been an absolute failure?
Hon. P. Alexis: Agricultural land values have risen, just as other land values have risen. Imagine where we would be today with agricultural land values if we hadn’t introduced Bill 52. It would be even higher.
I. Paton: I’d like to move on to a couple of other things, but I’d like to stick just for a minute to some land values.
Several years ago, there was an extremely glossy booklet that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars produced called The Future of B.C.’s Food System that was initiated by this government. There were three people — Peter Dhillon, Lenore Newman and Arvind Gupta — who travelled the world to come up with some recommendations.
Recommendation 9, strategic land use and industry development. This recommendation from this wonderful, expensive, glossy booklet, reads as follows:
“British Columbia has the potential to be a leader in the area of agricultural technology. However, a lack of available flexibly-zoned land has created a bottleneck for scaling this new area of the economy. To relieve this bottleneck, the committee recommends that up to a quarter of a percent of the ALR be made available for agricultural-industrial activities at the discretion of a commissioner of agricultural-industrial lands to be created to oversee the province’s agricultural-industrial land strategy. Creating a dedicated area for agricultural-industrial activity will give businesses in food and agritech a strategic place to locate.”
A letter was written after that came out in this glossy booklet, and the letter was from 23 prominent professional agrologists in British Columbia. The open letter states to the Honourable Premier: “We the undersigned are extremely concerned about the impact on agricultural land in the farming community of government’s decision to implement recommendation No. 4 of the 2020 Food Security Task Force report titled The Future of B.C.’s Food System.”
Of the 23, some prominent names such as Ron Bertrand; Art Bomke; Richard Bullock, former chair of the Land Commission; Wendy Holm; Kent Mullinix of KPU; Joan Sawicki, former NDP member; Brian Underhill, former member of the Land Commission.
My question to the minister: Does she still buy into the premise from this booklet, The Future of B.C.’s Food System, that 0.25 percent up to 11,500 hectares of agricultural land in British Columbia should be converted to an agri-industrial zone?
Hon. P. Alexis: No. The government did not accept the recommendation to establish an agri-industrial zone. However, we have accelerated our efforts to renew the agricultural land use inventory so we can better understand the range of activities occurring on agricultural land and we can make informed decisions about the ALR.
I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that answer.
One more land use topic, if you’ll allow me, and then I’d like to move on to some tree replanting and different things like that.
I want to read from…. I want to talk about vertical farming. Vertical farms are generally concrete buildings that are three to four storeys in height. They really should be, in my opinion, in industrial development areas of British Columbia.
I want to read a quote from Harold Steves — once again, a revered politician, a former NDP MLA — who claims to be one of the founders of the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia.
“The province recently changed its regulations to allow vertical farms, three-storey greenhouses on a concrete base, in the agricultural land reserve, but Steves said farmland is the wrong place for these types of operations. Despite being a former NDP MLA, Steves has been critical of the provincial government’s decision to allow vertical farms in the ALR, saying on social media, ‘This #BCNDP government has destroyed more farmland than all other governments combined since the ALR saved farmland in 1973.’”
This decision “could destroy 28,000 acres of land in the ALR” by allowing vertical farms in our revered ALR properties.
My question to the minister: do you still agree with this recently changed regulation to allow vertical farms on our ALR land?
Hon. P. Alexis: I certainly stand by the change in regulation. To clarify, vertical farms are an allowable use on ALR land without application, but as we know, local government can prohibit this use.
I. Paton: I want to read from a resolution from the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. We’re on to a totally different topic. “Resolution 20-05: be it resolved that the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association advocate the provincial government to adopt a bill in the B.C. Legislature that is the same scope as Alberta’s government Bill 27 Trespass Statutes, which was passed November 28, 2019.”
In October of 2019, I was there that evening, next door at the Grand Pacific Hotel. MLA Throness introduced a Trespass Amendment Act that day. This garnered a response by the minister to stand at the reception of the Agriculture Council with colleagues — by the way, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General — to promise to take action on trespassing.
Trespass continues to be an ongoing concern for members of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. This has been a long, dragged out…. I think this is my third budget estimate in Agriculture with no update or no answers for updating our Trespass Act for farmers in this province. My question: could you give me a briefing now as an update as to where we’re going with our Trespass Act for agricultural activities?
Hon. P. Alexis: Over the past several years, the issue of trespassing on farms by activists has become a concern for farmers, and I share that concern.
