Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 44: ministry operations, $186,048,000 (continued).

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll be brief because we don’t have a lot of time, just to introduce my team. Of course, we’ve got our deputy minister, Silas Brownsey, on my right. We’ve got our head on finance issues on my left, Tracy Campbell. Behind me, Nick Grant, Claire Avison, Kim Lacharite. And then we have a number of executive directors and folks working within the ministry to answer specific questions to the best of our ability.

It’s great to be here, good to see the member, looking forward to the next hour or so that we have together.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister and staff. And congratulations on your appointment. I’ll endeavor to ask some good questions.

I’ll just start by acknowledging that the resort municipality that’s within the riding I represent, the resort municipality of Whistler, is celebrating its 50th birthday or anniversary this year. The first part of my questions is focused on resort municipalities; I’ll just jump straight into it.

The budget and the ministry service plan made no mention of investments or dedicated funding to address challenges in resort municipalities. Can the minister describe how much funding the budget provides for resort municipalities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In terms of direct targeted funding for resort municipalities, it’s about $13 million in our budget currently. To be clear, though, of course, that’s not all of it.

[2:45 p.m.]

Of course, Destination B.C. We do international marketing, and as the member knows, some of our biggest markets are places like Whistler. Happy 50th birthday to the community of Whistler. I’m sure the mayor is watching. He told me he was last time.

Hello, Jack. Hope you’re well.

Then of course, we have our regional destination marketing work that we support, which also benefits Whistler, and then our ministry has other support that gets to resort municipalities, whether or not it’s event programs, work through B.C. Arts Council, gaming funds and so on.

But I’ll let the member ask more specific questions.

Jeremy Valeriote: Can the minister speak to any funding within this budget that specifically addresses housing shortages for staff and temporary foreign workers in resort municipalities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As the Ministry of Tourism, we’re also not the Ministry of Housing, but we would love to…. We always support it, because we know that good housing policy is good tourism policy. Questions specific to how much money from which fund within Housing would be best directed through that ministry.

Of course, there is the MRDT, which folks can avail themselves of to support their own housing work, but it’s probably best for housing specific questions to go to the Ministry of Housing.

Jeremy Valeriote: As the minister knows, resort municipalities service much higher populations than they tax from, and their infrastructure ages at a faster rate due to higher use from higher population service.

Can the minister outline a plan to address infrastructural and capacity concerns in resort municipalities, particularly considering the potential surge in domestic tourism resulting from U.S. tariffs?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, an increase in tourism is a good thing. But I understand it’s also a challenge for some municipalities, where they’ve hit the upper limits, or they feel they have, in terms of their own taxpayers’, their own residents’, ability to look after infrastructure that’s important for them.

So we actually are working, my team, with the mayors of the resort municipalities. Thank you to Mayor Crompton from Whistler for his leadership in that group. We are looking at that issue, because we’ve recognized it as a barrier to growth for tourism communities but also a barrier to ensuring effective infrastructure for those communities and the residents there as well.

It’s on our radar. We understand it. We had a good meeting with the mayors earlier this year. They’re actively engaged. They want a solution. We do as well. I look forward to our continued good work together to address that issue, because resort municipalities bring so much to our province. They give us such an opportunity for good jobs, for tax dollars to invest in health care and all those other things we have needs for — arts as well, sports and so on.

I thank the member for acknowledging the role of resort municipalities and also the unique challenges that they face.

Jeremy Valeriote: The service plan describes this government’s commitment to supporting a “resilient” tourism sector that is regenerative and adapting to climate change. Can the minister please provide specifics of how they will help build a strong and sustainable ecotourism sector in resort municipalities?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, climate resiliency and addressing how you make a resort, how you make a community, how you make a small camping site, how you make a hotel — all those things are important. How you make them more sustainable, I guess, is what I’m trying to say.

Over the last couple of years, the ministry, working with the Ministry of Energy, with Hydro and with others, actually had a climate resiliency fund, which went to the businesses to help them with planning. We helped them with, in one case, I think…. It’s not within Whistler, but I think it’s called Fishpot Lake. I heard from folks out there who actually managed to use this funding to shift off of diesel and shift into solar for their rural campsite, for their rural cabins. Looks like a beautiful place. I’ve got it on my list of places to visit.

That kind of program — I know we’ve done that there. We’ve supported programs up and down the coast and in the Interior to do similar approaches. I know Whistler itself, as a resort municipality, has taken steps further to look at zero carbon and how they do that as a municipality.

We’re always looking for good ideas and to support…. Certainly, through industry associations, through Destination B.C., Indigenous Tourism B.C., we’re working to help educate, to help show the opportunity, and people want it. I think the businesses are keen because it helps their bottom line, but it also helps their environmental line and actually increases interest in visitors staying at those locations.

I’ve talked to some operators who, when they shifted off diesel, for example, now have people staying long term. They now have people visiting long term who came once. When they sent out an email saying, “Oh, we’ve now moved to solar and got off the diesel,” their business went up, because people didn’t want to smell the diesel fumes. They didn’t want to deal with the issue of having to hear the generators at nighttime and so on — a small example.

I know the member probably had, maybe, a more specific question, but they were exciting projects, and I think we need to do more of them where we can.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the focus on our existing infrastructure. One aspect we’re quite tuned in to is the possibility of providing low-carbon tourism options.

One simple instance I’ve heard of…. This is encouraging people to come to Whistler, for example, for one two-week trip as opposed to two one-week trips. You can imagine the…. There are various iterations on that. This would help with B.C.’s reputation as a destination and can build resilience against some of the reputational damage we may incur from news of wildfires.

I’m wondering whether the minister can speak to any of that. I believe YVR has a low-carbon initiative. Are there any initiatives underway on promoting B.C. as a low-carbon tourism option?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I certainly know that many in the business world in B.C. have made this one of their key calling cards, in a sense, when they market internationally, when they reach out to people to come be part of B.C. In some cases, it’s through things like offsets. That’s not the standard, but they will market that.

[2:55 p.m.]

Certainly, I know YVR, of course; Harbour Air; and, I believe, Helijet, as well, have looked at those arguments to show that they’re doing what they can within the means they have. Obviously, their innovations, looking at electric float planes and those kinds of things, are pretty cool stuff.

But I think our regional destination marketing organizations…. They’re all biosphere certified to try and look at how they operate and how they work with their clients. It’s a growing market. People want to know that when they travel, they’re not doing harm.

They certainly want to…. In some cases, some of our tour operators have done things like, “Okay, we’re going to have a tree planting as part of what we do” or “Oh, we’re going to go clean up.” I was telling people about cleaning up the garbage on the beaches.

That’s preventative, in a way. It doesn’t solve the broader problem, but certainly, our operators know that our key market is Super, natural British Columbia. You know, the beauty of our outdoors, the incredible opportunities you can have, whether it’s in our forests, in our grasslands, in the Interior, in the desert. We’ve got a bit of everything in this province, in the oceans and on the coast, etc. We have to treat it as our number one asset, I think, and that’s what we try to do within the work we do and educate our partners.

I’d invite the member next year, when the Tourism Industry Association has their conference…. It’s one of the key areas where there are educational aspects, where people share their successes. Both they and, here in Victoria, Destination Victoria have their IMPACT conference. Both of the conferences have a very heavy focus on sustainability, on carbon issues, on water, on how you deal in climate emergency situations, how you make guests feel welcome, how you support them.

They’ve seen all sides of this, and I think they’re, in a way, closer to the ground on the impact of not doing anything than most because the land base is largely what they sell and largely what they rely on for people to come back again and again.

More to do. I’m interested in this field and where we can both market and also shift behaviours in how we treat the planet that we rely on.

Jeremy Valeriote: Before I move on to other topics, I just wanted to check…. My apologies. I had brought the big budget document with me when I was here before the break to ask questions. I didn’t bring it.

I didn’t see funding specific to RMI, resort municipality initiative. Does that $13 million that is targeted include RMI funding, and can you tell the committee if that funding is stable for resort municipalities going forward?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I just want to say yes, yes and yes, but I guess to be more specific: yes, it’s in the budget; yes, it’s $13 million; yes, it’s dedicated to the resort municipality initiative.

Jeremy Valeriote: Just a follow-up on, hopefully, the fourth “yes.” Can resort municipalities count on that funding for a time frame into the future that the minister can predict?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I can say that it’s in our budget. We support it. It supports resort municipalities. They certainly are glad that it’s there and certainly ongoing work together to continue to grow what they do. We like what they do for our province, and we want to support them.

Jeremy Valeriote: With regard to cycling tourism — and you can imagine this one comes directly from my caucus colleague, Saanich North and the Islands — can the minister speak to any funding in this budget dedicated to cycling tourism and infrastructure, particularly considering the completion of the Salish Sea trail loop on Salt Spring Island?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In terms of the completion of a bike route on Salt Spring Island, that would probably be best placed to the Minister of Transportation. We don’t have a budget within the Ministry of Tourism for building transportation-related projects in that sense, but I can say that in terms of the broader question of cycle tourism, I think it is a huge opportunity for many regions in our province. We’re already seeing it, of course, in many regions, as it is.

Certainly, the member’s constituency…. We get a number of folks who do that route, or routes, I guess I’d say. A lot of folks travel to my constituency in the West End because of cycle tourism — the desire to go around that seawall. If you haven’t done it, it’s not to be missed.

I think there is an opportunity for continued growth in cycle tourism. I know a number of the regional tourism organizations and even city-based destination marketing organizations have really tapped into that, and they’re looking for opportunities.

We’re always looking for ways we can support our friends in the Ministry of Transportation because we know that good, safe ways to get from one place to another are crucial if you want to grow tourism. If the journey itself is part of it, as it is in cycle tourism, obviously that needs to be safe too.

I once did a cycle tour from B.C. down to the Oregon border with California — incredible. I ride my bike to get here most days, and I know that there is an opportunity and that there are gaps in the system which limit us.

There are incredible routes here in the capital region where we see people, and they’ve told me they’ve travelled here specifically because they can feel safe getting in and around in the region. I think that’s true for much of B.C. and could be true for much more of B.C.

Ministry of Transportation has an active transportation program and granting stream. I think they recently announced more projects across the province for cycling, for walking, for active, for rolling, for all the different things you might need to do. So worth following up with them on that specific question.

Jeremy Valeriote: Moving on to the arts, I see here a few quotes. The minister has spoken positively in terms of the value of the arts to our society. Can the minister speak to any new funding in the budget that will be made available to protect workers in the arts sector, especially considering the cost of living and impact from tariffs?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’d say there’s been a real change in how we treat arts and culture in this province. When we formed government in 2017, we were worst in Canada for investments in arts and culture. We’re now first or second, depending on which ratio and how you do the statistics. Obviously, Quebec has been a strong supporter of culture as well. So it has been an incredible change.

I just spent part of the last two weeks getting out, meeting arts councils, theatre companies, dance groups and music groups. The number of folks who stepped forward and just said how important that funding has been for stabilizing them….

We put more supports into arts and culture after COVID than pretty much any other province because we knew that many of these groups would go under because of the impact of COVID and not having an audience, not having the ability to do the work that they did. So I’m proud of our investments.

I think we’ve got a new permanent fund dedicated to events, the destination events program. So that’s a new application that folks can make. It’s available now.

I hear the member. There’s always demand. There’s always need. But what I’ve heard most from the sector is they’re glad that they have a steady partner, a stable partner and that, quite frankly, we’re not doing what other governments have done in times of economic crisis, which is slash and burn the arts.

They remember very strongly 2009-2010 when the B.C. Arts Council budget was cut in half, down to…. I think it was about $15 million. We’re now over $40 million. Sorry, it was down to $10 million. It had been at $20 million and went down to $10 million. Gaming grants, likewise, cut in half. Gaming grants are crucial for community charities.

Again, steady funding, steady support, because we believe very strongly in arts and culture in this province both for its life-giving abilities but also the economic returns and the benefits to the broader public, even health care.

[3:05 p.m.]

A recent study I was reading talked about how getting seniors the opportunity to engage in art at their seniors homes led to longer lives, happier lives, less medication, less need for physical intervention because they were engaged, and the arts gave them an ability to express themselves. I think we see that throughout our society.

Jeremy Valeriote: Speaking of the B.C. Arts Council, thanks for laying out the timeline. If I’m not mistaken, the government promised during this past election campaign to increase B.C. Arts Council funding to $50 million. If that’s correct, is the minister able to provide a timeline on increasing that funding to that level?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the platform pledge from the 2017 election was to double the B.C. Arts Council budget. So we started around $20 million, give or take, and now we’re up a little bit over $40 million now. But when you include the investments that we’ve made to many different factors of the arts over the last couple of years, including our destination events program and others, I’d say we’ve met the test.

I always look for more, but I know that times are tough. Budgets are tight, and it’s hard. I certainly am glad with where we’ve got, because it’s made a real difference in our communities.

Jeremy Valeriote: The ministry service plan commits to improving access for “historically underserved artists” and enhancing support for Indigenous artists. Can the minister provide examples of the funding that exists to help artists in historically marginalized communities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course, the B.C. Arts Council has its own independent board of directors, and so policy often comes up through that board. But certainly, our expectation and our cooperation with them and their desire, as well, has been to see the faces, the realities, of British Columbians reflected in the funding decisions they make.

They’ve focused on ensuring that there’s greater regional support across the province, looking at ensuring that when they do funding decisions, they consider that it’s not all through the eye of classical music, for example, making sure that forms of music that are present in communities all over this world are also considered. Dance, for example. It’s not just ballet but dancers of Damelahamid, an Indigenous dance company funded by the B.C. Arts Council up north.

They’re really working to ensure that those groups across the province, who may not have thought of themselves getting support through a professional arts organization like the B.C. Arts Council, realize that this is an arts council for professional and community artists and that just because you may not have studied in university to become a professional dancer in that form and you may have done that through your own community cultural teachings, that’s valuable as well.

So shifting who is on juries to better reflect the broad public, the diverse nature of our province, ensuring that there’s an understanding of regional differences — all of those go to help ensure that we are doing the work there.

They also are continually looking at the funding decisions and comparing them to the broad swath of our province and going: “Are we actually getting out to the communities?” And if we’re not — if we’re not getting any applications, for example from some parts of this province — we’re making sure to go out there and help folks understand that they can apply, how to apply.

[3:10 p.m.]

We’re looking at the application process itself, because some of it had in the past been very academic, very credentials-driven as opposed to community driven. So looking at, again: how do you…? Art is subjective, but we need to make sure that the support we’re giving province-wide goes to the great diversity in our province.

I’m proud of the work they’re doing. Always room for improvement. The member has suggestions on other approaches we can take. Always happy to hear them.

Jeremy Valeriote: My last question relates to the Fairs, Festivals and Events Fund, which I’ll note anecdotally was highly successful and valuable during the COVID period. I’ll also note a 2024 election campaign promise to provide stable year-over-year funding for fairs, festivals and events.

Can the minister confirm whether the budget includes funding for the renewal of the B.C. Fairs, Festivals and Events Fund at the 2023 level and whether there are plans to make this a permanent program?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m happy that through this budget we were able to find the resources to set up a kind of a follow-along to the program the member mentions. This is now called the destination events program, and its focus, largely, is on events. It’s similar to the previous program but a little bit more specific to events that set up a community as a destination: they are events that people come to from more than just the immediate vicinity. They stay in the hotels, they spend money in the restaurants, in the local community.

The destination events program has been set up with applications open now. We got the information out to the Fairs and Festivals Collective, to all the folks that the members probably had correspondence from. So they know about the program now. I hope they apply, and I’m looking forward to more great festivals and events across B.C.

I should also say just for those who might be watching and think that’s the be-all and end-all, we also fund festivals and events through the B.C. Arts Council and through community gaming grants. So many of the events may have one, they may have two, they may have all of them in terms of how they get support.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister and staff. I will yield the rest of my time to the next member.

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

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Sure, thank you, thank you. Just to say thank you to everybody, thank you to the team, and just because you may not have had a question asked about your item doesn’t mean I won’t ask it later.

It’s wonderful to have had this opportunity. I’ve got a great team and I thank the Leader of the Third Party and members of the opposition for their interest in tourism, arts, culture and sports — and heritage. Even if it’s not in the title, we still remember you too, heritage; can’t forget the heritage.

Anyways, thank you, I would like to move the vote.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all of the members here today. Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 44: ministry operations, $186,048,000 — approved.

The Chair: We’ll take a brief recess for the next ministry.

The committee recessed from 3:14 p.m. to 3:24 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Agriculture and Food

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $99,120,000.

[3:25 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Thank you to the minister and her staff that have come along today to get us back into this, which we ended a couple of weeks ago. I just want to quickly back up. We covered a few things a couple of weeks ago when we got started regarding the actual budget itself and some of the numbers within the budget.

I would like to also remind you that we spoke about the Investment Agriculture Foundation. I can pass along to the minister that Jack DeWit actually phoned me. He goes: “Hey, I heard my name got mentioned.” So he said: “How about if we come over and sit down with your caucus, and we’ll explain exactly how IAF works and where a lot of the funding is going.” I’m looking forward to that. We’re trying to set that up in a while.

My first question, if we go back to carbon tax, because it’s something that we’re likely going to discuss in the next few days…. Without mentioning the bill, I just want to simply ask: when we talk about the consumer portion of carbon tax versus industrial, will agricultural products using carbon such as grain dryers using propane or natural gas, natural gas to heat our poultry barns, natural gas to heat our greenhouses, etc…? Will those agricultural uses of fuels be considered a consumer part of the carbon tax? Or will they be considered industrial polluters using the carbon tax?

Hon. Lana Popham: To the member, I also have a package of documents that we promised when we last met, and that includes the full list of programs being delivered by Investment Agriculture and provides a report on the food security initiative programs, which are being delivered. I’m just going to make sure that the member gets that for his records.

Then to the question about the carbon tax and agricultural producers: if this bill passes today, the removal of the consumer carbon tax ensures that agricultural producers and greenhouse growers are not subject to any carbon pricing.