To be clear, trespassing is against the law. In addition to threatening their own safety, trespassers can compromise biosecurity measures designed to protect livestock. In conjunction with the Ministry of Attorney General, the ministry has explored several options, including increasing fines under the Trespass Act.
The advice we have received is that government cannot simply increase fines for trespassing on farms but would have to increase trespass fines across a broader range of premises. Such a change would require extensive public consultation.
But I do understand that this is a key issue for industry, and I understand why. My ministry will continue to work with the Attorney General’s office on this issue and further options to address the concerns.
I. Paton: Thank you to the minister. I could likely go on and ask why changes have been made in other provinces but not in British Columbia, but I appreciate your answer.
Moving on to the tree replant program. I stay in quite close touch with the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, and we’ve studied the blueprint for B.C.’s tree fruit industry recommendations. Simply put, it’s important to our growers — whether it’s blueberries, raspberries, hazelnuts and our apple industry — for new varieties that are better growing, better selling, a better colour, a better taste, all those different things….
Could you update me on the tree replant program? Is it in the budget for apples this coming year? And for raspberries, blueberries and hazelnuts as well?
Hon. P. Alexis: I’ve met with many growers of perennial row crops, and I’ve heard, certainly, the challenges that they face.
I’m very pleased to tell you that by April 30, the new perennial renewal program will be open for applications. This is a $15 million multi-year, multicommodity program. These commodities include apple, grape, hazelnut and raspberry.
This program will support sector development projects that evaluate agronomic and market opportunities. It will also support producers to remove unproductive, diseased or unmarketable cultivars and to adopt growing systems that are better suited to environmental conditions and market demands based on sector-specific opportunities.
There are going to be three streams to this program. Sector development projects aimed at helping the various sectors, such as apples, grapes and cherries, evaluate their agronomic and market opportunities. Number 2 is support for crop-removal projects, and No. 3 is funds for new agronomic and economically viable plants.
I. Paton: Thank you for that response. I can’t quite remember if I heard blueberries. As we know, the blueberry industry is really being decimated by a scorch virus, and blueberry growers, obviously, in the Abbotsford floodplain area, have been decimated by the drowning of a lot of their plants. They’re not sure if they’re going to come back properly or not.
Quickly, is there a major initiative financially for replacing scorched blueberry acreages that farmers are ripping out and starting all over again? Hopefully, that’s my question.
Hon. P. Alexis: Blueberries are eligible under the new renewal program. We’re working with the Blueberry Council to find solutions to the scorch virus. We are currently funding research to find varieties that are resistant to scorch.
I. Paton: Just to quickly follow up on our tree fruit industry. As I said before, there was a study done called The Path Forward: A Blueprint for B.C.’s Tree Fruit Industry, of which there were 19 recommendations, one of which was the possibility of a commission. This has worked very well with our vegetable growers — a commission where everybody is on the same page and not trying to outsell each other or beat each other to the basement.
While responses to a grower survey earlier this year showed strong support for the initiative of a commission, several questioned whether it would be enough to improve returns. Last year B.C. apple growers selling through B.C. Tree Fruits received just 25 cents per pound for their crop, below the cost of production, which hovers around 30 cents.
Two questions, and hopefully we can get through it quickly. Just wondering how many of the 19 recommendations of the blueprint for B.C.’s tree fruit industry have been acted upon and whether the creation of a fruit commission has been considered to improve the plight and the value of our apple products.
Hon. P. Alexis: To date, excellent progress has been made on the tree fruit stabilization plan. All the recommendations are being acted on. This represents unprecedented collaboration between growers and packers.
To answer the member’s question around the commission, yes. Growers, packers and the ministry are discussing the value of a marketing commission, and we have recently allocated $1 million to support that work.
I. Paton: Moving on. As we quite obviously know, we rode together in a helicopter to study the floods, along with the former minister, after the terrible flooding in Sumas Prairie. Since then, farmers aren’t necessarily always satisfied with the end results. I personally get a great deal of complaints about they haven’t been properly funded for damage — obviously, crops, barns, equipment, different things like that.
I’m quoting from a recent issue, the 2023 issue, of the Country Life in B.C. newspaper. The headline reads: “Disaster Financial Assistance Funds Inconsequential for Producers.” And: “Just $62 million has been dispersed, to date, out of the $228 million which was originally promised.”
To the minister: can you explain why only $62 million, to date, has been dispersed out of $228 million that was promised for recovery funds for farmers?
I will try and add one more question to this. I have made trips to Merritt, on Highway 8, between Merritt and Spences Bridge, with five different property owners, who are basically ranchers, that not only were affected by the Lytton fire that came over and burnt the side of the mountain. They were affected by the terrible flooding on the Nicomekl or Coldwater…. I forget which one. I’ve witnessed the devastation.
Through AgriRecovery, they are reasonably satisfied with some of the compensation they’ve had for the fires and the flooding. With a massive rainstorm in August of 2022…. The rain hit the side of the mountain. There was nothing to absorb that water anymore because of the fires, and it took a massive mudslide down onto these five properties.
I have begged. I’ve met with the MLA for Fraser-Nicola and with the Solicitor General. We’ve met with the minister of emergency preparedness. We had some confidence that they would get some DFA money for the mudslides. But to this day they’ve never been compensated for the mudslides.
It’s kind of a loaded question. I’m asking about the…. Only $62 million has been dispersed out of $228 million. Also, why can we not somehow, especially out of the supplementary money that came forward for some very odd things…? Could we not somehow include some of that to compensate these farmers on Highway 8 for the mudslides?
Hon. P. Alexis: I’ll start with Highway 8 in Merritt. I believe that these farmers and ranchers do need our support and have fallen through the proverbial cracks.
My ministry has been working with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association to find a way to support these producers to clean up and remove debris from their properties. My ministry has provided a $400,000 grant to the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, who will work with the affected property owners. Going forward, my staff will also be reaching out to these producers to make sure that they’re aware of the programming we put in place to help plan and undertake measures to mitigate extreme weather events.
With respect to the other question that you asked — with the dollar amount, the Sumas Prairie and the allocation of funds — the recommended budget of $228 million for the flood response was developed using the best available information prior to the flood waters receding. It wasn’t until the flood waters began to recede that farmers were able to assess costs that they required to return to production.
I just want to let you know that so far there’s a total of 417 applications that have been approved. We still have 26 open, but we’re working with them all the time to ensure that they have the right paperwork or that if they’re waiting on paperwork, they’re being worked with. The money approved to date is $63,534,819, which has gone out to assist those folks, in the initial 417 applications.
I. Paton: Thank you for that answer. The announcement on March 7 says that through a series of targeted initiatives, the province will strengthen the food supply chain across B.C. Farmers have been asking for supply chain support for a long time. Farmers have been asking for fair compensation through the provincial insurance schemes for a long time. After the 2021 floods, many farmers had got delayed compensation or none at all.
The announcement on March 7 says that funding will improve the resilience of the B.C. food supply by identifying and mitigating the effects of climate change. My question: How will this funding support that? Will it be irrigation? Will it be dike upgrades? Will it be increased funding through insurance schemes? Will it be increased funding to blueberry farmers? If you could answer that question, how will this funding support the initiative that was announced on March 7?
[J. Sims in the chair.]
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. P. Alexis: Madame Chair, welcome to the seat again.
There are three programs that I believe the member referenced. The first one is the food security emergency planning and preparedness fund. This is a $20 million grant to be administered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation, which will allow agricultural producers, industry associations and Indigenous communities to develop disaster plans, mitigation strategies and projects with a unique focus on food security and agricultural resiliency.
It will help communities plan for emergencies, including how and where to move cattle, chickens and other livestock in the event of a wildfire or atmospheric river event. This includes funding to farmers and producers to proactively purchase equipment and make infrastructure improvements that will help in emergency events.
The other fund is the flood mitigation funding for the Fraser Valley farmers. This funding will support flood mitigation projects for the agricultural producers most impacted by the 2021 floods. There’s an emphasis on solutions that provide both flood mitigation and habitat restoration. This is a $20 million grant that is administered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation.
This will help communities protect key infrastructure by supporting things like retrofitting barns or moving electrical equipment to higher ground. It is also complementary to larger flood mitigation efforts and focuses on projects that protect our food-producing agricultural land.
The third one is the agricultural irrigation infrastructure program. I believe that was one of your questions. The delivery agent is the Investment Agriculture Foundation. It’s also a fund for $20 million. This program aims to provide incentives for the agricultural sector, to invest in water infrastructure for adaptation in anticipation of climate change, specifically for areas prone to drought or areas where the growing season could be extended. Those are the three that I believe you referenced.