Ian Paton: I want to talk for a moment about farmers institutes in British Columbia. Historically, farmers institutes have been a very important part of our different regions of British Columbia. I am still very actively involved with the Delta Farmers Institute. We have them throughout B.C.

I get questions from time to time about the future of our farmers institutes in B.C. and how they seem to be getting somewhat ignored by government. Despite our attempts to engage with the superintendent of BC Farmers Institutes, including an invitation to our January AGM — and by the way, I’ll backtrack and say that this is actually coming from the district A farmers institute representing 12 farmers institutes on Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast — we have been unable to establish meaningful dialogue.

This communication gap hampers our ability to serve our communities and advance provincial agricultural activities. So establishing partial funding for administrative support for active farmers institutes, enabling us to better serve our communities and implement ministry initiatives….

[3:30 p.m.]

My question to the minister: is the Ministry of Agriculture willing to step up and establish partial funding for administrative support for active farmers institutes in this province?

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. I know the member is a great fan of farmers institutes, as am I. We’re very lucky that we still have 45 farmers and women’s institutes around the province.

Currently, we do support their website annually, but we also are looking to modernize the legislation that they fall under. This is on my workplan list for this year: modernizing their legislation, which is from the 1940s. Obviously, there are things that have changed since the 1940s, and currently they’re quite hampered at applying for grants and funding. The modernization of this legislation will assist them in applying for grants that they’ve brought to our attention and that they’re interested in applying for.

We’ve also added them into the government orgbook, so if somebody is looking for a farmers institute, they can actually find that on the government listings.

That hasn’t been possible in the past, and we have had complaints that people couldn’t find them if they tried. I think this is really going to help, especially as we see this renaissance of interest in agriculture. People are going to be reaching out to them, and I think that’s great.

I recently had a meeting with the South Island Farmers Institute. The Farmers Institute and the ministry have had a lot of back-and-forth about what we can offer, what programs we have in place. Then we are hoping — we’ve seen this happen previously — that farmers institutes will reach out to us and be the people on the ground and in community. I think that they really have a great knowledge base of what’s going on locally.

I think we have a great working relationship. The official funding is for the current website, but we are looking at ways to support them more.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. We’re talking just about district A’s farmers institute right now.

What I’m wondering is: can we look at future funding? For instance, at Delta Farmers Institute, we live off $100 per farm as an annual registration fee to try and fund our farmers institute.

[3:35 p.m.]

Would there be money in the future from the government, even if it was $10,000 a year or something, to help support our farmers institutes?

Hon. Lana Popham: The ministry does not have funding to support 45 farmers institutes, but what I can tell the member is that on March 19 there will be an opening of programming called the knowledge and tech transfer program. Farmers institutes can apply for this funding. It’s about $7,500.

They can use this funding to host events, do educational opportunities for their members, advertise their value to members and, hopefully, be able to increase their membership that way. So there are other ways that farmers institutes can get to funding, but we don’t have direct funding for them.

Then I will say again that modernizing the legislation will allow them to apply for other grants that they could be interested in. So we are assisting them; it’s just not direct funding.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Agriculture critic for allowing me to ask a question in the estimates debate here today.

I have a question regarding the integrity of farmers institutes in the province overall. In particular, there’s a significant dispute over the governance of the Salmon Valley Farmers Institute that now spans, actually, decades.

I know that the Farmers and Womens Institutes Act has not been updated for quite some time, so it’s very good to hear that the act will be updated. Unfortunately, the original intent of the act is not being met in Salmon Valley, and I fear that there is serious financial risk to other farmers institutes in the province if this Salmon Valley case is not effectively audited by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Local farmers have been shut out of the institute. They’ve also been shut out of the community hall and curling rink, controlled by the organization.

My question: can the minister confirm that the Salmon Valley Farmers Institute is in good standing? If it is, I’m wondering if the ministry can direct an audit of the Salmon Valley Farmers Institute to ensure that such disputes don’t ever happen again in this province.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I’d like to thank the member for the question.

We are well aware of the Salmon Valley institute. Our ministry staff has been in conversation for months with the organization around the concerns that the member has brought up, so we’re actively engaged. I can tell the member that there is currently a possible lawsuit, so we won’t be able to go into depth too much about that.

But I think this is the most interesting part. That organization is in good standing as it relates to the current legislation and the current act, which is actually the catalyst that got us moving on modernizing the legislation. This is an example of the current legislation not enforcing good governance, for example.

So yes, very well aware. I’m happy to have a chat offline with the member anytime, as we kind of move through the modernization. If there are particular things that the member is interested in, happy to chat those out. But I’m really glad that the member brought this forward.

Ian Paton: I guess, based on my lack of short-term memory, I want to quickly just go back and ask one more carbon tax question.

The minister knows, I toured Village Farms just last week — the tomato side of Village Farms. Extremely impressive. The cannabis side — incredible technology and whatnot, producing cannabis in Delta.

My question: will the greenhouses that are growing, you know, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers — which get an 80 percent rebate on their carbon tax — be getting a 100 percent rebate as consumer carbon tax users?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think my first response is a question to the member and that is did the member sample both types of products out of Village’s? Just curious.

Okay, so yes, there was a partial exemption for up to 80 percent of the carbon tax on natural gas used for heating greenhouses up to this point. If the bill passes, there will be no need for that system. There just will be no carbon tax on greenhouses.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. That’s good news. There’ll be zero carbon tax charged to greenhouses.

Would we be able to say the same to poultry farmers with baby chicks that are heating their poultry barns that need to stay warm, farmers up North using grain dryers to dry their grain? Two other examples.

Hon. Lana Popham: The answer is yes; they will be exempt from carbon pricing.

I think this is really good news for our food producers, our agricultural industry. We all have food security in mind right now. We all have cost of food in mind coming in from our constituents, and so I think this is really good news on that front.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. That’s definitely good news for our agricultural food producers in the province.

I guess I could go on with one more question about carbon tax. The trucks that move our food around. For instance, the trucks that pick up our milk and use a lot of diesel to run those trucks, from dairy farms as far north as Prince George and Smithers, and come all the way down to Abbotsford to a processing plant. Will trucks transporting agricultural products such as milk also be granted carbon tax exemption?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: As much as I’d love to continue talking about this, because I’m just as happy about this change as the member is, for agriculture…. But I’ve been reminded that I’m not supposed to be talking about any changes that the bill might be bringing because the bill is actually up for debate. But we can talk about that over a coffee tomorrow if it passes.

Ian Paton: I’ll move on to farm classification. According to the B.C. Ag Council, the minimum farm classification requirements to receive farm classification on properties in B.C. no longer adequately ensures that farmland is being used for agricultural production.

This has been asked year after year: when will the ministry make a decision on raising the threshold to incentivize small-scale farmers to produce more on their land?

Hon. Lana Popham: Great question from the member of the opposition. This is something that I’m very interested in as well. But as the member knows, this falls under the purview of the Minister of Finance, so I would hope that the member would go to the Minister of Finance and ask this question as well.

But I have to say that this is on my work plan, and I’ve been out talking to farmers, getting feedback, small and large scale. I’ve been socializing it to try and get a feel of what’s going on out there and, of course, engaging with the B.C. Agriculture Council.

The member will know that this has been in place for a very, very long time and most likely doesn’t reflect what’s really happening on the ground. But again, it doesn’t come without controversy. So that’s a conversation I feel like I need to engage British Columbians in and bring that feedback to the Minister of Finance. But I would hope that the member would also canvas those ministries.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

I guess I’ll throw this out. In the opinion of the minister…. I think I’d be correct in saying that, roughly, for the farm classification status you have to meet around $2,500 in farm product sales for the year. The B.C. Ag Council has suggested it should be $7,500 or even $10,000. Do you have an opinion on that?

Hon. Lana Popham: Another good question. If you are growing on an acreage two acres or less, the number is $10,000 already. If it’s two acres or more, it’s $2,500. The member is correct. The UBCM has suggested $7,500. The B.C. Agriculture Council has suggested $7,500. So that’s the number that’s floating out there, and that’s really what I’m referencing in my conversations.

[3:50 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. I guess, without belabouring this, to ask one more time…. This question has been asked year after year in budget estimates for agriculture. My question is, when will…? You’re suggesting the Ministry of Finance has to make this decision. When can we finally see a decision? I’m asking, really, not only for myself but on behalf of the B.C. Ag Council.

The Chair: I will say to the member for Delta South on questions of repetition…. We’re not supposed to ask questions that have been asked year after year, but I’m going to let this one go ahead.

Hon. Lana Popham: I think the member and I both share the frustration around this issue, so I’m happy to answer it. I’m just as interested as the member is on this topic. I’ve tasked my ministry staff to do the policy work on it. So we’re well into it. They’re working busily on that and also informing the Ministry of Finance and working with the Ministry of Finance.

I can’t tell the member an exact date, but I can tell the member that there’s more work that’s been done on it now than there ever has been, and it is in my interest to move this forward.

Ian Paton: The minister will recall, several years ago with the Agriculture Day at the Legislature, the evening get-together gala next door at the Grand Pacific Hotel — on stage in front of the B.C. Ag Council, with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and herself, making a statement that, finally, after all these years of trespassing, horrified farm families that are scared at night, during the day, of trespassers coming onto their farms, setting up illegal cameras in the farms, etc…. Trespass continues to be an ongoing concern for members, especially of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association.

This has been long and dragged out. There seem to be no answers on updating our Trespass Act for farmers in this province. Could you give me a briefing now as an update to where we’re going with our Trespass Act, that so many years ago said would get fixed through the Attorney General’s office?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. Yes, we, in fact, did make those statements, and we have been endeavouring to pursue making family farms safer, protecting them from very difficult and traumatizing incidents, as the member has brought up. It’s a really difficult thing for Ag when you see some of the ways that protesters have infiltrated farms, causing great stress to animals and to the families that live there.

As we’ve been working on this, it has become more complicated than we thought. It’s not just an easy fix; working with the AG’s office as part of it. We’re looking at issues around biosecurity that would perhaps protect barns more fully.

I’d be happy to give the member an update as we progress. But I have to say…. The member’s frustrated. I’m frustrated. It’s not as easy as we thought it was.

Ian Paton: Thank you to the minister. I’m sure it is a difficult situation, but I think the last when I heard that the problem will be fixed and there was great applause from the B.C. Ag Council folks that were there that evening.

My question to the minister: how often and are you regularly working with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General to work on some sort of legislation to protect farmers or to up the fines or enforcement for trespassing on people’s farms?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: This is what I can tell the member, that it’s an active file in the ministry, and we continue working on it. I’m in constant conversations with everything ag, with the B.C. Ag Council. I think that that line of communication is very open on this.

We also have the newly formed Premier’s task force on agriculture and food, so for difficult, complicated issues like this, we do have a place that we can work with the community, ag processing, all of it, at the Premier’s task force. That’s all I can tell the member for now, but I’ll keep him updated as I can.

Ian Paton: I appreciate that answer.

I’ll move on now to a real problem we have in this province. And Mr. Chair, you’re from Vancouver Island. We have a huge problem in this province with wildlife that are affecting agricultural crops and agricultural crops that are in storage and lovely fields of grass and alfalfa that are being ruined by not only elk but by ducks and geese and bears.

I guess, as the Agriculture critic…. I’m sure the minister gets a lot of emails, but I get a lot too, thinking I can help fix the problem, which is pretty difficult. But I can tell you that I have endless emails and phone calls from people that have been affected by…. I’m going to mostly talk about elk right now.

The elk damage that is taking place, not only on Vancouver Island, is unbelievable. The stories I get from farmers in the Cobble Hill area, the Yellow Point area just near Ladysmith. You know, elk that literally invade the farm, where people are almost scared to get out of their vehicles because there are elk literally on the driveway coming into their farm.

I’ve had emails and correspondence from as far away as Cranbrook. There are over 8,000 elk roaming the farmer’s fields in the Cranbrook area that are damaging — a great deal of damage to — alfalfa fields. I’ve been up there just last summer, to Cranbrook. You look out at a field full of alfalfa, but it’s got a pivot irrigation system. You look and go: “I think there are 400 elk out in this field laying down and damaging” — and I don’t have to tell you how they’re damaging — “the alfalfa crops.”

For instance, a letter from Nechako Valley Regional Cattlemen’s Association was actually sent to Minister Bailey: “On top of the issues with elk, producers in our area are suffering unprecedented crop and forage losses from elk. Ministry biologists have surveyed and documented well over 1,000 elk in the broader Nechako Valley area. An elk eats about three pounds of food per day….”

I forgot that I’m not even talking about Cranbrook right now; I’m talking about the Nechako area.

“An elk eats about three pounds of food per day for every 100 pounds of its body weight. This means that a 500-pound elk eats about 15 pounds of food per day, while an 800-pound bull elk eats about 24 pounds of food per day. And this is food that they’re taking from our farmers’ fields.”

The frustration is that so far, people within whatever ministry it is are telling people: “Well, you need to put up a seven-foot-high fence on your farm if you’re in Cobble Hill area or up in Nechako or up in Cranbrook.” What farmer could possibly afford to? I mean, it just doesn’t make sense. If you have a farm that’s 200 acres in size, how could you possibly put up a seven-foot-high chain link fence to keep the elk out?

This question has been asked over and over again. When will ministry coordinate with another ministry to figure out how we can have a cull program or some sort of compensation for farmers to be able to put up these fences to keep the elk out of not only their fields but their barnyards?

And we all know about round bales that go into storage and silage. The elk will come into a barnyard and literally rip open the plastic and start eating the feed that is meant for the cattle.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks very much for that question. I am also very aware of the situation, particularly around elk up in the Cowichan and in other areas of the province.

It’s a difficult topic, because often where you find agriculture, you find the wilderness, and this is where domestic animals and wildlife collide. Wildlife — they’re not stupid. They’re going to go where the eating is good, and that’s, unfortunately, often a farmer’s field.

We know that. We do have a program that supports farmers that find themselves at the bad end of the stick when it comes to wildlife destroying or eating their crops.

This particular issue falls under the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, and we have a cross-ministry group that was stood up last year specifically about this issue. We have been able to support farmers who have found themselves with damage — $9 million in the last year, which was 600 producers. It is in everybody’s best interest to try and solve this problem.

It’s an expensive problem, but it’s complicated. You have many user groups on the land base. We have a contract with a person who is doing a cross-jurisdictional scan on how other areas are also trying to solve this issue.

So it’s a work in progress, but I think the member asked if there was a program in place. We do have a program, and there was a $9 million spend.

Ian Paton: So $9 million — I’m not seeing any record of that in the emails that I’ve been getting from farmers. There has been $9 million put out to farmers affected by elk in the last year to build fencing.

Hon. Lana Popham: Just to clarify, this is part of business risk management programming, and the payments are going out the door as we speak. This is not to build fencing; this is to mitigate the loss of crop.

Ian Paton: I understand completely. I’m going to get to the AWP, agriculture wildlife program, in just a moment.

[4:10 p.m.]

But still, we’re talking about elk, and the farmers are asking the question, through you and another ministry: is there any plan for relocating elk or for having a cull of elk?

We can’t just solve the problem by throwing money out to build fences. That is impractical if you have a 100-acre farm or a 200-acre farm. I’m going to get to AWP with damage by geese and ducks and swans, etc., in our farmer’s field, but is there specific money that’s being set aside to deal with the elk problem? Is there an elk relocation possibility?

Hon. Lana Popham: Just to clarify, the programming that we’re talking about right now includes damage from elk. Elk are included in the suite of wildlife that this program would support as far as compensation goes.

The member is asking: when are we going to fix the problem? I get that. That’s what the farmers are asking us as well. This working group that we’ve stood up is a serious working group, where we’re trying to get to a solution, but I’m sure the member can understand it is extremely complicated.

What’s on the table? Everything is on the table. Relocation. Culling. Hazing, which I think stands for scaring them away with noise. Partnerships with First Nations. Everything is on the table because this is a battle that farmers are losing, and it’s an expensive one to compensate for.

So yes, the member is right. I hope that we’ll have something to update the member on, and the farmers, in the near future. But I can guarantee that this is a work in progress right now.

Larry Neufeld: I was listening and hearing about the fencing of elk property. In my area, the farmers have raised elk in the past as a means of trying to diversify their economy and create an economic opportunity for themselves.

I personally witnessed, driving to a job site three days in a row, where the elk fencing separated a cow and its calf. It was heartbreaking to the point where you knew that that calf was going to perish because the mother could not get back to it, and the calf could not get through the fence to join its mother. The mother stayed in the adjacent field for three…. On the third morning, she was gone. I don’t know if she was poached or what happened or if she just abandoned the calf.

My question would be: what mitigating measures would the ministry be planning, to avoid that type of tragic scenario?

Hon. Lana Popham: I’d like to thank the member for bringing this into estimates. In my view, being in this Legislature since 2009, this is exactly one of the reasons why estimates in this format is positive, because I can hear about issues like this.

[4:15 p.m.]

What I will do is invite the member to come and discuss this one-on-one, maybe bring the Agriculture critic, as well, to discuss where the farm is, what all of the details are that we need to figure out why this happened.

Was there a role that…? Is there something that could have been done to change the outcome? I can’t tell you that right now, and my staff that are here don’t have those details, but we would love for the member to come and talk to us about that. We’ll make sure that we’ve got supporting staff in place when that conversation happens.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

I do have another scenario that I would like to share at this time as well, and it was even more tragic than the one that I just did share. In my area, as I say, there is a significant amount of…. As we all know, farming has been a challenge.

I grew up on a farm. I grew up in Saskatchewan during a timeframe when we were losing 1,500 to 1,800 family farms a year. The farmers were trying everything to try to diversify their means on which to keep the farms alive.

The scenario that I would like to share was also around fencing. It was a scenario where, unfortunately, we watched a cow moose drowned inside of a closure which had an excavation in it. That was proper certified elk fencing in both cases, very tall. The adult animals were able to get overtop, but they didn’t have the runtime or whatever they needed to get back out again.