I. Paton: Thank you for that answer, but I’m sorry; it was very vague. I’ve read this many, many times since it was printed out. I just heard…. You’ve read back what we’ve all had a chance to look at.
I’m going to turn things over to my colleague from up North.
J. Rustad: I’ve just got a few questions that I want to pursue a little bit with the minister. In particular, maybe I’ll just start off by saying that my understanding is the ministry is looking at ways of reducing the use of nitrogen-based fertilizer and alternatives. I would like an update from the minister in terms of what strategies or what programs are being implemented to try to find alternatives to nitrogen-based fertilizer.
Hon. P. Alexis: There are many programs and initiatives that the ministry delivers, with the goal of advancing sustainable agricultural practices. We just recently signed the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, which will bring even more programs online.
I’m happy to have the team walk you through the great number of programs available at a later date, as, in the interest of time, we may not have time to go through all of them. There are many, many.
The Chair: The committee is going to recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:07 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.
[J. Sims in the chair.]
The Chair: Calling the committee back to order.
I. Paton: An interesting plight of farmers in British Columbia, especially Vancouver Island, is damage by wildlife. I experience that every year on my farm. I’m actually enrolled in a program that pays us back a bit of money, but it doesn’t come close to what it costs to reseed fields from damage from ducks and geese and swans. I mean, I could go on and on about opening a door at three in the morning. There’s a hayfield right next to my house, and you’ll hear 3,000 wigeon ducks get up out of the field.
The government has a program where we put these small nets in the field. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen them, but they’re monitored subjectively at the end of each winter by people. They look at the amount of grass in the net that the ducks can’t get to versus the grass all around the little tent net. I guess I’m not allowed to show photos.
I meet with dairy farmers on Vancouver Island — not just dairy farmers but beef farmers. They are inundated with elk. There are up to 40, 50, 60 elk at a time on a farmer’s field, damaging the field, eating away the grass, coming right up into the barnyard and opening up plastic round bales and eating silage and crossing roads. They’re safety hazards.
What I’ve been asked to bring forward to the minister is: where is the funding with the AWP — the agricultural wildlife program, the acronym — for not only losses of grass from farmers that are still growing forage and losing all this forage through the winter months from ducks and geese — especially Cloverdale; Delta, my area; but of course Abbotsford, Chilliwack as well? Also, what can we do about the incredible overpopulation of elk that are invading farmers’ fields on Vancouver Island?
Hon. P. Alexis: With respect to the elk population, this is managed by the Ministry of Forests. With respect to damage caused by wildlife, the AWP, the program you referenced, will continue renewed under the recent SCAP agreement that I signed last week. Also, we are working with Vancouver Island Cattlemen’s Association on researching and showcasing new fencing methods to keep elk specifically out.
I. Paton: Thank you for that answer. What I’m looking for is: will there be increased funding, perhaps with the supplementary money that came through, for this program?
I wish you could drive down my road. My neighbour has a field that’s roughly 350 acres in size. It’s huge. He put in a whole new pivot irrigation system. Every year he plants annual grass, and going into the fall, it’s this beautiful field of grass about this tall, and now the entire 350 acres is black, because they just come in and completely wipe it out. It’s really quite amazing.
People have no idea how much ducks and geese and swans like grass. It’s one of their favourite foods. So I’m just wondering if this program can be increased. Because the money we’re getting now…. I’m part of the program, but the money my neighbour will get for this damaged 350 acres will not even come close to the cost of grass seed and working up that land again to reseed it. Then he goes through the same thing again next year.
So two questions. Can the program be increased financially for losses for forage products? Secondly, is there any plan, other than fencing, for any sort of a cull of the elk herd on Vancouver Island?
Hon. P. Alexis: Currently, the program funds up to 80 percent of eligible costs, which is significant, and we’re not planning any increase to those payments.
With respect to the cull, as I said earlier, the management of elk is an issue that you should actually raise with the Minister of Forests. Perhaps in the estimates time for that ministry, you could raise that specific issue about the elk on Vancouver Island.
I. Paton: I’m going to move on to a different topic. Please bear with me. I’m a bit cynical about this, and I’m rather old-school. I really believe in farmers, people in agriculture, that have dirt under their fingernails — not professors in universities. Let’s put it that way.