That was another one that I’d like to share. Again, mitigating measures would be my question, since I do need to ask a question.

Hon. Lana Popham: Again, I appreciate this example coming forward, and I would make the same offer. Maybe we can talk about both issues at the same time.

Ian Paton: While we’re on the subject of wildlife damage, I have been inundated with calls from farmers, not only in Delta but up in Cranbrook and different areas, about their payments. Perhaps you know about this, but everybody is way behind on getting paid for their crop damage for…. I’ve got to think about this now. Normally for the winter of 2024, we would get paid in the late part of the fall of 2023, 2024.

Anyway, my question is: why is there such a massive hang-up of people waiting to get their compensation cheques? There are farmers that are owed $70,000 for damage from geese, ducks, etc. — and elk as well. They’re waiting for these cheques, and they’re way, way overdue.

Hon. Lana Popham: Can I just ask a clarifying question? How far behind does the member think the payments are at this point?

Ian Paton: I would say they’re probably six to seven months overdue right now from their normal time of year.

I personally, as a farmer myself, would get a cheque every year. I’m waiting for my cheque for crop damage to my hay crops.

Hon. Lana Popham: The member is correct. We are running about six months behind. The payments went out last week, so there should be money being received by farmers over this coming week. They’ve gone out. It’s out the door.

Ian Paton: Okay, that’s appreciated. Good news. I’ll be letting several farmers know that have phoned me, wondering where their payments are.

I’d like to move on to processes of local procurement. Several years ago in Agriculture budget estimates, the minister told me about how much work had gone into getting local-produced food in British Columbia into our institutions such as our prisons, our schools, our hospitals, our universities.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’m just wondering: how subscribed is the Buy B.C. program, and what is the province doing to ensure that public sector institutions such as hospitals, schools, universities, Crown corporations, prisons, etc., are procuring local products in light of the current trade dispute with the U.S.? How is the current Feed B.C. procurement framework being used to expand local markets for tariff-exposed exports?

Hon. Lana Popham: I feel like I won the jackpot with this question. It’s my favourite topic, which the member knows. I go on and on about this one.

Feed B.C. got established in…. We started working on it in 2017 — really difficult type of programming to implement. Started with health authorities, and we were told that it was almost impossible, a variety of reasons. It would cost more. There was no distribution set up. There was no system in place to keep track of it.

We plugged away for a number of years, and then Interior Health became the first partner with Feed B.C. with the Penticton hospital. They started using B.C. eggs. Six hundred thousand shelled eggs started moving through Interior Health, and that was just the start of it.

Once the system was established, there were…. After hours and hours and hours, now six regional health authorities all subscribe to Feed B.C. It’s not a legislative policy or framework. It’s a partnership that we have with health authorities.

Back in the day, when we started it, there was a lot of talk about not being able to have legislative totals put into place or regulated totals because of trade agreements. Most often cited was TILMA. So we put in some language that suggested they move their totals.

We started with health authorities that were probably procuring between 11 and 14 percent, and now on average, it’s 30 percent. Some are higher; some are lower. But we’ve really moved the dial, and this is millions of dollars of B.C.-grown-and-processed food that is now flowing through health authorities. The member will know that it’s a bit harder to do that in our northern health authorities, but they have really taken it on as well.

Because all that hard work was done with health authorities, it cleared the path for other areas to be able to take on Feed B.C. So that would be post-secondaries. Twenty-five post-secondary institutions are partners in Feed B.C., and some of them are getting…. They’re well over 40 percent of procurement that’s being done. They have a larger budget, and they have a different type of clientele, a student base that is requiring different types of foods, which lends itself to different types of procurement. But we are moving the dial there. Right now we are also working with B.C. Ferries.

This is a program that I would say had all-partisan support. It’s something that I talked about back when I was the critic. And I don’t think anyone can argue that this is definitely the way to go.

We’re going to see how this goes with these new trade threats. Because, of course, the conversation around “you can’t violate any trade agreements….” Well, right now I’m not really sure which trade agreements we’d be violating if we actually pushed harder on this.

[4:25 p.m.]

Luckily, we’ve got very willing partners. This work continues around the calendar. There are meetings with health authorities, post-sec, specifically around Feed B.C. throughout the year as we try to bring new producers in.

I’m going to tell a really, really quick one. I thought this was one of the best stories I’ve heard this year about Feed B.C. I was at an event, and Fraser Health was there. A representative of Fraser Health came up and told me that this is the first time that they have actually made a contract directly with a blueberry farmer. So instead of going through the usual ways to procure food distribution, they were dealing directly with a farmer.

I think this is a big win for agriculture. I think the more we do this, the easier it’ll get, and you’ll see more direct contracts with farmers across the province.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. As I’ve said in the past, we know that the farmers cannot back their truck up to a hospital or a prison or whatever and say: “Here are blueberries from my farm.” They have to go through processing plants and then through companies — big, big food distribution companies such as Gordon and Sysco. I think you know how the food ends up going to our institutions.

My question is: have you been in touch with these huge food distribution companies? Because they’re the ones that would make the contract deals with our institutions on what’s provided and what’s most economical — what’s cheapest.

And, I guess, the second part of my question is: now that your leader, the Premier, has said over and over again that we will not deal whatsoever if we have to with the United States, are our institutions suddenly not purchasing any product, having any product, from the United States going into our hospitals, our prisons, etc.? In other words, applesauce from Washington state or strawberries from California, etc.…. Have we completely cut off using U.S. agricultural products in our B.C. institutions?

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks again for that question on Feed B.C. Pertaining to the large distributors and if we are working directly with them…. The member is right. Hospitals and often universities are using companies like Gordon and Sysco.

The good news is that they’ve been partners with us right from the get-go. They attend all of our Feed B.C. meetings, and they’re great partners. If you go online and look for products to buy, they were the first to establish a buy-B.C. section, so it would be easy for not just health institutions, etc., to make those choices but also the restaurant industry. So there’s a great partnership there. There are 290 B.C. businesses that are in partnership with these distribution companies already, so it’s well set up.

[4:30 p.m.]

As we see things change with the tariff war, I think the good news is that we’ve done all of the groundwork to make this very easy. I would say that the health authorities, for example, are not buying 100 percent, but we definitely have made these inroads. I think as things ramp up and products get highlighted as B.C. products, as those conversations happen more and more, we’re going to see it’s easier to make those choices.

I’m just going to give the member an example of something that’s in his own riding — I was not able to visit last week, but I’m hoping to visit soon — Olympic yogurt. One of the things that hospitals buy is yogurt. There are parameters around that in the health institutions. It has to be a certain size, and there has to be a certain sugar content, etc. So it’s very particular, unlike post-secondary who have a little bit more freedom. Olympic yogurt could possibly be the company from Delta that is the yogurt supplier into our health authorities.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

So although things are difficult because of the tariff conversation, I think we have a ton of opportunity on the agriculture and food file.

Sheldon Clare: When we closed Ag estimates last time, I asked a question with regards to fencing on rail lines, with BCR lines, CN, and what engagement there was with the feds and the local community with regards to that kind of issue. You had indicated you would have a response for me today.

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks again for reminding me about the question.

I think the first thing that we did is sort out who’s responsible for the issue. Although our ministry is not responsible for the animals that got struck on the rail line or the fencing situation, we do know that the WLRS ministry and the Ministry of Transportation are responsible, and we would be happy to set up a meeting with the member and folks from those ministries.

Ian Paton: I’d like to move on to some Agricultural Land Commission issues. I travel a lot within the Fraser Valley. I travel a lot throughout the province every chance I get for agricultural purposes. I’m seeing the wild, wild west of what’s going on in our ALR right now with properties that are run down. They’re dumps. They’re dumping grounds for fill material. They’re places to park trucks on agricultural land.

There are buildings going up that shouldn’t be going on agricultural land. There are businesses that are literally setting up right in east Delta, in my area, businesses building buildings and setting up businesses on agricultural land, which is totally inappropriate. It’s totally illegal. It can’t be done.

But we know that the minister is frustrated with this as well. Your budget went from $5.4 million, I believe, for the ALC, to $5.5 million. Totally unacceptable. I’m not quite sure how you can sit in cabinet and say: “I’m okay with that.” I’m sure you don’t. But it’s totally unacceptable that the land commission does not get more funding to try and control what’s going on in British Columbia.

For instance, we turn on the TV at night and we see situations of dumping, especially in the Hatzic area, dumping throughout the Fraser Valley of illegal fill material late at night.

So I guess my first question would be: what is the Agricultural Land Commission doing? I know they only have six enforcement officers through the entire province, but how can we get a handle on illegal dumping that’s going on farmland in British Columbia?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Yes, fill dumping is a complete problem. I’m seeing it myself; I travel just as much as the critic does. It’s in every community.

It’s really difficult to keep ahead of folks that are making this probably their business. More money in dumping soil on farmland than probably farming, in some cases. So it’s really difficult to stop, but the ALC has really always made it a priority to be ahead of this issue.

Just the last two years, $432,000 in penalties were given out, and there is court action being taken in many cases. All of that being said…. There’s stuff that’s being done, for sure. Is it keeping ahead of the problem? They’re trying their very best, but it’s a really bad situation.

We are exploring some new options. I can’t talk about that right now. I can’t give any more detail, but I will keep the member apprised of what we are planning or hopefully be able to do.

Ian Paton: With non-farm use activity on our ALR lands, not only am I seeing....

I drive to Abbotsford quite often, because my wife’s mom lives in Abbotsford. We take 16th Avenue, and there’s a perfect example of terrible run-down properties that got subdivided many, many years ago. There’s no farming taking place. It’s just a place to store junk. It’s a place to park trucks at night. I feel sorry for the land commission trying to stay on top of this, but it’s getting completely out of hand in this province.

The building of non-farm-use barns…. And I’ll use my riding of Delta as an example. I think it’s the prime example going on right now in British Columbia. Here’s a letter from the city of Delta who met with the land commission just recently: “Delta’s property use and compliance department have several open files where agricultural land is not being used for its intended purpose in contravention of the Delta zoning bylaw. Items of particular concern are unauthorized farmland developments, including construction of large structures unrelated to farm operations, the use of agricultural land for commercial vehicle parking and the unauthorized deposit of fill material on farmland.”

As the land commission would know, we have no less than six or seven massive new barns that were built. They’ve actually been put on a stop-work order right now because it somehow slipped through the cracks of the city of Delta’s planning department. They are so unconventional that they don’t even make sense as far as normal farming practices.

[4:40 p.m.]

They’re two storeys with windows up above, so they’re obviously going to be used for weddings. They’re going to be used for suites for people to stay upstairs. Thank goodness they’ve been put on hold with some sort of a stop-work order, either by Delta or by the Agricultural Land Commission. But my question is: where are we right now with the illegal buildings, non-farm-conforming farm buildings that are being put up around B.C.?

Hon. Lana Popham: Just to go back to the fill dumping for a moment, one of the things I failed to mention was that I’ve asked my deputy to pull together the trucking associations of the Lower Mainland and the development community to try and get all of industry to the table to be part of the solution on fill dumping, to try and stop it up front. I’d be happy to invite the critic to that meeting and that round table. This is about everybody being at the table to try and harness this really difficult situation.

As far as non-conforming illegal structures, the member brought up examples in his own riding, Delta South. I think it was great that the member brought that up, because I’m very aware of what’s going on there and also because maybe we could give the municipality, the local government of Delta, a lot of kudos for being awesome partners. Even though maybe something fell through the cracks, Delta’s really great to work with. I think they’ve got a very engaged MLA.

Also, farmers institutes. Farmers are a really important part of the conversation. The Agricultural Land Commission and the city of Delta have recently gotten together. They are forming a working group specifically on structures on farmland. The ALC is going to help try and guide Delta in creating possibly some bylaws on what’s acceptable when building applications are being approved. They’re doing this in conjunction with input from the farmers institute in Delta.

I think this is a really great example of how this problem cannot be solved at one level alone. It takes everybody coming to the table to talk about it. So this is going to be a great example to show to other local governments across B.C.

[4:45 p.m.]

Ian Paton: So I guess my next question would be…. We know that there are some non-farm use buildings that are going up, either claiming to be used for their farm operations or some that we know don’t even have anything to do with farming. They’re a commercial business that thinks they can set up and run their business on farmland because there’ll be cheaper taxes.

My question: where do we sit with those? If we determine that some of these huge barns in Delta obviously aren’t being used for proper farming purposes, can they be completely shut down, or is there a process to fine them, and would they be able to continue on and continue to build their barn? I mean, what do we do with these things?

Hon. Lana Popham: Where are we provincially with this whole situation? The ALC is a complaint-driven process, so if there’s a complaint about a structure, the ALC can inspect it and make a decision based on what they see, as far as it being legal or illegal, and work with local government.

But in the case of an area like Delta that has identified structures that are illegal, there are stop-work orders in place. There can be remediation done, so ultimately, the buildings can be removed from the land base. That’s one of the options. It takes time to do that, to get through the system, but just so the member knows, that is an option.

Ian Paton: I want to talk a bit about housing on our farmland, and I know the minister has heard me talk about this many times. I’m an absolute believer that a bona fide farm…. I’ll repeat. Bona fide farm families that are making their 100 percent living on their farm have the next generation come along — the son or a daughter gets married, they have children…. They have the right to live on that farm with a second house or even a third house on the farm.

So my question, to start with. If you want to build a massive indoor riding arena on farmland in Delta or you want to build a massive new barn for your dairy herd or you want to build a massive pit that you dig into the ground of hundreds of square feet, thousands of square feet as a manure pit, those are allowed. Will the minister agree with that, that those facilities are allowed — massive indoor riding arenas that are the size of an ice arena or massive new barns or in-ground manure pits on farms?

Hon. Lana Popham: The short answer is if they are truly in place for farming and they’re farm structures, then the answer is yes, they are allowed.

Ian Paton: Further to that, we’ve agreed that massive 100,000-square-foot indoor riding arenas that take up a massive amount of land on a farm are allowable. A huge new barn, a heifer barn, a milking barn for a farm? It’s allowable. An outdoor riding arena on a horse equestrian facility? That’s allowable. It takes up hundreds of square feet or square metres.

And yet if you’re a farming family with one principal residence, you’re saying that the second residence for a farm family…? Young farmers that are married with kids that want to work on that farm are allowed a second residence, if approved by the municipality, of 970 square feet?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Again, the short answer is if the family needs a structure bigger than 90 square feet, what’s needed is an application to the ALC. I can say to the member that I look at the approval rates of housing for farm purposes, and I will get the exact percentage, but it’s rare that something gets turned down.

Ian Paton: The picture I’m trying to draw here is that on farms, without permission from the land commission or if it goes through your local municipality, for massive, new structures that take up hundreds of thousands of square footage, that’s okay, but if you want to put a second or third home on a farm for farming members to live in, that’s like pulling hen’s teeth. I get more complaints from people saying they’re hung up with trying to get a second or third house on a farm.

Right on my particular road in Delta is a family that’s been there since 1962. I grew up with this family. They’re trying to put a second home on a piece of land that’s part of the farm home plate. It’s actually a lawn that they’ve been mowing. It’s not going on any part of land that’s being farmed to grow food, and yet they’ve been hung up for months and months trying to get a variance to put up a building that’s slightly bigger than 970 square feet.

Hon. Lana Popham: Maybe I’ll start with the percentage of secondary dwellings that are approved by the ALC.

Maybe I’ll back up a little bit. The reason why there’s an application for a second dwelling on the agricultural land reserve…. Except for the 90 square feet, which does not require an application to the ALC — that’s just through local government — the reason why there’s an application for housing that’s larger than that is because when an application is put into the ALC, there is a verification that happens to make sure that it’s for farming.

If we didn’t have that system in place, everyone who’s not a farmer could also do it. The application process is really critical to make sure that we’re protecting farmland and housing opportunities for actual farmers.

I’d be happy to have a larger discussion with the member about that, but I think that with that knowledge, that it’s…. To me, it’s clear that an application process is the only way that we can make sure it’s a farmer or a farming family that’s applying. In those cases, 92 percent of the applications get approved. It’s kind of the checks and balances that are in place.

Now, the member brought up these very large structures that can go in regardless, because they’re barns, because they’re riding rings, whatever they are, but still a notice of intent has to go into the ALC because they’re going to verify that that’s actually farming that’s happening.

The member brought up an example of somebody on his street whose application for a second home, even though they’re a farming family, has been caught up for months and months. We’re kind of checking in without knowing all the details. Nobody is familiar with that scenario, so it could possibly be that it’s the municipality of Delta where the application process is hung up. If it’s hung up at the ALC, the member can get back to me, and we’ll check and see where the progress is.

[4:55 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. I can pass along that the city of Delta sent forward their favourable recommendation for a variance for a larger home for this house in Delta. It’s sitting waiting for some sort of approval or an answer back from the ALC. It’s been several months, according to that family.

Another question I have…. Let’s be clear. What I’m getting at is I don’t know how government came up with 970 square feet as a suitable size for a secondary home on a farm. If you’re a farming family and the next generation has married, they’ve got three or four kids. I mean, come on. Who lives in 970-square-foot houses nowadays on a farm?

Bill 44 came in, which we voted against. Bill 44 actually says that in British Columbia, you can demolish your house in a single-family neighbourhood and replace it with a fourplex where your house was on a 4,000-square-foot lot. And yet on farms in B.C., you’re allowed one more house, and it’s 970 square feet. You need to allow a third house. Can we have a third house? Is that even possible to have a third house? That’ll be the first part of my question.

The second part of my question is: could the minister answer for me why it is that greenhouses…? I love greenhouses. We have lots of them in Delta. But if you put up a greenhouse, you can bring in housing for your workers, up to 100 migrant workers living in housing on a farm that does greenhouses. Yet right next door you could have a dairy farm where they’re struggling to get a second house built.

I’m asking: why is it that greenhouses are allowed so many residents for migrant workers but your typical bona fide B.C. farmer has so much trouble getting a second house?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members, a division has been called in the main chamber. We will recess to attend that division.

I ask members to return promptly following the conclusion of division. If I can get back here, you guys can too, because I’m slow. Thanks.

The committee recessed from 4:57 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order.

We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Lana Popham: I owe the member an answer from before the break. Maybe I would just start by saying that I just want to make a comment on the 90-square-foot residence that’s allowed without going through the ALC. You just have to get it approved by local government. I want to start there because the member has said a few times now that his impression — and I don’t want to speak for the member, but this is what I’m getting — is that that, he believes, was a solution put in place for farm families, and how could a farm family even live in something that small?

Let me just set the record straight. That is not intended to meet the expectations of a secondary residence for a farm family. That is simply an option that was put out there, where there was only the requirement of a local government application approval, to give farm families an additional opportunity for income. They can rent out that small space. They can use it for workers. It really wasn’t intended for a full, entire farm family to live inside of. It was there as another option for income, or like I said, perhaps it was for a farm worker.

That aside, there’s an application process for farm families — for anybody who wants to have a secondary home, a third home, a fourth home, a fifth home on farmland. The reason why the application process is the way it is, is because when somebody wants a secondary residence that’s the same size as the primary residence, there needs to be an application where the ALC has a set of eyes on it that says: “Yeah, that’s for a farm family. Check.”

Since Bill 52, there have been 21 applications approved for three residences. There have been three applications approved for four residences. There have been two applications approved for five residences for farm families. Every single application that was made to the ALC for more than two residences was approved. It’s a 100 percent approval rating. So I just wanted to put that out there. We could talk more about it.

The member also talked about having greenhouses in place and then kind of work-camp-style accommodation go up for their workforce. That would most likely be considered temporary residence for workers in the view of the ALC rather than a permanent residence situation.

But I really need to reiterate because I think the member has brought up the example before that farm families are limited to the number of residences that they can have, when, in fact, if it’s for farming, it’s really unlimited. There’s no limit. We’ve had up to five residences approved on the same property for farming purposes. So I think there is real flexibility and acknowledgment of the needs of farm families since it’s a 100 percent approval rate for those additional residences.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. We must be living in totally different worlds because I deal with people every day trying to get one more residence on their farm, and you’re telling me that there are applications that’ve been approved for three, four, five?

[5:20 p.m.]

I find this absolutely astounding, absolutely astounding, when I’m trying to help neighbours get one more residence. Not only just the residence itself, but could we actually make it 1,500 square feet instead of 970 square feet?

My question, again: why is it that the greenhouse industry can put up housing for 100 migrant workers on that farm property, yet next door is a bona fide family-owned, third-generation farm growing potatoes or a dairy farm that is not allowed to put up the same migrant worker housing on their farm? Dairy farms nowadays have six, seven, eight, ten employees now. It’s not like the old days where there was one hired hand.

Hon. Lana Popham: Well, I think the answer is that if there is a need for additional housing for farm workers, work camp style, which you see at greenhouse locations, then an application goes into the Agricultural Land Commission. They use that lens that they use. Is this for agricultural purposes? Does this support the farm?

For the one greenhouse, which I think the member is referencing, the answer was yes. It supported that greenhouse. Comparing that to a farm family needing an additional residence or some kind of supportive housing for workers…. Larger-scale worker housing is normally considered a temporary type of housing on farm, but if it’s to support family members who are farming on that farm, the number of residences is basically…. It’s an unlimited number.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members of the committee, we will be going back to the chamber for the Lieutenant Governor to give us royal assent. Once again, I challenge you to get back here before I do. Thank you so much.

We are in recess at this time.

The committee recessed from 5:22 p.m. to 5:38 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, folks. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We’re currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Lana Popham: I know the member has another burning question, but I wanted to make sure that I gave him an update on something that I think is going to make him happy.

Member, the folks that live on your street will be receiving their decision from the Agricultural Land Commission this week.

Ian Paton: Well, thank you for that. I haven’t even mentioned who it was, but that farmer and I went to school together since grade 2. And we’ve been…. Anyway, they’re a long-standing third-generation farm family.

[5:40 p.m.]

I just want to reiterate that I’m not trying to…. You know what I’m not trying to do. But I’m trying to spell out that my life as the Ag critic is phone calls and emails constantly from people frustrated with issues at the Agricultural Land Commission and trying to get answers and trying to get things approved.

My speed dial…. There’s a guy named Colin Fry — and Kirk Miller and John Moonen. You know they go: “Can you help these people out, because I’m not sure what to do.” I think the people here, the staff, will know who I’m talking about. I’m trying to ask them for help to get through issues.

The next thing I’ll jump onto…. What I’m trying to point out, is that you can build massive buildings on top of prime agriculture farmland for equestrian or for greenhouses or for all these different things, but it just seems like a house that takes up 2,000 square feet is really hard to come by. But it’s easy for massive buildings that take up huge square footage on a farm. So that’s what I’m trying to get at.

My next question is about foreign ownership of farmland. I’m getting calls from some of my MLA colleagues from up in northern B.C., the Prince George–McBride area. They’re U.S. developers or wealthy U.S. people coming up, purchasing large tracts of farmland up in the McBride–Prince George area, and they’re not farming it. They’re leaving it fallow, and they’re having their hunting buddies come up from the States to hunt on these farmland parcels that aren’t actually being farmed.

So my question: what are we doing, Minister, about foreign nationals that are purchasing farmland in B.C. and not actually farming it but using it for a purpose such as hunting for their buddies in northern parts of B.C.?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Good question, yes. I’m very well aware of the issue that the member brings up. In fact, my deputy and I will be going up into the Vanderhoof area to talk with the folks, hear a little bit more about this issue.

One of the problems is that we’re not quite sure how much land is affected, but what I can tell the member — and I think it’s good news — is that property transfer tax data from the Ministry of Finance shows that foreign investment has declined steadily from 3 percent of annual transactions in 2017 to 1 percent in 2024 in B.C.’s real estate market.

The reason why we believe this is happening is because of the foreign buyers tax. There are discussions about should that tax be increased to try and really push this great result, but that hasn’t been landed on. I can say that I think the speculation tax, foreign buyers tax, is having the effect that we want around just pieces, swaths of land being purchased by foreign owners and left vacant.

But I understand the part about the hunting.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. Certainly an issue in B.C. that we have to try and get on top of.

One more land commission question, if I could. Greenhouses on prime agricultural land in the 1990s were very controversial, especially in my riding of Delta South, where most of the big greenhouses are growing beautiful peppers and cucumbers and tomatoes. And of course, I’m not too happy about it, but growing cannabis as well. They’ve switched from tomatoes to cannabis.

But a lot of the farmers in Delta weren’t too happy about these greenhouses on our prime flat class 1 Delta soil. But as time went by, we toured them. We got to see just how fantastic they were with producing homegrown products in Delta.

My question is…. I hate to keep bringing up everything in my riding, because this isn’t about me and my riding, but there’s an example of a 50-acre farm that was called Wellbrook Winery in east Delta, where I live. Wellbrook Winery folded up. It got purchased by a local greenhouse next door, and they want to expand.

A farmer just about gets put in jail for putting crappy fill material on his farm — illegal dumping — and yet this greenhouse property was allowed to cover 40 acres with poor quality fill material from some excavation site in Vancouver. Why was that greenhouse in Delta allowed to cover up 40 acres with two feet of fill material preparing to build their next greenhouse?

Hon. Lana Popham: I am also a big fan of greenhouses, but I know that years ago, it was more controversial. The effects that the greenhouses were having in certain areas…. I will use Delta as well. Light shining out of them at night, etc. etc. But technology has really brought us down a great path. There’s more mitigation around light at night. There’s just a whole bunch of great things that greenhouses are doing — less water consumption, beneficial insect management programs, all of that.

And, right now, when we need it most, they are producing a ton of food for British Columbia. I’ve been having a lot of chats with greenhouse operators, and they’re excited about the future. They’re excited about the future that they will play in a larger footprint of B.C. food security here. I couldn’t be more happy about that.

[5:50 p.m.]

As far as greenhouses and building on farmland…. I mean, one of the consequences of having a successful greenhouse industry is that they are allowed. It’s an allowable use on farmland. So greenhouses, like any larger agricultural structure…. You will need to bring in structural fill. It is unfortunate in some ways that this area of land gets filled with structural fill in order to place a greenhouse, but it is an allowable use in the agricultural land reserve.

Ian Paton: Before I pass a question on to my colleague, I just want to say that as the Minister of Agriculture, I would find it unacceptable to cover up class 1 Delta black soil with two feet of fill material.

I live right there. This stuff’s full of rebar, it’s full of rocks, it’s full of chunks of concrete. I mean, I just don’t know how the land commission allowed that 40 acre…. That’s a huge piece.

It’s one thing to say to a farmer: “You want to build a new barn? Put down some fill material to build your barn on, which is going to take up 90,000 square feet.” But we’re talking 40 acres of crappy fill material going on to prime farmland to build this greenhouse. I find that rather unacceptable.

Perhaps the minister has an answer for that. If not, I’m willing to move on.

Hon. Lana Popham: I think this particular example….

The Chair: Minister, through the Chair.

Hon. Lana Popham: Oh, thank you, Madam Chair.

Through the Chair, this particular example…. It sounds like there was a soil and fill plan that was in place, and they stuck to the plan.

I mean, this is what it comes down to, I think: that it’s an allowable use in the agricultural land reserve. It’s a very successful part of our agriculture industry. It’s producing food.

Greenhouses also need flat space. The members’ constituency is a prime location for greenhouse operations, and I believe they want to expand. I guess we could have a debate today: should greenhouses be allowed to expand in this member’s constituency, where should they go, and how should we approach it? Right now we’re open to greenhouse expansion in the province.

Ian Paton: I, too, am in favour of greenhouse expansion. I believe the greenhouses make a fabulous product — extremely high tech.

But I can tell you that Village Farms and VanMarrewyk’s and Windset Farms and Millennium Greenhouses are all built on the soil of the farmland of Delta. This is one exception where 40 acres got covered up with fill material.

At this point, I’m willing to sit down and pass on to a colleague of mine from Kamloops.

Ward Stamer: Just shifting gears a little bit on ALC studies — on ALC land, on ALR land.

I have a constituent who had a winery, who basically went through all the hoops with ARC studies, spent over $400,000 in this. They even did it about three different times down by the river, when they were told that because of the flooding, they wouldn’t find anything. They were right.

So couple of questions to you. They’ve closed the winery now, and they’re looking at subdivision. The way it’s set up, I think they can do three ten-acre parcels on one section, and then 100 acres will stay in another section.

They’re telling me that they’re going to have to redo the ALC studies in this process. Also, they do not have timelines on when that work would be completed, if it had to be completed, and there’s no limit on costs.

Going forward, as we are trying to not only maintain and develop our ALR lands, is the ministry looking at opportunities where, if studies have been done in the past, they will be accepted, and that it’s not just the exception, it’s the rule, unless things have changed, like, on the ground?

The second thing is having proper timelines and costing, because right now it looks like it’s an open-end cheque depending on whichever jurisdiction or whichever First Nations is responsible in that area.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks to the member for the question, and welcome to estimates.

This particular legislation and ALR studies falls under the Ministry of Forests, so we don’t actually have any information on that. I would direct the member to go and canvass the Ministry of Forests when that comes up.

Ian Paton: I’m going to move on now to some water-related issues. I want to make sure that the minister is aware that farmers don’t necessarily trust government not to cut off their water supply before they process their water licences, due to backlogging in the system.

The B.C. Agriculture Council is calling for the creation of agricultural water reserves — I think the minister knows all about this — giving farms priority access over other industries.

In this vein, will the ministry commit to ensuring that agriculture is a distinct water user group under any watershed security strategies and include agriculture as a distinct category in any further watershed agreements with stakeholders?

Hon. Lana Popham: The member brings up something that’s a really, really important topic. It’s always been an important topic, but right now it’s even more important.

We know that our province is suffering under drought status, and this is affecting all user groups, including agriculture. When it affects agriculture, it’s a really serious and difficult problem. We saw that in the Cowichan Valley with the dairy there.

There are choices that have to be made when we’re literally running out of water, looking at all the different user groups. Is it the salmon? Is it the dairy? There’s a ton of complicating factors with water.

But the thing that we know that’s very clear is that this is a problem that’s getting worse. We need to have all of our best minds together to try and come forward with some recommendations on how we mitigate this.

Our ministry has committed $100 million to water infrastructure funds, and I think around $70 million has already been moved out the door, so we still have some money left there.

I think most importantly with this question, it’s important to know that the Premier’s Task Force on Agriculture and Food, which the B.C. Agriculture Council is a huge part of, is tasked with figuring out solutions and coming forward with recommendations. Perhaps it’s the one about the water reserve that they’ll land on.

Through this task force, water is their top issue. They’re starting the discussions on water, I think, next week or the week after. The timeline on when we expect recommendations back is within seven or eight months, so we should have…. And there are great minds at the table, including farmer representatives.

But this is something we’re going to have to grapple with as a society: who gets water and when do they get it as we start running out. Water collections and agriculture is going to become more and more important — low water use.

Getting back to greenhouses, they use a minimal amount of water. We’re going to have to get our heads around how we’re using water and how it’s being allocated. It’s a really difficult topic.

[6:00 p.m.]

Ian Paton: I believe it was Labour Day of 2023. There was an emergency meeting called in a community hall in Westwold, B.C. I drove up there that morning. It was the same day as my son’s wedding, so I had to get back in time.

Over 200 farmers came out that morning, absolutely irate about — I want to call them — the water cops that were represented by the Ministry of Environment, I think, that came. They were shutting down everybody’s irrigation systems in the Westwold area — Falkland, Westwold. And these guys were absolutely irate. Like, over 200 farmers on a Saturday morning on a long weekend came out to this hall. We said we’d do what we could.

I want to just read something out here. At the B.C. Agriculture Council Gala in January ‘24 — and unfortunately, the minister wasn’t at that gala — the Premier said…. I can’t say his last name; I’ve been getting used to this over the years. The Premier said that farmers wouldn’t have their water cut off or fines, and yet two days later, the province announced a host of new penalties for violations of the water sustainability and fines up to half a million dollars. This is after he said at the gala that farmers would not have their water cut off.

Will farmers in Westwold, Vancouver Island and other places be told to shut off their water or get these substantial fines in the summer of upcoming 2025?

Hon. Lana Popham: Let me just start off by saying that it’s like a cross-ministry approach on fines and penalties when it comes to water infractions. That side of it is covered off by the WLRS Ministry.

But let’s go back to that moment in time where there was a very difficult moment for farmers in the Westwold area. I’ll be the first to admit that the communication around what was going on was not good. There are big lessons learned there. And I would say that it is a completely different world now on the way that we interact with farmers around drought issues, and the Ministry of WLRS does as well. So unfortunate situation, but lessons learned. Everyone’s in communication. We’ve also put a ton of work in as a ministry to try and figure out how to mitigate some of these situations.

I would like to give the member some reassurance that under my watch as Minister of Agriculture, as long as we’re communicating with farmers, we shouldn’t be running up against fines and penalties. We should be on the same page as we kind of enter into another drought situation. And that’s my guarantee to the member.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. I’ll be sure to pass that on to everybody at the agriculture gala coming up this spring. I’ll be repeating everything from Hansard at the agriculture gala.

One more question about water. It’s kind of a two-part question.

The watershed security strategy, which was supposed to be completely launched in early 2024, envisions the potential for an agriculture water reserve.

[6:05 p.m.]

My question to the minister: does the Ministry of Agriculture support this vision, and will it support the adoption of a regulation formalizing the process for creating an agriculture water reserve within the watershed security strategy?

Second part of this question. In March 2024, an $80 million agricultural water infrastructure program was announced. How many farms have received money, and how much is left in this program?

Hon. Lana Popham: Okay, so let’s start first with the number of applications, number of farms. There was actually $100 million. There’s $80 million that I’m going to talk about now, and then there was $20 million that came from a different stream, so $100 million in total. The other 20 was fully allocated, but let’s talk about the 80 that the member’s referring to right now. So $80 million. There were 501 applications approved. Currently we still have $26.9 million to allocate, so that’s pretty good.

Then the issue of the dedicated water reserve for agriculture is the top issue that the Premier’s task force will be talking about and grappling with. It’s on May 7. I thought there would be…. I misunderstood. I thought there would be a report at the end of the seven-ish months that they will be grappling with topics, but, in fact, they’re going to be bringing forward recommendations specifically about water within a number of weeks of meeting on May 7.

We should see some recommendations come forward by the summer, and those will obviously be public.

Ward Stamer: You were mentioning earlier in one of your statements about changes to allocation in water, or at least looking into those allocations.

I know, talking to some of my residents…. That is in my riding, in Westwold. There were discussions last year after the 2023 stuff, and then 2024. There were a couple things that came to mind.

One was the science in determining what the drawdown should be. So that was one of the questions that was brought up, both in 2023 and 2024, to try to determine those guidelines.

The second one was on the potential of reallocation or identifying who got water before somebody else. One of the questions was the difference between alfalfa for beef versus vegetables, and nobody had a straight answer on how that was going to be.

When you look at the water rights in this province over the last 100 years, how they were determined, how rights were established then with the new groundwater act and how everybody had to apply and regain those rights in the Okanagan…. You’re very well aware of the BX water system. It was originally designed for agriculture, and then all the expansion in residential households in Vernon put a lot of strain onto that BX water system.

[6:10 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister has any idea what we would be looking for in 2025 in regards to those opportunities for engagement and consultation with the public, with the stakeholders, when the government starts talking about reallocation.

Hon. Lana Popham: Can I just clarify with the member: was the question specifically about Westwold?

Ward Stamer: No, it was for the province.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Ward Stamer: Through the Chair, sorry.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: That was a complicated question.