This NDP government has become very focused on agrotechnology in this province and catchy terms like food security and regenerative agriculture.
The strategic framework for regenerative agriculture and ag-tech lumps these two terms together in one framework. But according to Stan Vander Waal, the president of the B.C. Ag Council, these two things just don’t marry. They are almost on two different planets.
My question. What is the province doing to differentiate these things so that they are more clear for the farming community — the difference between regenerative agriculture and ag-tech?
I’ll follow up with one other thing. I would like the minister’s definition, because this is very popular amongst all my farmer friends: what does regenerative agriculture actually mean?
Hon. P. Alexis: First, the advisory council is working on definitions as we speak, because there’s been a lot of conversation about this. We’re expecting a definition and other recommendations by the end of May, so stay tuned.
Second, the B.C. Agriculture Council, including Stan Vander Waal, is involved in the discussion and providing advice.
Three, you asked about the link between agritech and regenerative. Agritech and regenerative agriculture are linked. For example, in one way, agritech can be used by farmers to improve soil health. That’s why we put it together.
I. Paton: To move on a bit forward with agritech and innovation, I want to make a bit of a statement that I believe British Columbia has absolutely some of the best agricultural soil in North America. We have some of the best farmers in North America with some great equipment on our farms, whether it’s down this way or up in the Peace area or the Okanagan.
I can tell you, as a farmer myself, salesmen nowadays are extremely high-tech salesmen, and if they have new technology that they’re trying to sell on behalf of their company that’s importing equipment from Germany or Holland or whatever, trust me, they’re knocking on your door to present you with new technology, and they’re trying to sell it to you as a farmer here in British Columbia.
Having said that, I have to question why we’re so keen on agritechnology and innovation in this very small agricultural province of ours compared to the rest of North America.
I want to explain that, over the years, I’ve studied and been to some of these universities, such as Kansas, Cornell, Oklahoma, University of Nebraska, Iowa, Cal Poly, Wisconsin, Guelph in Ontario. These are the universities that are so far ahead with their agritechnology, including countries such as Israel and Germany and Holland.
So I’m wondering why $6.5 million has gone towards the B.C. Centre for Agritech Innovation at Simon Fraser University. I can tell the minister that I’ve been there to visit it, and I’m hoping you have. I’m hoping you could tell me right now, because I may have missed something…. I may have just seen a lot of concrete walls and empty classrooms.
But could you explain to me exactly what’s going on at this new B.C. Centre for Agritech Innovation at the Surrey campus of SFU, how many classrooms there are, how many laboratories there are and how many professors there are dealing with students under this program?
Hon. P. Alexis: The first thing I wanted to share with you…. I think you’ve got the task force recommendations, which you referenced earlier, the three authors.
This item, actually, the agritech centre of excellence, was recommendation No. 3. It says: “Create an agriculture and agritech institute as a collaborative entity across post-secondary institutions to drive excellence in priority areas and deepen the knowledge base and talent pool for the agriculture innovation agenda.”
That is exactly what government did and followed through on recommendation 3. I have visited. I was impressed. I spoke to a lot of the students.
I can’t answer specific questions about the number of professors or classrooms. I recommend, if you want that deeper dive…. Maybe the Minister of Advanced Education will be able to help you out.
It is set up to help scale up local B.C. agritech companies and to help fund their growth potential. The first four projects — which were announced when we were at the Tradex event, the agricultural show in January — under this partnership were launched in January of this year. I’m really looking forward to more positive announcements in the months and years ahead.
I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that. Maybe we were at different universities. I’ve been to that campus for a tour. I met with three people that were, I guess, professors there. I saw nothing. I saw no classrooms, no students, no agriculture laboratories. I saw nothing.
We walked across the street to see a…. He showed us a very high-tech imaging centre, where some students were working on…. What do you create out of plastic?
Interjection.
I. Paton: So 3D printers, of course. Yeah.
That’s my comment. I don’t see an agriculture technology innovation centre, quite frankly.
My next question is: why would we be competing with eight schools in British Columbia that are already working on agricultural programs with different programs for agritechnology — UFV, University of Northern B.C., Vancouver Island University, KPU, Thompson Rivers, College of New Caledonia, UBC and Selkirk College?
My question is: why would we be so focused…? This tiny little province of British Columbia, in North America, wants to be “a world leader.” That’s the quote I have. We’re going to become a world leader in agritechnology.