This member is good with the big questions. He’s like Mr. Complicated over there, but I like it. It’s challenging.

I hope this is going to suffice, but if not, we can continue on. Again, if the member wants to drill down a bit deeper, happy to have that conversation in my office after estimates are done. My door is always open.

The member represents Westwold, which was really the epicentre of things going sideways, and a lot of that was around transparency and communication. Again, I wanted to reiterate that we believe we have now fixed that problem, and I’m going to depend on the member to kind of update me if the member thinks that that’s not going well. I think it is, my team thinks it is, but always open to having some input from the local MLA.

Last summer we did some workshops from the ministry called Decoding Drought. Not sure if the member knew about that, but within these workshops we were able to have the conversation with the agriculture community about the science of hydrology, from the ministry’s perspective and from the farmer’s perspective. We were able to talk about how allocations are done at that point, but to make sure that everyone was on the same page as far as the science goes, because that was going to have to be the starting point for transparency and how we’re considering the science.

There was, of course, the conversation about first-in-time, first-in-right, and what’s the value of agriculture when it comes to water. As the member brought up, how can we better value the agriculture sector and different commodities when it comes to water use? We are collaborating with WLRS, and we have been since last summer, talking about putting that lens on agriculture. For example, there’s a hay field, and there’s livestock. You can’t really have the livestock without the hay, so there’s just a different value that’s put on it that may not have been there previously.

Along with the B.C. Agriculture Council, the local farming community, MLAs, I really honestly think that this approach is solving the transparency and communication side. But we also need to continue to grow our tools, because we’ve never faced this kind of drought before. We might have the science, but facing it head-on is new to many of us in government, local government and agriculture communities.

We have this new tool called the B.C. crop reporter that is set up within watersheds, the more difficult, intense watersheds — and Westwold is one of those watersheds. Farmers are able to report their water use, the amount of water that they’re using at different times, precipitation — all of the things that are included when we talk about water — so that we’ve got some on-the-ground, granular knowledge within each of these watersheds. That’s playing out right now, and I think that’ll allow us to have some data that’s much needed.

We’re also doing this work in collaboration with WLRS and, like I said, the agriculture community, so we’re really hoping this tool gets us a little bit farther down the track as far as an approach that we might use. But again, water and this issue is one of the main topics that’s getting pulled through the Premier’s task force.

Ward Stamer: Does that also include on the database, because Westwold was significantly impacted by the White Rock fire, so some of the changes to the hydrology to that? That would be one thing I think would…. Because that can be anywhere in British Columbia.

The second part of my question is: when we’re looking at those models and those opportunities for discussion, have you looked at other storage opportunities? I know that’s a big issue even for municipalities, and the risk associated in that comprehensive plan. Are they also looking for other opportunities for water storage? I know, of course, First Nations would have to be involved all the way through this process.

[6:20 p.m.]

Is that also part of that assessment, looking at the overall picture of what we have in agriculture, what we have for water, and as we go forward, what the opportunities are to try to increase that capacity?

Hon. Lana Popham: A great question. We don’t have the ability to take on the forest fire area effects, but we’re going to flag it for WLRS, because I think that’s a great question. I think we all know that when a fire rips through, the hydrology can significantly change. Good point.

Then as far as water storage, of that $80 million that I was discussing with the previous member, there is a stream within that funding that’s specifically for local government to take on water storage and water conveying — larger projects. It means that local government would have to take it on as a project, but there’s funding to support them to do that, and it’s not one of the programs that’s really taken up.

We have $26 million left in that fund. I’m happy to walk the member through, possibly with his local government, to try and figure out if there’s an opportunity for an application there. Yeah, that is available right now.

Ian Paton: I want to move on to a bit about processing. My personal opinion about agriculture in this province…. Whether it’s livestock that you’re raising, whether it’s vegetables that you’re growing, you can be the farmer of the year growing stuff but if you don’t have a place to take that product, to have it processed and turned into a cheque that they send to you in the mail, what are you actually farming for?

The small-scale farmers, as you know, are great. They make a great product, but on a small scale, and they take it to their farmers markets. That’s how they handle their product. The farmers markets are great; you get good, fresh stuff. But big conventional farmers need to have a processing plant, or if you’re in livestock, you need an abattoir, to be able to process a product you’re growing to bring in some income.

With the closure of the cooperative up in Oliver, with B.C. Tree Fruits, many packinghouses will be taking an increased volume of fruit from farms across the region. To support and provide a legal pathway for the storage, packing and marketing of this fruit, the province is making a temporary exemption to the 50 percent ALR rule for tree fruits, which is the requirement that value-added products processed on the ALR must have at least 50 percent of the processed product sourced from the farm itself.

The NDP platform of 2024 promised to support and expand food processing in B.C. Is there a plan to include a section or a parcel of the industrial land reserve for food processing and, if not in an industrial land reserve, does the Ministry plan to expand the ALR to include land that they would like to have used for food processing?

[6:25 p.m.]

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Lana Popham: To the member’s question, the member is right that, especially maybe now with the tariff war going on, people are really interested in not just B.C.-grown food but B.C.-processed food.

To the member’s point about the co-op, I just went up and spent a week in Kelowna and had three town halls with orchardists, talking about what they’re looking at for this year and what facilities they’re going to be using. We talked to a lot of folks on apple storage areas — processors and the farmers.

There’s a big conversation going on right now with orchardists — especially, maybe, with the apple growers. Do we need to have an apple marketing commission? Is there a moment where a co-op could be reborn? It’s unknown at this time, but for over a week, in six hours of meeting with folks, we tried to focus in on solutions and potential.

This is a great time of year to go up and visit with farmers because it’s spring, and there’s hope in the air. The winter has been pretty good in the Okanagan. I feel like we’re going to continue with those discussions over the next number of months and, hopefully, be able to land on something.

As far as processing goes, the member mentioned that maybe we should be expanding the agricultural land reserve and making areas for food processing to happen. I am all for expanding the agricultural land reserve. I think that’s a great idea, Member. I’m not sure how we would do that, but we could probably team up on that one.

To the credit of the Agricultural Land Commission, they do approve food-processing facilities, which can be large and small. I don’t know if the member knows about a new business called EggSolutions. It’s a 75-member egg co-op, and they have been approved, as a co-op, to process eggs on the ALR. The facility itself is over 75,000 square feet. It’s a massive building, specifically approved on the ALR, to support farmers as a co-op model.

[6:30 p.m.]

So you can have larger processing applications go into the ALC if it’s a co-op, or for a number of other reasons that support domestic processing. I think there’s opportunity there, but I think we also know that everyone is more interested than ever in seeing more B.C. product out there. That’s going to be a conversation in progress, but I also think there are a lot of great examples of where that’s happening now.

Ian Paton: I think the question I wanted answered with a yes or no is on giving a 50 percent exemption for the tree fruit people to be able to handle more than just their 50 percent of the product. I’m asking if you would allow processing on our agricultural land — to be able to use more than 50 percent of what they’re just growing on their farm.

You could set up a processing plant if you’re a blueberry farmer. But you go: “I can’t make a living doing this with just my blueberries. I need to take in blueberries from other farmers to make this profitable and worthwhile.”

Do you see the future enabling processing plants on ALR land being able to go above the 50 percent rule?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think that because of the tariff situation and the food economy having a heightened awareness from consumers, we’re looking at every option. How can we get more grown and processed food out there in our food economy? So that’s under discussion.

But I have to say that if somebody wanted to have a processing facility on the ALR that was processing less than 50 percent of what was grown on a farm, you can do that by application right now. I’ve got a giant list of successful applications that have been put forward to the ALC. There have been a dairy and milk processing business, an abattoir, a food hub, seaweed processing, poultry abattoir, mobile juicing, Meadow Valley Meats.

All of these businesses are not producing 50 percent on the ALR land that they exist on. They’re bringing in a product to process. They’re doing this by application through the Agricultural Land Commission.

The Agricultural Land Commission’s mandate is to protect land, but it’s also to encourage B.C. food growing and then, in the case of all of these applications that were approved, processing. I think that there’s an avenue right now, but we are talking about how we can ensure that there’s more B.C. food in our economy.

Ian Paton: I’m going to move on.

I must say, we all deal with farmers constantly. I go to farmers meetings. I meet farmers for coffee. I get endless emails. Farmers have become very cynical in this province. They’re trying to make a living. The cost of production is through the roof. Taxes, permits, paperwork, licensing — it’s endless.

Now we see this government coming forward…. I got elected in 2017. This is the fifth task force that has been put together to somehow save agriculture in B.C., and farmers are laughing. They’re cynical. It goes all the way back to the Minister’s Advisory Committee for Revitalizing the ALR and the ALC, way back in 2017.

[6:35 p.m.]

The deputy minister’s task force in agriculture, oil and gas up north. The revitalization of the ALR and the ALC. The Minister’s Advisory Group on Regenerative Agriculture. The MLAs committee that talked about carbon sequestration in our agricultural soils. I sat on that committee last year.

Now we have the B.C. Food Security Task Force. This one here, this glossy book — I’m going to be bringing this up. Of course, now we have the Premier’s task force on agriculture, with 15 members to that task force.

Can the minister outline the selection process for the 15 members on the Premier’s task force on agriculture and food? Can you tell me how many real farmers and ranchers and people in aquaculture are on that committee?

Hon. Lana Popham: I’m excited about the Premier’s task force because I think the timeline for results is quite short, and they’re dealing with some really tough issues that we talk about in here. We’ve got some great representation on the task force.

To the member’s point about “are there real farmers that are represented,” BCAC is a co-chair. They represent 20 farm groups, which are the cattlemen, the dairy, all of that. So we do have that representation, which I think is really important.

Jennifer Woike, of course, is the president, and she’s an egg producer. We have Annalise Grube-Cavers, who is a co-owner of Fresh Valley Farms. Nav Bains, speaking of blueberries, has a very large-scale blueberry operation. Then we have Chris Bodnar, who is an agrologist and somebody who works at the University of the Fraser Valley. He also is a farmer himself.

So I think we have farming covered off, and then we’ve got a whole list of other folks, thought leaders, people from processing. Food and Bev is another co-chair, James Donaldson. So we were looking at the entire supply chain from ground into retail, on the table, whatever it is. I think we’ve got a really good representation there.

We do have Steve Pocock, who is the owner of Sawmill Bay oysters. He’s actually, also, from land farming himself. That’s his background in the U.K. Very smart guy, and he’s been in the aquaculture business for years up on Quadra Island. So I think we’ve got a great group.

When it comes to things like water or the water reserve, competitiveness, all of the topics that the task force is going to deal with, we also have the option — and we’ll be doing it — of bringing in outside experts. So when we talk about water, we know that the cattlemen represent rural areas, and water to the cattlemen might be different than someone who’s farming on the Saanich Peninsula, for example, or in Delta. We can bring in experts from outside, including representatives from dairy.

[6:40 p.m.]

These four topics are going to roll through the task force between now and October. Although these are the folks that sit around the table officially, we’ll be bringing other folks in. These names, of course, were…. This list was created in conjunction with B.C. Food and Bev and the B.C. Agriculture Council and ourselves. It wasn’t like we just appointed a bunch of people. Everybody worked on this list to make sure that we got a good, rounded group.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. I think you’ll agree with me that our largest agricultural export in British Columbia is farmed salmon. Is there anyone representing the farmed salmon industry on this task force?

Hon. Lana Popham: Well, the B.C. salmon farmers are represented by the B.C. Agriculture Council. We’ve been telling all commodity groups like that to filter their input through the B.C. Agriculture Council, so everybody is well represented.

Ian Paton: As I listed off, I think, five different task forces have been put together since 2017. Why do you think this task force will be any more successful than any of the past ones? We’re still in big trouble in B.C. with our agriculture and our farmers.

Hon. Lana Popham: I mean, we could go back and look at all the task forces, including under the member’s previous government, that have been stood up to deal with issues around agriculture and food. The select standing committee, a legislative committee, was stood up when I first became minister, and we dealt with meat regulations. Other subsequent task forces have been stood up. Task forces come forward with a list of recommendations and then, in most circumstances, it’s up to government to take some of those recommendations or not.

I would say that all work done on any agriculture task force, standing committee, even under the previous B.C. Liberal government, has had a positive impact at raising the profile on agricultural issues that are important but also has moved the dial on things that we’ve needed to focus in on.

I can tell you that the select standing committee on meat production in B.C. changed the way that meat production is done on farm and in rural areas. It made a significant difference.

We could go through every task force to talk about what improvements have been made. The revitalization of the agricultural land reserve…. We came up with more flexibility for farmers. There’s a whole bunch of stuff. So I would say that disparaging agricultural task forces that have been stood up is incorrect. They’ve all had some kind of value, and they’ve allowed us to have some touch points on issues that are complicated and diverse.

I can’t speak for task forces before our government, but I would be pretty confident in saying that when you populate a group of folks onto a task force or a select standing committee, these are people that are thoughtful folks, that are there for a reason. They have some connection to agriculture and food. When their recommendations come forward, it’s not to be disparaged. There are good recommendations, and government acts when and how they can on those recommendations.

Are all recommendations accepted? No, because it’s almost impossible to do that. But generally, I would say that every task force has moved the dial.

Ian Paton: I have a colleague that’s going to ask a question in just a moment, but this one here — I believe I’m able to hold this up — is a real gem. This is a 77-page glossy book from the B.C. Food Security Task Force. And my goodness, it was going to change the world in B.C., and it was going to make us a world leader in ag technology in British Columbia.

I’m just wondering to the minister: if you recall this glossy booklet that was put out, how many recommendations in this book were actually acted upon by the provincial government?

The Chair: Sorry, Member. Member, that would be considered using a prop.

Ian Paton: Thank you.

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: That was a Premier’s task force. I don’t have the recommendations in front of me, but I can tell the member that I wholeheartedly believe that every task force, including that one, has led to work being done that has moved the dial.

For that one in particular, there was a lot of focus on agritech and clean tech for agriculture. That really spurred a lot of work within the ministry and within the government, including the Ministry of Jobs, to try and figure out different avenues of funding to support agritech and to have a conversation about vertical farming allowed on the agricultural land reserve. It also was really the instigator for BCCAI, the Centre for Agritech at SFU, which is significantly important. I believe that it’s done some significant work. So that’s an example that I can give about this particular task force.

But let me just go back to the select standing committee on meat, because I’m really proud of that work that was done, and the member sat on it. The member toured the province going to small-scale abattoirs.

I would like the member to come back and tell me whether or not that particular select standing committee had a positive effect. I believe we can say that about all of them, but that one in particular was a tough one. Boy, we implemented the recommendations, and it was excellent.

This one, I’d say that we can point to work being done on agritech.

Ian Paton: Of course, the committee on meat inspection in abattoirs was the only one that was really good because I was on it. Okay? You can admit that.

Madam Chair, I’d like to turn things over to my colleague from Kelowna.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair, I’ll ask a few questions.

The Chair: Sorry. Sorry.

Member.

Gavin Dew: Madam Chair, I’ll ask a few questions.

I must say I am dismayed to hear the Premier’s Food Security Task Force report given such short shrift. It appears as if the minister believes there was more value in task forces undertaken under previous governments than in the one undertaken by her own government under the leadership of the former Premier.

I am frustrated to see the level of public commentary, including from the folks that led that task force. They seem to believe that the government has largely abandoned that task force and left its recommendations to moulder.

I wonder if the minister could provide an update on what has been done in the last five years to move forward materially on on-farm processing.

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I don’t think that I was trying to say that the Premier’s task force under a different Premier was not valuable. We’ve actually implemented eight out of the 14 suggestions, so I think that it was important.

It really spurred the agritech grant program that we have, the agritech concierge service that we were offering through the Jobs Ministry. It allowed us to move forward and sign an MOU with the Netherlands around agritech and agritech knowledge-sharing. Those are really important pieces of work that we moved the dial on.

It also allowed us, as far as food processing goes, to try and figure out the best way to support food processing and which streams of funding are needed. So $20 million was stood up, specifically, about competitiveness and food processing.

I think the member asked quite a wide-ranging question. I’m happy to drill down with more detail, but as far as defending the task force, I think they’ve all had value.

Gavin Dew: I spent some time working on related issues and a significant amount of time with both municipal leaders and farmers in the Fraser Valley, many of whom felt that five or six years ago, the Premier at the time went to them and made commitments around on-farm processing, around agri-industrial zoning.

Five years later those commitments remain unfulfilled, from their perspective, based on those conversations I’ve had with stakeholders. So I wonder how this new task force can have legitimacy when there is a perception among a lot of people that the most important recommendation, a central recommendation of the previous task force, has not moved forward, and there are a lot of frustrated people that are waiting to see action on that.

They have led me to the belief that there is a significant internal divide within the government caucus around this matter, and therefore, there is a lack of courage to actually address the issue.

I wonder: will the minister actually be addressing agri-industrial zoning in the next five years after leaving it to do nothing for the last five, or very little?

Hon. Lana Popham: The current task force. There are four topics that they will be considering, four topics that I think are pretty important: water; land, access to land for primary production; competitiveness; and labour.

These topics have been identified by the industry, and the solutions and the recommendations are going to be coming forward from industry. I feel like there is…. This is really set up for success, and I’m really looking forward to the work that they’re going to be doing.

[6:55 p.m.]

I think that the member was also talking about: are we going to be focusing in on food processing? Absolutely. We’ve been doing a lot of work on that and trying to look at ways that we can make sure that there isn’t an increase in speculation on primary farmland, because primary production is still important to this government, as well as support for value-added, which I think we can all get behind at this point in time.

Gavin Dew: Just so I can get really clear on this, because there was no answer in that answer: for those stakeholders who have been waiting for five years since the publication of the previous Premier’s Food Security Task Force and several years of consultation before that…. For those that are waiting for the recommendations of that task force around agri-industrial zoning to be implemented, will the minister give a straight answer as to when, if ever, they will be implemented?

And if the answer is that they won’t be because this government has changed its mind, will the minister just simply give a straight answer on that matter please?

Hon. Lana Popham: Well, I think the answer that I can give the member is that government is giving the lead to industry to bring forward solutions. Food processing is incredibly important. We have to also protect our primary agriculture folks. So striking a balance, I think, should be the priority.

Yet right now everybody’s focused on more value-added, more processing from Canada and British Columbia, and we are alive to that.

Tony Luck: To keep on the theme of groups waiting for things and actions that happen in the province, I would like to ask a quick question about a current incomplete order-in-council — I believe it’s with the Minister of Agriculture, but I might be incorrect on that — in regards to requests by the B.C. Bison Association.

The BCBA has been in negotiation for over three decades in an effort to get this province to recognize the importance of clarifying bison as domestic livestock. This would not take away from the game herds or the wild herds that are out there already but would at least classify those animals on ranches and domesticated to be under the agriculture classification to better recognize the importance of this bovine as an integral part of the diversification enhancement of the agricultural sector in the province.

We’re the only province in Canada after 30 years that does not recognize bison as livestock, and they are an important segment of the bovine industry in B.C., as I’ve mentioned. The BCBA has been unsuccessful after decades of lobbying government in this province to get into line with the rest of Canada and other jurisdictions to have farm bison designated as livestock.

For example, in Saskatchewan, bison are regulated by two ministries, recognizing bison as domesticated livestock and wildlife. The Ministry of Agriculture obviously looks after domesticated livestock. The Ministry of Environment looks after wild herds.

In recent years, there was an order-in-council started to recognize bison as livestock. Unfortunately, as I understand, this OIC is one signature short of enacting this order. How long does this take?

Can we get a commitment from this government to bring this across the finish line and get the final signature BCBA needs to recognize bison as an important piece of the diversification of our agriculture industry in this province so that it can provide the programs the ranchers need to make this a thriving industry and bring the security and certainty of the bison industry they need as a part of an important piece of food security as well?

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. That was a new one for me. But I can say that I will be in touch with the chief vet, and I will be able to get the member a timeline.

Ian Paton: We’ve got a lot to try and get through, and I’m going to try and…. We’ll end everything before eight o’clock tonight, okay?

We’re going to go on to tariffs now. B.C. farmers and food producers rely on an intricate supply chain with the United States. Feed additives, hatching eggs, fertilizer, pest control products, construction materials, farm equipment, animal health supplies, etc.

Tariffs on agriculture products on top of increased production material costs threaten farmers twice. What is the minister doing now, besides a task force, to protect farmers from this double threat?

Hon. Lana Popham: We’re doing a lot on the tariffs. I hesitate to mention a task force because of what the member said earlier, but we do have a task force. We’re working really closely with industry. My staff is doing constant outreach.

As minister, I’m doing constant outreach to talk to our larger suppliers, the greenhouse industry, which we mentioned previously, to figure out where the markets are, where the pinch points are in the system. We’re doing this work cross-ministry with JEDI, of course, and Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat out of the Premier’s office.

We’re working with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada looking at ways that we can be flexible with our SCAP agreement. We were able to get some changes as far as primary agriculture goes around the changes to the CAP and with agro-stability that originated out of British Columbia, so we’ve been really proactive in that way.

We also have an opportunity with Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. to ramp up our programming there and really try and make sure that we have our domestic market covered off. The work that’s being done on inter-provincial trade barriers, this will also have an interesting effect for us as a province.

We are the least affected by tariffs of any province. We have a very diverse market, and we’re going to go after different trade partners as we try and move away from being so dependent on the United States.

[7:05 p.m.]

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

As we know, everything we’re talking about right now, the media, in the Legislature, is about the American tariff threat. And especially to our agriculture industry, this is going to be devastating.

So I’m going to ask the question again. There has to be immediate action by the Ministry of Agriculture when it comes to…. What are we going to do about shutting down trade offices in Asia that have traditionally then been interested in our beef and agriculture products?

Think about those products that are the biggest export product of provincial agriculture. Think about our greenhouse industry, our peppers, our cucumbers, our tomatoes that 90 percent go to the United States. Our beef cattle, our slaughter cattle go to abattoirs big time down in Washington state. A lot of our cattle go to feedlots down in Washington state.

So agriculture is very difficult in this province right now with farmers and ranchers trying to make a living with the cost of production and now being hit with a 25 percent possible tariff on their agricultural products going to the United States and vice versa.

Many of the things that the greenhouses use — packaging, cardboard, all those things — come up from the United States. In fact, you toured West Coast Seeds the other day. Aaron Saks called me and said: “Ian, we’re now being charged a tariff on the little packets that get produced in New York of all things, with the nice little picture on them of what the seed’s going to look like when it turns into a flower or whatever.”

So my question again is: what is the ministry doing immediately to help our farmers with this tariff trade war?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think we all know this is going to be a really difficult time for our country. We did not pick this war but we are in it, and we’re going to do our best to come out of it on the other side in the best way that we can.

Our job in the Ministry of Agriculture is to continue to talk to stakeholders, to ask them how they’re going to be affected, to identify the ways that they’re going to be negatively affected and to feed all of that information through to our Jobs Ministry. They are leading on a lot of the tariff discussions.

One of the things that I think the member said is incorrect. We aren’t shutting down our trade opportunities in other countries. We have trade investment officers — in fact, we’ve got new ones — looking for how to diversify our market.

I’ve been out talking to some of our larger agricultural producers like in the cherry industry that have depended on the U.S. What are they thinking? Where do they want their new market to be?

So there will be trade missions that will be going out, and we’re going to be having those really incredible diversification conversations.

I think that the member should really canvass the Ministry of Jobs to find out the strategy coming from that ministry, but I can tell him wholeheartedly that we are filtering critical information through to them as they create their strategy.

[7:10 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. In 2024, $2 million went to marketing efforts of Buy B.C. logo program to identify B.C. products with a one-month application window. In January 2025, another $2 million was announced for the Buy B.C. logo program to identify B.C. products.

My question to the minister: don’t you think that this should be increased given the B.C. government’s big tariff support for agriculture is to buy B.C.?

Hon. Lana Popham: The answer is yes. The member knows how much of a champion I am for Buy B.C., and I think he is as well. I think we’re all becoming Buy B.C. champions right now in this province. We’re definitely looking at how to ramp up the program right now, whether that’s new funding, redirected funding. We know that it’s having an effect on consumers. Consumers are looking for that logo.

We have over 10,000 B.C. products that have the logo printed on their labelling. We have great partnerships with retailers, hundreds of retailers. They are contacting our ministry, finding out how they can do more.

This is a hot file, and I’m glad. I feel like getting a T-shirt that says, “Buy B.C.” on the front and on the back, “#IToldYouSo”.

From 2017, I’ve been hammering on this, as the Minister of Agriculture, trying to reignite a program that started in the 1990s, and I think it’s just coming into its own now.

Ian Paton: What is the ministry doing to remove interprovincial trade barriers for local agricultural products, such as wine deliveries, B.C. to Alberta. I think we sorted that one out, but there are also issues with the use of Ontario wine products or wine juice, grape juice I should say, to come out our way.

So the question is about interprovincial trade barriers for agriculture.

Hon. Lana Popham: Again to the member, our ministry is feeding information through to the Jobs Ministry, which is really leading the interprovincial discussion.

We also have the Premier’s committee on trade and tariffs, which is also collecting information from industry. I think between JEDI, the Premier’s committee and then cross-ministry information being flowed through, I think our ministry is doing everything it can to represent the viewpoints of primary agriculture producers who have had a US market and are looking to diversify across the country.

Ian Paton: I guess my next question regarding the tariff situation and trade barriers…. Three questions, basically, lumped into one.

How are we diversifying our trade of our agricultural products? How are we actively searching for new export opportunities if we don’t want to send our product to the United States because of tariffs?

And two other questions. What about trade offices throughout Asia and other parts of the world? And do you have any upcoming trade missions for B.C. agricultural products?

[7:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I can give a list of investments that we’re making along with JEDI on looking at how to diversify our markets. There is a global seafood expo in Barcelona in April, which we are funding with JEDI.

We have another opportunity: Food and Hotel Asia, Singapore. This is a trade mission into Singapore, one of Asia’s largest international food trade shows, with over 3,500 exhibitors from 70 countries. We’re putting funding into that.

In September, there’s the Asia Fruit Logistica in Hong Kong. This is the premier trade show for fresh fruit and vegetables. It’s great timing for us because that’s when we harvest a lot of our fruit, and we’ll have some great product to be able to display there.

In October, the China Fisheries and Seafood Expo. This is the largest seafood trade show with over a thousand exhibitors and 30,000 attendees.

Then, next February, there’s the New Exporters to Border States, Seattle, Washington. This is a new exporter trade show with international trade as a focus. We’re supporting that as well.

There’s a long list of different trade shows that we are putting funding into. As far as what trade shows I’m going to, we’re just trying to make those decisions now, but we’re doing that with input from our sector.

Ian Paton: I think we’ll move on to avian influenza.

Farmers have to shoulder the cost after birds are euthanized. CFIA will pay per bird that has to be euthanized because of avian influenza. They are paid for the actual birds, but the extra costs are enough to sink a farmer after he’s been hit three times with avian influenza: the cost of feed that never got used in the bin, because he had to pay for that bin full of feed, which is extremely expensive; disinfecting the compost; lost revenue while he can’t get another flock into the barn.

Given that avian influenza is, unfortunately, here to stay, what is the long-term plan from the province to help support farmers in the industry to stay afloat?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: The member is accurate in saying that avian influenza is a really…. It’s been a devastating year for our farmers, and it is unfortunate that it’s affecting them on so many levels. It’s affecting them financially. It’s affecting their mental health.

Speaking to many of them myself, the outlook on the future is they’re very worried. We hope that they will continue doing what they do best, but it’s a really, really serious problem. Avian influenza is here to stay.

We’ve got a number of months where we’re not being affected — we’ll call it the peace times — where we have to do everything that we can to prepare for the next round, which we know will be in September.

We have a table that’s going right now, which includes all the poultry and dairy, because we know in the States we’d see some crossover with dairy cows, which is very concerning to us. This table is tasked with figuring out how we can enhance biosecurity with the focus on: how can we keep it out of the barns? Vaccines, of course, which the world is talking about.

Then what’s the new technology that we can use to try and prevent it? Prevention is the key. And so it’s all hands on deck. But we know that it’s taking a really big toll on our farmers.

We introduced a $5 million farmed animal disease program to support farmers with some of the measures that they could use, such as biosecurity. We stood that up in 2023, that funding, and I think farmers really took advantage of it. They were relieved that there was some funding in place so that they can put into place things and try new things.

But we saw this year to be…. The numbers are high again, as far as how many birds and how many farms were affected. It’s a major situation.

The United States is a worry right now because of the way that they’re pulling back on some of their requirements around testing and protocols with avian influenza. That is worrisome for us as a province and as a country. We are the hardest hit in Canada with avian influenza, and so we’re going to just keep working with our stakeholder groups and our farmers to give us the best chance to get through the next round, which will be September.

Ian Paton: I appreciate that answer. To take it a little bit further, this is devastating mentally to a lot of our young poultry farmers that have been hit two or three times with avian influenza.

So as far as the Ministry of Agriculture, we know that we’re trying to ramp up the biosecurity — people not coming on the farm, hazmat sort of outfits on when you go into the barns. But there must be someone in your ministry, some people in the lab, scientists, that are trying to figure out how we can…. We can’t just say: “Well, it’s going to happen year after year.”

What is being done to actually figure out, besides vaccines, which would be a great idea if we could get going on that…? But what is actually being done to try and limit the infections of AI that have been going through our farms, not only in the Fraser Valley but up in the Okanagan?

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I guess maybe I’ll reiterate that it’s all hands on deck. We’re calling this moment in time where we do not have any avian influenza infections in barns the peace time, which will probably last until September. During that time, we’re doing everything we can to address what the member has presented.

We have partners in this fight. SFU BCCAI is looking at a framework to evaluate the latest technology, so doing a scan of other jurisdictions and what technologies are being used there. Our chief vet is working with Genome B.C., which is really important work. We’re working with CFIA. CFIA has been doing case-control research, which is basically on-farm audits to make sure that everything is in place. Just today, 20 producers, association members met at the table that we’ve stood up to try and talk about next steps for the industry as a whole, poultry and dairy.

So there’s not a moment that we’re not working on some kind of strategy to get us to September, to have more tools in our toolbox to try and fight this off. Because as the member said, it is extremely difficult on the producers, and many of them who have been hit more than one time were worried about their mental health, and they can’t really withstand many more years like we’ve had in these past few years.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

One more question with avians influenza. We all know it was very out there in the media recently about an ostrich farm up in Edgewood, B.C., on the edge of, I believe, Arrow Lake.

My question to the minister: what is the ministry’s situation? What is the ministry’s take on this euthanization situation with this ostrich herd?

I’m kind of wondering right now where it’s at. Is this going to happen? Has CFIA gotten back to us to say they don’t need to be euthanized or they do need to be euthanized? I’d like your opinion on…. I know it’s a federal issue, but what is the ministry’s opinion on the euthanization of these mature ostriches up in Edgewood, B.C.?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Well, I don’t have much of an update for the member. But I can say that…. Well, it’s a tragic situation, as they all are. CFIA leads the file. The CFIA policy has been to eradicate and depopulate when avian influenza strikes a farm, but that’s to stop it from spreading. It does not make it any easier. It’s a terrible situation.

This particular situation is before the courts, so I can’t comment on it. But my heart goes out to the owners of the farm. It’s been a really, really harsh situation.

Anna Kindy: I think with this case, it would be important to look at the science which this court case is showing, meaning that the ostriches that died were the recent ostriches, and the ones that survived were the ones that they had had for a long time, and they have antibodies against avian flu. So we’d be destroying, first of all, animals that are used for scientific purposes, as well as they’re immune from the H5N1. So it kind of makes sense to me to actually be able to use those ostriches as a learning tool as opposed to destroying them.

Hon. Lana Popham: I thank you for joining estimates today. This file is led by the federal government. We don’t have jurisdiction over those decisions, so I won’t be able to comment, because it’s before the courts.

Ian Paton: We’ll turn now to the B.C. tree fruit industry. I think my first question would be…. I spent a lot of time in Osoyoos, Oliver, as the minister has, with the tree fruit farmers. What they’ve gone through, with the heat dome that damaged their fruit and then the extreme cold snap, which killed off cherry trees and different soft fruits, etc….

Then I toured the most incredible facility in Oliver, which is the co-op facility for packing and packaging and exporting our B.C. products. Incredible technology, robotics, these floating canals of thousands of apples that went and got boxed. I was just so impressed with the technology.

What a shame when the co-op suddenly closed the doors, locked the gates, and tree fruit farmers all over the Okanagan had nowhere to send their fruit.

My question is: did the Ministry of Agriculture make any kind of attempt to go in — it’s not big money, when you come to what’s in the budget — to actually purchase the co-op assets and keep that packaging facility up and running?

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: The situation with the packing, the co-op, is really, really unfortunate. This is not a sudden demise that happened. This has been something that’s been rolling out over years.

We have been working really hard, as government, to try and support them through difficult times. It had its own internal politics, unfortunately. But we tried to help improve the outcome. We started the fruit tree stabilization project with them, worked for five years. We’ve funded a lot of things through the co-op.

Unfortunately, when push came to shove, at the end of the day, we were not able to save it. We were not able to go in and purchase it. But what we did is we really put a focus on the growers. We made sure that the growers got paid for their apples. We put processes in place to make sure that they could get into storage. We changed regulations temporarily to allow them to try and finish off their season.

Along with all of that, during the summer demise that happened, we’ve also been putting a lot of investment into the sector. We did a $15 million perennial crop renewal program, $70 million in enhanced replant, $5 million in fruit tree climate resiliency, $15 million in the B.C. AgriStability enhancement program and, just most recently, $10 million, a one-time payment, going to be paid per acre to growers to make sure that they’ve got some money in their pockets to stand up a good, successful fruit-growing season.

I agree with the member that it’s a tragedy that the co-op ended. I think people in British Columbia were really rooting for the co-op to succeed. It just couldn’t, under the circumstances, but we haven’t abandoned the growers. We have been constantly making sure there are supports in place, most recently with $10 million.

Ian Paton: How could this sudden demise of the B.C. tree fruit growers co-op happen when the Ministry of Agriculture had actually two appointed board members on that co-op? How could the ministry not have known about this in advance, that this was a serious issue that could implode the co-op and its packing-processing facility?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. There weren’t staff that were board members. There were two staff members who attended for technical advice to the co-op as they tried to grapple with the way that they were failing. And it wasn’t just this year; it’s been over a number of years.

There was a lot of dysfunction. We tried to support them with a stabilization fund for five years to try to get them back on track, but I can tell the member that it was literally impossible. The dysfunction could not be overcome, so they had to close down. But it wasn’t without a lot of effort and trying by the ministry to try and get them on the right track.

Ian Paton: I do understand the $10 million fund that was put forward to the tree fruit growers just recently. A statement from the Ministry of Agriculture says that the money will be handed out as one-time payments to farmers and can be used to help with needs like tools, training, capital for farm improvement, farm debt repayment, farm wages. So a one-time payment to 720 fruit growers who will be eligible for this payment.

My question to the minister: how will a one-time payment make sure that the tree fruit farmers are ready for this season and seasons to come? How many tree fruit farmers are ineligible for the payment? How much of the $10 million fund has been allocated so far?

Hon. Lana Popham: The good news is that the fund will be launched in probably a week and a half, so it’s going to happen fast.

The eligibility is a minimum of 2.47 acres, maximum 70 acres. It’s a per-acre payout, so I can’t tell the member exactly how much is going to be paid, because we have to see how much uptake there will be.