Hon. P. Alexis: Why shouldn’t B.C. be the centre of excellence.
Just to clarify, it’s an accelerator, not a university. They assist agritech companies to get ready for investment, for example. They work for many B.C. companies. Recently at the world agritech summit, there were three companies from the accelerator attending and presenting in a pitch for funding, for example.
I have to say agritech is nothing new. There was once a point in time when a tractor would have been considered agritech, and then, later, the onset of greenhouses. More recently, agritech companies are harnessing the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve soil health and apply just-in-time irrigation and spraying solutions to increase productivity and help manage costs for farmers.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I visited an organic mill in Chilliwack, and he did all the mixing from his iPhone — did all of it. It’s remarkable how much we already have agritech. I see it every visit that I go on site to a different farm, a different food producer. I’m seeing more and more.
I. Paton: Thank you for that answer. I, too, see agritech. I have a biodigester on a dairy farm that’s converting manure, etc., into gas and feeding it into the Fortis gas line next to it. Robotic milkers — I mean, these have been around for 15 years. All our greenhouses have got the highest tech equipment. In our huge greenhouses growing peppers, it all comes from Holland and Germany and Israel.
Anyways, let’s move on. I want to wrap up a couple of things. It’s B.C. dairy day, so I want to get in a dairy question. I’d like to get in a question about agriculture in our schools.
Back in January, I think, of 2021, there was a report done called Feeding the Future, advancing dairy processing innovation in B.C. It was recommended: “a full-time industry-led business development officer be hired to focus on dairy processing expansion and innovation in the province…. It is recommended that an industry-led dairy processing specialist be hired to help British Columbia’s dairy processors with their product innovation and new product formulation.”
Having spoken at great length with dairy farmers of the B.C. Dairy Association, we have a huge opportunity to produce more milk on Vancouver Island, the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan. Our dairy farmers are itching to move forward, to build their herds, produce more milk. But they’re asking, as I’ve just read out, for more opportunities for processing facilities in B.C., whether it’s in the Fraser Valley or, perhaps, in the Okanagan, where we’ve seen highways that have broken down, that we can’t get through. Milk had to be dumped, because they couldn’t get down to Abbotsford to be processed.
That’s my question. The question is: have any of the recommendations been acted upon from this paper that was done called Feeding the Future?
Hon. P. Alexis: We are aware of the study and research, and we’re aware of industry’s interest in processing capacity. We will continue to work with industry to pursue opportunities to support their sector and food security in British Columbia.
J. Rustad: We got a chance to ask one question earlier. I have a series of questions, and they’ll obviously take us past our time here today. My hope is that we might be able to sit down and do a briefing. That may avoid us having to go through all the questions, but there’ll likely be some questions that will come back to be in public.
I don’t know if the colleague from Delta South has any other questions, whether he wants to ask a last question or if he’d like me to ask a question.
I. Paton: Sure, I could ask one.
J. Rustad: Okay. I’ll cede the floor.
I. Paton: I guess before we wrap, I’d like to thank all you folks and your staff for coming out. Nobody got any black eyes this time around, so it’s pretty good.
I think you might recall a little file folder I handed to you. There’s a friend of mine named Mike Schneider. He worked for the Delta school district, and they call him Farmer Mike. He ran a program called Project Pickle, where he went around to all the elementary schools in Delta, not all but most of them, and taught the kids planting cucumbers, growing them and turning them into pickles and things like that. He became Farmer Mike.
Then in Delta school district, we had an elementary school that wasn’t being used — it was basically empty — down in Boundary Bay in Tsawwassen, and we turned it into Farm Roots. It was a school, like an academy that kids would go to for lacrosse or hockey, only this was an agriculture academy.
Poor Mike is sort of out of a job right now. Delta school board has killed both projects. So Mike sent that letter to you, and it’s quite long. I’ve done this before. Believe it or not my dad, by the same name, I think it was in the 1940s or ’50s actually taught a course in high school for agriculture. It was a common course in high school back in those days.
My question to the minister — every Ag estimates I bring this up: would she be willing to speak with the Ministry of Education and look into agriculture as an elective course that kids could take in high school?
Hon. P. Alexis: Certainly, that’s a reasonable request. I’m happy to go and speak to the minister about this exactly. Thank you for that.
I do have to do this…. Before I do that, I just want to say thank you, to my colleague the member for Delta South and the others, for the questions.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.