If people are registered already in our business risk management programs, they’re already going to be contacted by the ministry. Then for the folks that are not signed up for business risk management, we’ll be working with the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, etc., to contact everybody that we can.

It will cover off the things that the member mentioned. It might even come down to them being able to pay a mortgage payment. It’s supposed to be able to relieve some of the early spring pressures that they’re going to have, and the parameters are very flexible. Of course, you can’t go to Vegas with the money, but you can pay off your bills.

Maybe it’s buying fertilizer. Maybe it’s making a mortgage payment. Maybe it’s repairing your tractor. It’s just the things that need repairing and be able to be addressed right now so they’re set up to have a successful growing season.

This has all been with input from the B.C. Fruit Growers Association. Worked really hard with the chair and the co-chair. I really appreciate the fact that they spent a lot of time trying to work through this with us, and I think they’re happy with the outcome.

[7:45 p.m.]

Ian Paton: It was a huge blow to tree fruit growers that traditionally ship all their product to the co-op processing facility or to a co-op controlled-environment facility. A lot of people don’t realize that apples have to go into storage. They can’t just go directly from every fruit grower to the processing plant to get packaged. They have to go into storage where it’s a controlled environment that keeps them looking healthy and fresh and bright red. So those facilities were lost as well.

My question to the minister: what’s going to happen with the upcoming growing season with the former co-op members that would ship to a controlled-environment warehouse in the Okanagan or to the co-op facility? Where are their apples, cherries, soft fruits going to go if there aren’t enough private packing plants to accept them all?

Hon. Lana Popham: The member brings up a good point about the controlled-environment packers. When I was up there last week, I actually had some apples from different packers that were in such perfect condition because they had been in a controlled environment. It’s really an excellent tool for farmers to have, and the fact that we do have a number of packers that have a controlled environment is really important.

We’ve extended the 50 percent exemption so that farmers can use packers, as they did this year, into the next storage season.

I think right now what I saw last week was farmers are shifting around. They’re having conversations with different packers, trying to figure out what best suits them for this upcoming year. I think one of the themes was that we need more controlled environment. But I feel like most people had a home for their apples because of what transpired over September. Nobody was left out, but they just need to figure out their contracts for this year.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

With the tree fruit industry, I want to talk just briefly about the SIR program. I’ve got a letter from Michelle Cook with the sterile insect release program. She wrote me wanting to know about further funding.

I believe they’ve asked for $2 million over four years — it would be $500,000 a year — to continue with the sterile insect release program. They’re wanting to know if the Ministry of Agriculture will keep that funding going.

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I love the Sterile Insect Release Program. When I was up there last week, I actually met with Michelle as well. I’ve also toured the facility where they raised the insects.

It’s critically important. It’s cost-shared with local government. We have not funded them. It’s not continuing, the $500,000. We have not done that before. But what we have done is — they’re trying to figure out how to become sustainable — we funded a feasibility study that they’ve now done. And they’ve just sent us that correspondence, so we’re taking a look at it.

I think one of the things that I’m most excited about is hearing how they wish to expand down to Washington state, which would allow them, definitely, to have a stronger business plan.

But I think what we all understand is that without this program, the codling moth would have probably infested many of the orchards in the Okanagan. Right now, it’s done biologically with the Sterile Insect Release Program. This is saving thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in pesticide application, and it’s better for the environment.

It’s an important program, and we support it. We’re just trying to figure out how to support them to become more sustainable themselves.

Ian Paton: Just seeing what we can fit in here right towards the end.

Interjection.

Ian Paton: Eight minutes. Well, they told me I can keep standing up as long as I want, actually.

Interjection.

Ian Paton: This is where I get pretty owly, in the last seven or eight minutes.

I want to talk about the Agriculture Minister’s mandate letter. The mandate letter talks about access to farming as a career for aspiring farmers. It talks about expanding affordability and food security in the province by working with farmers to find ways to control costs. Strengthen our regional food systems by supporting farming, expanding local food processing, identifying supply chain disruption vulnerabilities and working with farmers and food and beverage producers in the Okanagan Valley who have been impacted by significant weather-related crop loss.

It also goes on to talk about the very importance, in the minister’s mandate letter, on ensuring the continuation of public support for the agricultural land reserve, including protection of B.C. families from food price shocks and promotion of financial success, work with farmers and food producers throughout the province and to encourage the saving of good agricultural land in this province.

I brought this up before in question period about this wonderful 130 to 150 acres of prime agricultural land in Cowichan Bay on Vancouver Island. And I’ve been on this for about three years now. I’ve toured the property. I’ve done videos. I’ve done op-eds about the property. I’ve been a good friend with the farmer that farmed these 150 acres. He grew corn for dairy cattle in the general area. He grew grass for hay and silage for dairy cattle in the general area.

Beautiful piece of farmland. Absolutely beautiful piece of farmland. And of all things, it was owned by the Dinsdale family. And many years ago, Nature Trust of B.C., in collaboration with Ducks Unlimited, purchased these 150 acres of prime farmland in Cowichan Bay.

Now, unbelievably, the Nature Trust of B.C. actually made application to the Agricultural Land Commission to remove this piece of land from active agriculture by breaching the dike that goes around this farmland at the foot of Cowichan Bay so that the ocean water can roar in and flood these 150 acres of prime farmland.

[7:55 p.m.]

At the end of the Cowichan Bay Road are other farmers and residents who are there that have wells. There’s a huge aquifer underneath this farmland, these 150 acres, and they draw their drinking water from this well as well as livestock. If the saltwater is allowed to rush in and destroy these 150 acres of farmland, it will also destroy the aquifer and infect the aquifer with salt water, which will affect all the drinking water for many residents around Cowichan Bay.

Believe it or not, on February 28, 2024, the applicant to the Nature Trust of B.C. and Ducks Unlimited…. The application to remove this dike and flood this piece of farmland was made by Jesse Patterson from the actual government Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. So he’s actually a member of the government bureaucracy making the application on behalf of the NDP government to flood this piece of farmland. I find this incredible.

I’ve had the minister stand up in question period and say: “Oh well, you know, my mandate letter says I am supposed to respect and revere farmland in B.C.”

I mean, nothing, in my mind, tells me more about being the Minister of Agriculture than preserving our farmers and our best farmland in this province.

And yet the minister stands up in question period and says: “Well, sometimes you’ve got to just do what you’ve got to do, and you’ve got to cave into the Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Trust. It’s okay with me that we breach this dike and flood these 150 acres of prime farmland and infect the aquifer underneath this farmland, which affects all the wells and drinking water of people in the general area.”

My question is…. Section 7 of the Environment and Land Use Act says that the “Orders of the Lieutenant Governor in Council: (1) On the recommendation of the committee…” — and the minister sits on that committee — “…and despite any other Act or regulation, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make orders the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable respecting the environment or land use.”

The Minister of Agriculture, on this committee, could step forward to her cabinet and say: “I suggest that this be stopped with the Agricultural Land Commission and that the Nature Trust and Ducks Unlimited can no longer move forward with breaching this dike and flooding this farmland with salt water.”

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. I know the member is very passionate about this.

I’ve been informed that there’s an active application at the Agricultural Land Commission. The member will know that, as Minister of Agriculture, I can’t comment on a situation where there’s an application that’s proceeding through.

So, unfortunately, I won’t be able to take part in that part of the debate for this evening.

Ian Paton: It’s every little farm boy’s dream to one day go to Victoria, the Legislature, and become the Minister of Agriculture.

I would say if I was the Minister of Agriculture, my legacy would be preserving the integrity of agriculture in B.C. by saving our good farmland in B.C. It’s not all good that’s in the ALR, but there’s a lot of it that is good, and this is a prime, good piece of farmland.

I would also fight tooth and nail for my Agricultural Land Commission people to increase their budget and to do what their mandate is. The land commission’s mandate is to preserve our farmland.

This ALR was brought in, in 1973 by this NDP government to preserve our farmland in B.C. This minister has the opportunity under this land use committee she sits on.

As an order in council, she could go to her cabinet and say: “I want this stopped.” She has the power to do that. I’m just saying that if I was the Minister of Agriculture, I would walk out of what I’d done here in Victoria as a legacy of preserving some fantastic farmland in this province, and this Cowichan Bay piece of farmland is absolutely worth preserving.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, would the minister like to make closing comments?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think the comments I’d like to make in closing are to thank the member. He and I have sat across from each other for years. I know he’s passionate about really important things.

I want to thank the member for being so thoughtful today in your questions. We will endeavour to get back to him with anything that’s outstanding.

I would like to thank anybody else who took part in the debate today. It’s a really difficult time for British Columbians and Canada, given the tariff threats. But I also think that this is a really great opportunity for agriculture to get the recognition that it’s always deserved and for farmers to feel great about feeding our province and our country at a time when we really need it most. So thank you very much.

I’d like to thank my staff, as well, for supporting me.

Ian Paton: I’ll just make one closing statement. I, too, would like to thank the minister. We’ve done this many times back and forth.

I’d like to thank her staff. They have always been good to work with when I try and get some answers from them. I got a little snarly right at the end, but other than that I think we are pretty congenial towards each other. So thank you once again.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 12: ministry operations, $99,120,000 — approved.

Vote 13: Agricultural Land Commission, $5,508,000 — approved.

The Chair: We will now take a short recess to prepare for the next ministry.

The committee recessed from 8:05 p.m. to 8:10 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of Infrastructure

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $55,332,000.

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

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes. Thank you so much.

I’d like to begin by recognizing that we are here today on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, the Songhees and SXIMEȽEȽ First Nations.

I’d also like to recognize the ministry staff who are with me today: Bobbi Plecas, deputy minister; Jason Butler, executive financial officer and assistant deputy minister of corporate services and community capital development; Jennifer Melles, assistant deputy minister of infrastructure policy and partnerships; and Amy Miller, assistant deputy minister of community capital development.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

It was a great honour that only a few months ago, on November 18, Premier David Eby appointed me Minister of Infrastructure, which is a new ministry that represents our government’s commitment to delivering the schools, hospitals and other infrastructure that families need in their communities. More people than ever have decided to make British Columbia their home, and we are dealing with an infrastructure deficit after years of under-investment.

Over the last eight years, our government has embarked on an incredibly ambitious capital plan, the single largest capital investment program ever attempted by the B.C. government, to build the schools, hospitals and other infrastructure that growing communities need. At the same time, costs for capital projects have been increasing, not just here in B.C. but across Canada and throughout the world.

That said, we know that people cannot afford to have us stop building the public infrastructure that they need to access vital services like health care, education and more. That is why the Ministry of Infrastructure was created.

We are a purpose-built ministry created to meet the challenges of building capital projects and delivering infrastructure that people need. It brings project planning, procurement and delivery for vertical provincial capital projects as well as land acquisition for vertical provincial project sites under one ministry. Another way to describe it is that we help build provincial buildings, from which provincial services are delivered.

We have pulled together teams from across government and tasked them with a straightforward but ambitious goal: to build the public facilities that B.C. needs, faster. To do so, we are exploring several ways to accelerate and streamline construction, including more standardized design and prefabricated additions.

For the benefit of the opposition and for those watching from home at 8:15 at night, really looking forward to this debate, I’d like to provide a little bit more background on what is specifically included in the Ministry of Infrastructure.

The main types of projects within my ministry’s mandate are public K-to-12 schools, hospitals and other medical facilities, including long-term-care facilities and cancer care centres; post-secondary core facilities that support education delivery, including student housing; courthouses and correctional facilities.

My ministry also oversees two Crown corporations: Infrastructure B.C. and B.C. Infrastructure Benefits. For greater clarity, questions from the opposition on these projects should be directed my way, and I will work with my ministry team to answer them as fulsomely as possible.

I want to thank my critic, the member for Langley–Walnut Grove, for her time this evening, for taking on this role.

[8:15 p.m.]

I know that you’re very busy in your community, and to take this also on for the rest of the province, I think, is a really important thing. I want to honour the time that we’re going to be spending together — late into the evening, perhaps.

The Chair: I’d like to now recognize the member for Langley–Walnut Grove, if you’d like to make any remarks.

Misty Van Popta: Well, I didn’t come with a lot of remarks; I wasn’t sure. Other than just diving straight into it, I do want to acknowledge being very thankful for this opportunity. I’ve had the pleasure of chatting with Minister Ma a few times. I’m not going to call it a debate. Let’s just call it an understanding and a delving into the budget and how the province will be working the budget on infrastructure projects. I’m thankful for this time.

I’ll open up my first question with a backgrounder. Going through Standing Strong and then the estimates books that came along with it, under the community capital development and executive support services is the description as follows: “for program support, management and procurement,” etc., “for capital infrastructure.” Then, under the executive and support services, we have almost the same line item, which reads: “services to support program delivery.”

The operation budget is $55.3 million for the Infrastructure Ministry, and 21 percent of that operation budget, for an extremely important portfolio, goes to the minister’s office. That’s $11.8 million to support the minister’s office and $40.3 million to support all infrastructure projects, in the billions of dollars, in the province.

The question for the minister is: if project contracts already support project management, procurement and delivery, and now community capital development also supports program management and procurement, can the minister please tell me how her office sharpened its pencils to lessen bureaucratic layers in project delivery when it, too, is also tasked with supporting project delivery?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’d like to correct the critic. The critic earlier said that 20 percent of the ministry’s budget went to the minister’s office. The minister’s office budget is $767,000 in total. The $11.08 million that the critic refers to is for corporate services. That includes ministry public servants to support the functions of the ministry, not the minister’s office. The minister’s office is completely separate.

[8:20 p.m.]

That includes staff members to support strategic human resources, the corporate finances department, IMIT support staff, the deputy minister’s office and support staff there, staff to support freedom-of-information response requests, recordkeeping, correspondence.

Basically, the corporate services are…. I know my deputy minister refers to it as the connective tissue in terms of staff that allow for the ministry to actually function as a ministry.

Misty Van Popta: A follow-up to that would then be: how many staff in corporate services are there that support project delivery when we have other layers of project delivery support?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Can the member clarify the question? Is she referring specifically to the corporate services staff?

Interjection.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Okay. Thank you so much.

All corporate services staff serve the function of enabling the ministry to operate, and that operation of the ministry is what supports the delivery of capital projects.

For instance, strategic HR as a corporate function ensures that we have the staff to do the work to interface with our delivery partners like school districts, health authorities, post-secondary institutions. They are doing a lot of the capital project work.

The corporate finances division ensures that all invoices get paid, which, obviously, is very important to ensuring that projects continue to be delivered.

The IMIT support services teams manage and support the programs and the applications that other staff members rely on to help manage the complex capital projects that we have, and therefore, they support project delivery.

The correspondence unit is required to respond to members of the public and to the correspondence that we receive on the well over 1,000 different projects that we have. We are legally obligated to respond to freedom-of-information requests. We’re legally obligated to maintain records. And so that team supports that function so that we meet our legal obligation as a ministry.

All of this enables us to deliver projects.

Misty Van Popta: Can the minister please explain how that is different from the project support in the community capital development? I hear a lot of overlap, so I want to understand how 11.8 is under the executive support services versus the community development executive services.

[8:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Just a reminder that questions are to be asked through the Chair.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Project support and community capital development was the question that was being asked. These are our program staff. They are the capital planning staff that are responsible for actually bringing projects to fruition. They work directly with our delivery partners. They work directly with the health authorities, the school districts, the post-secondary institutions and so forth.

They differ from the corporate services that I described before in that corporate services are basically like the shared services of the ministry. So they’re the shared services team. They aren’t necessarily assigned to…. The work might kind of flex within the groups.

So there’s a corporate services team that provides that connective tissue, but the capital planning staff are responsible for working with the partners and actually getting those projects from point A to point B.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, well, we’ll move on from that.

Langley Memorial surgical unit opened 35 years ago, when I was 13 years old. I’m aging myself here. On September 7, 2024, surgeons of Langley sent a letter to Minister Dix, decrying a lack of any meaningful capital improvements to surgery since then. Langley Memorial has 1.17 funded beds per 1,000, while the Canadian average is 2.6, which is well below the World Health Organization’s recommendation. By comparison, the Vancouver Coastal region offers three beds per 1,000.

Langley has grown 15 to 22 percent since 2021. The original hospital tower announcement was made in 2015.

What is this government’s timeline for any Langley Memorial Hospital capital improvements?

[8:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you, Chair. You did that without even looking. How did you know it was me?

The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that. Getting better.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: To the member’s question about capital investments and improvements in Langley Memorial Hospital, our government has invested $103.46 million in capital investment in Langley Memorial Hospital since 2017.

This includes the medical imaging rad room 1 replacement project, estimated to be complete this December; the MI rad room 2 replacement project, also anticipated to be complete this December; the pharmacy expansion and upgrade project, which was completed in 2021; the emergency department redevelopment project, which was completed in 2021; and a new magnetic resonance imaging, a new MRI, which was completed in 2020.

Misty Van Popta: It is true that services have been invested in for Langley Memorial Hospital, but Langley Memorial Hospital is at capacity and cannot expand until the long-term care facility is moved and rebuilt.

How come this campaign promise facility is yet again not in the budget? Is the business case report completed, and if not, what is the ETA?

I can tell you for free that the business case report is not needed, and we just need to move on with the expansion.

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: At the Langley Memorial Hospital, Fraser Health Authority is currently undertaking their master planning, so that work is happening right now. That master planning is…. Sorry, my brain starts to slow down after a certain time, because then in a usual day, it switches to lullabies for Azalea. Master planning is underway by Fraser Health on that site. That work is underway. It will identify opportunities for expansion and investment. That’s what they do for the site.

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to walk the critic a little bit through kind of the high-level process for these major hospital redevelopments and development projects.

Health authorities undergo a master planning exercise. Through that master planning exercise, they identify their five-year capital plan priorities. When a capital plan priority is identified that government has agreed to work with them on, the health authority will develop a detailed business case. Those detailed business cases can take quite a while, 18 months to even two years or more, depending on the complexity of the project.

It is a detailed planning document that governments and health authorities use to scope out the project, the specifics of the services that need to be delivered, the schedule and budget that might be required and associated with the project. It will identify procurement opportunities. It is a very detailed document that for a major hospital redevelopment project could be in the order of $100 million to produce.

I know that the member had mentioned earlier that a business case is not required. I also know the member is a project manager and has a project management background. I’m sure she would agree that a capital investment of hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions of dollars would be extremely fiscally imprudent to invest in without a business plan.

Misty Van Popta: I was being a little bit tongue in cheek there, of course.

My understanding, having been involved quite a bit in the community, especially in regards to information on the hospital, is that there were two announcements. The master plan has been well formed. The original announcement for a tower was actually in 2015.

[8:40 p.m.]

The master plan has been completed, and the announcement in, I believe, September 2024 was funding for the business plan portion.

I believe there was already perhaps an estimate of $187.2 million for the tower project, $102.7 million coming from the province, $81.9 million from Fraser Health and Langley Memorial Hospital Foundation, which has got money earmarked aside, and $2.6 million from the township of Langley. We’re definitely beyond the master plan phase of this, and so I just wanted to bring that back, but I’ll just go to my last question here.

Given that the master plan has already been completed, in my understanding with talking with the hospital foundation…. Given that Langley Memorial is in a hospital zone and has height restrictions, what steps has the government taken to ensure that the required work and communications and that any permissions needed with Nav Canada to construct a new tower will be finalized prior to construction of the tower?

What pre-work and pre-permissions can we get done ahead of time, so that we’re not delayed further waiting for those types of red tape items?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We are aware that Fraser Health did a master plan for that site back in 2015. I’m sure the member will agree that Langley has grown substantially since 2015. That master plan does need to be updated, and we are anticipating the updated master plan to be sent over to our ministry shortly, within the season, basically.

My team and I, though, are struggling to place the $187 million reference that the member raised. I’m wondering if the member has a little bit more context as to where that number might be coming from or what she’s referencing.

Misty Van Popta: I would have to go back into my own notes and find out where I got those numbers. The breakdown of $102 million from the province…. I don’t know if that was maybe a rough estimate, maybe in 2015. I would have to go back in my notes and figure that one out. Sorry about that.

Procedurally, Chair, I am unsure how to do this next step, but I would like to turn the floor over to my colleague, the MLA for Surrey–White Rock, with a question for the minister.

The Chair: Recognizing the Member for…

Trevor Halford: Surrey–White Rock.

The Chair: …Surrey–White Rock. Thank you for the assistance.

Trevor Halford: I want to thank my colleague for giving me a little bit of brief time here and the minister and her staff for indulging me.

Question on Peace Arch Hospital. The ICU there has been under stress for a number of years now. I’ve met with the hospital foundation. I’ve met with the previous leadership at Fraser Health, which has changed in the last little bit. I just want to get the minister to confirm what capital funding has been allocated specifically to the replacement of the ICU at Peace Arch Hospital.

[8:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member asked about Peace Arch Hospital and the ICU in particular. There is currently a $38.36 million renovation underway in the Peace Arch Hospital ICU. Estimated completion is in 2027.

Trevor Halford: I thank the minister and your staff for that quick answer. How much of that is going to be covered by the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation and how much will be covered by the provincial government?

I have a pretty good idea. I just want to have it confirmed by the minister.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m fortunate to have excellent partners in Peace Arch Hospital Foundation, as well as the general community. I know that British Columbians benefit from the generosity of other British Columbians and community members all throughout the province.

This is definitely a case where that generosity has enabled this renovation project. So $35 million comes from the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation through the generous donations of community members and the remainder is funded by the B.C. government.

Trevor Halford: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

We’re talking about the fact that we’re now in construction for the Cloverdale hospital, which will not have an ICU, right? White Rock and South Surrey are growing at a massive pace, and we’re seeing that every single day, or I’m seeing it in my community.

The Peace Arch Hospital Foundation does definitely punch above its weight. I’m quite proud of that. They’ve been doing that for a number of years.

But we’re talking about a project that I know they’ve been advocating for years, predating this minister’s time in this portfolio, and I say that with the most…. Because I’ve met with the previous Minister of Health on this to try and get commitments.

We are now talking about a capital project where the hospital foundation is usually funding equipment and other things.

[8:50 p.m.]

This is a capital project where they’re funding over…. My math isn’t that good, but I’d say probably 95 percent of this project is being done by the hospital foundation, and the province is coming in at…. I would guess it’s under $2 million for a project I think the minister quoted was $38 million and something.

I just want to put on record here that that’s not a partnership. That’s not even close. That’s almost an embarrassment, right? And if you look at what the hospital foundation could be putting that money towards, whether it’s mental health supports or different things in our community, to be funding over 90 percent of a capital project as important as an ICU, when a hospital that they’re building less than 12 kilometres away will not have one, I think shows — and it’s not under this minister but under the previous decisions of previous ministers — a complete unbalance of health care in in Surrey, in White Rock, in the Fraser Valley.

It’s not really a question to the minister. It’s just a disappointment that the hospital foundation, the community has borne the cost of this at well over 90 percent of such an important structure that’s literally held together today by duct tape.

[8:55 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I understand we’re going to be adjourning here and moving over to the main chamber.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and report progress on the Ministry of Infrastructure and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

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

The committee rose at 8:56 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 9:17 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax
Amendment Act, 2025

The Chair: Good evening, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

I call upon the Minister of Finance. Do you have any remarks?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I have no opening remarks, but if I just might take a moment to introduce my team that are supporting me today: Doug Scott, our deputy minister, Ministry of Finance; Jordan Goss, who is the associate deputy; Andrew Avis, who is the senior executive director in tax and assessment policy; and Amanda Willick, who is our strategic adviser.

We’re ready to get started.

On clause 1.

Peter Milobar: Thank you to the minister and her staff.

A few general questions around the bill in terms of what the government’s overall intent with this bill is in terms of the overall operations of government. Obviously, it’s a pretty significant tax amendment, and the opposition is trying to ascertain the full impact that this bill would have for residents of British Columbia.

In regards to the overall intention of government on this, the minister has made it very clear in previous statements that if this bill was to pass, the Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit would be removed. Can the minister confirm that is in fact the case and that its value is at around a billion dollars?

[9:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, it is correct that contained within this bill is the cancellation of the climate action tax credit. That tax credit annually is $1.025 billion. This year, that number will be somewhat less because of the April payment of $256 million.

Peter Milobar: I recognize that later on in the bill, we get to Income Tax Act changes as well. So I’ll keep asking some more generalized questions of the bill. If the minister would prefer, or wants those redirected to the income tax section, that is fine. I’ll pick them back up there. I can assure the minister, though, that if I have covered them off already, I won’t redouble them later on as well. So with a little back and forth, I’m sure we can plow through this.

Okay, so about $1 billion of the $2.8 billion that was slated to be collected this year is for the low-income subsidy to be removed. We know that out of that $3 billion, around $200 million is what would be considered for industry.

When carbon tax used to be revenue neutral, there was a very open and transparent reporting mechanism. There were a lot of tax measures that were connected to carbon tax. Whether you agreed that they should have been connected or not is up for debate, obviously. But nonetheless, they were associated and tagged with carbon tax. That amounts to about another $1.8 billion.

Is the government’s intention, then, with the repeal of carbon tax for consumers with this bill, to simply increase the deficit by another $1.8 billion, or will there be program cuts that that $1.8 billion is currently funding?

The Chair: Just a reminder to members that they are not able to rely upon electronic devices while asking questions. It appeared that you were glancing at an electronic device while you were giving your remarks, is all.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, there is work underway. We are reviewing all programs that are linked to this. We’ll have more information, and are planning to include that, in a report out in Q1.

Peter Milobar: Well, I guess the problem with that is that in the budget document, tabled March 4, there was language in there from the government saying that they were already working on a strategy if the federal government was to remove carbon tax.

There are some significant programs that are attached to carbon tax. By the time Q1 reporting happens, which…. Let’s see. It would be April, May, June. I believe it comes out sometime in late August, early September — we have the Q1 reporting out.

[9:25 p.m.]

One program in particular will be long since come and gone. In 2009, when carbon tax was first introduced, the homeowner grant for rural and northern residents was increased by $200 a household. I think the homeowners in rural and northern B.C. would want to know whether or not their $200 extra homeowner grant is in jeopardy with Bill 8 or not.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As I’ve stated, we are going to be doing a review of programming, and we’ll be reporting that out in Q1.

Peter Milobar: Well again, people have until today — I guess the next 2½ hours — to get their speculation tax forms in. That has no bearing on carbon tax, obviously, but it does have a bearing on people’s overall costs of taxation related to their homes.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The homeowner grant will be getting mailed out, and notices will be going out very shortly to communities, to people. The ministry insisted on bringing it in to the provincial government again, so it’s not an exercise of checking off the box and sending the form into your municipality or your regional district with your property tax notice anymore to get the homeowner grant. You actually have to do a separate process with the provincial government, because apparently they wanted even more information about the homeowner.

The bottom line is that that process will have come and gone as the minister is talking about what may or may not be included with the extra $1.8 billion of cuts that this government needs to make. It sounds like what the minister is saying is that the $1.8 billion will not be added on to the deficit but, in fact, it will result in cuts, but only after what sounds like we’ve basically left this place and done with budget estimates. Then we will find out what the government is trying to cut.

Again, when will homeowners find out whether or not the extra $200 on their homeowner grant, which is directly attached to the carbon tax — and it has been since 2009 — will still be in effect or be cut?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

The member opposite is putting words in the minister’s mouth. I did not say that. In fact, what I have said is very clear. We are going to be reviewing programs, and decisions will be made about how we move forward. That will be reflected in our Q1.

Peter Milobar: Review a program when the budget has already been set as of March 4. This means there is not the ability to add money to said program, or one would assume it’s in the budget already. For the minister to say they are reviewing, with the backdrop of discussion around how $1.8 billion of revenue will be gone if Bill 8 gets passed tonight, can only mean the review is the government’s intention to cut some or all of the programs associated with that $1.8 billion.

[9:30 p.m.]

The timeline the minister has now provided…. Again, we are standing here tonight because the government got the Speaker to agree to the fact that this was an urgent matter that desperately needed to be dealt with all in one day. Couldn’t possibly wait for an extra day or two so that we can get proper information and discuss things with stakeholders that might be impacted by the decisions made in Bill 8. This is of the government’s making that we are standing here tonight trying to get transparency on this.

It’s a pretty straightforward question that I think homeowners in rural and northern B.C. deserve to know. If Bill 8 gets passed tonight, is the extra $200 that they receive for their homeowner grant that has been in place since 2009 — is it on the chopping block or is it safe?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The reason that we’re here tonight is that we made a commitment that when the federal government steps back from the carbon tax, we too will step back from it. That decision was made on March 15, and the first time that we have been back in this place is today.

We want to ensure that we align with that commitment with the federal government, that British Columbians are having the same experience at the same timeline as other Canadians and that we’re providing the opportunity for businesses to have certainty in what’s happening. That’s why, five or six days ago, we let businesses know that this was coming and that they can make the change at the pump. We’re providing that certainty.

Now what the member is asking is for what comes next, which is an evaluation of how we move forward. We’ve got a number of different reviews underway, including programmatic reviews, we’re doing an efficiency review and we’re going to do a review of CleanBC. None of those decisions have been made yet, and there is time for consultation and time to do this work.

Tonight what we’re talking about is the repealing of the carbon tax.

Peter Milobar: The minister’s boss, the Premier, has decided to make this a confidence vote. The opposition is trying to figure out whether or not we support the government continuing on tonight or not based on the decisions the government is making on carbon tax being removed. It’s not as simple as the carbon tax is being removed, and this government gets to have a ticker-tape parade thrown in their honour.

People have the right to know and have an understanding of the gut thought the government put in to $2.8 billion of lost revenue. So far, the only thing this minister has been willing to repeatedly commit to is removing a subsidy for low-income households.

We’re simply asking for the same clarity on very straightforward and basic questions on other programs that are directly tied and have been for the better part of almost two decades to the carbon tax in B.C.

The first one I’m asking about is the homeowner grant program, which very clearly provides an extra $200 for rural and northern homes and was instituted and funded by carbon tax, a carbon tax that, if Bill 8 passes, will no longer exist. So it is directly tied to Bill 8 and the government decisions around Bill 8 and, frankly, how the opposition may or may not vote at third reading for Bill 8.

So how can the minister say that decisions haven’t been made on something that would impact the first quarter numbers when we will be gone from this place, not able to scrutinize what those program cuts might be, and get a better understanding on that, when we’re here tonight because the government said there was such urgency to deal with carbon tax and it all had to be done today.

If there’s been clear language about what’s going to happen or is expected to happen at the price of the pumps or on people’s home heating bill, I do not understand why it’s unreasonable for those same homeowners to get a clear understanding from this government what decisions have been made around the homeowner grant.

[9:35 p.m.]

Again, if the homeowner grant has not had a final decision, does the minister not find that it would be problematic to tell homeowners in June that they no longer have a homeowner grant for $200 extra when they could have answered that tonight? In June, it’s too late for most people filing for their homeowner grant in July.

[9:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I am going to try to flesh this out a little bit more for the member, because the member could go through many examples of programs and we would be right back to the same place, which is that programmatic reviews are underway, and we are going to report out on Q1 on where we are with that.

The timing is going to vary program to program, and decision to decision will vary, as well, based on the work that’s being done within each ministry.

I think the member has asked specifically about the homeowner grant, so let’s use that as an example. The homeowner grant for this year is currently already underway. It’s a situation where should a change occur — if that were to happen, and no, that decision has not been made — it would require legislation.

There have been 17 years of programs and legislation related to this tax. It’s going to take time for us to figure out which will move forward and which won’t. It’s going to be through the ministers. It will be part of reviews that they are doing. It’s complex and important work, and it will take time, and it’s going to be done carefully.

I think it’s unrealistic to make a request that I have information on all of those decisions yet. This is work that’s undergoing and will take some time.

Peter Milobar: Well, there’s a wide range of programs that have the exact same title as when there were still transparency reports provided, before the NDP removed the legal necessity for carbon tax transparency reports to be made on where the revenue neutrality came into with carbon tax.

Basic credits for Film Incentive B.C. and production services sales tax credits on page 60 of the budget, almost word for word what was in the last transparency report for tax credits applied by carbon tax. I said at the beginning that people can dispute whether or not it was really carbon tax–appropriate or not, but that’s what was associated with carbon tax.

Clean buildings tax credit on page 60 was also referenced in that same listing. Interactive digital media tax credit, made permanent in this year’s budget, was listed repeatedly in those same reports.

Small business venture capital tax credit listed and associated with carbon tax.

The homeowner grant associated with carbon tax.

Training credit for apprentices associated with carbon tax.

And there are others that I could go into as well. There was the seniors home renovation program, which I don’t think still exists.

The corporate income tax had been increased up to $500,000 as a threshold. That still exists at that threshold now in this year’s budget.

I find it incredible that we are standing here being asked to make a vote that the Premier has declared to be a confidence vote and the government cannot, with any confidence, tell us what is going to happen to $1.8 billion worth of programs if this vote goes through.

I don’t think they’re unrealistic questions for an opposition being asked to provide that confidence to the government in terms of removing a tax, which Bill 8 is purporting to do, but when you remove a tax, you create a big hole in revenue.

The minister would have us believe, that despite this budget and only being able to point to $300 million worth of savings in this budget, which is arguable about how much are actual savings are not….

There was a review, despite months of lead time, to get this budget created. Despite months of lead time, the government was only able to land on $300 million. And now in the backdrop of public sector negotiations beginning with 80 percent of the public service in B.C., that the government is going to take meaningful action for cuts, with that being the backdrop for this $1.8 billion, let alone the whole rest of the budget of another 90-or-so billion dollars’ worth of spending, when only $300 million was found on $90 billion to begin with.

Is there a target that the minister has, that the government has, for this $1.8 billion for savings?

[9:45 p.m.]

Or is it truly the intention of the government to add $1.8 billion to the overall deficit of B.C.?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I feel like I have provided an answer to this question. I’ve been clear that there are going to be programmatic reviews, that this work is underway and that the ministries are doing the work.

I’m not going to make a surmise about the outcome of that work. The member well knows that we have an efficiency review, that we’re doing a programmatic review, that we’ve identified this review.

I think it’s time that we start getting into this bill and talking about what’s inside the bill rather than surmising the work that’s coming up in the future.

Peter Milobar: It’s disappointing that the minister finds it cumbersome that we’re trying to have a conversation about $1.8 billion of cuts, service cuts, which would be six times the dollar value that they have identified supposedly in the first $90 billion of the budget.

Carbon tax obviously takes quite a bit to administer. Has the ministry done a review on any potential cost savings in terms of the bureaucracy associated with processing, auditing, managing, collecting carbon tax? What does that workforce look like before Bill 8 and then once Bill 8 is passed?

[9:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is a tax that’s going to take some time to wind down. When we actually do get to the bill, we’ll see that there are particular clauses to allow for that timeline, because it is going to take time to wind down the tax. So no, we’re not expecting any particular savings in regards to FTEs on this tax.

Peter Milobar: Well, maybe I should be clear, then. There are current-year FTE savings and then there are overall, moving forward, FTE savings.

Is the minister saying that there will be no efficiencies found in the tax departments within the Ministry of Finance and that carbon tax has essentially been worked off the side of everybody’s desks all these years and that, as the things get wound down, there will be no staffing changes needed within the Ministry of Finance or within the tax collection departments and auditing departments at all?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think that’s the same question. It’s been asked and answered.

Peter Milobar: No, it wasn’t answered, frankly. The minister may have felt that I was asking about the current year fiscal only, in her first answer. So I clarified, with my second follow-up question, that we were trying to ascertain what the impact of the overall staffing will be, with carbon tax to the consumer removed, in terms of the overall implication within the overall bureaucracy within the Ministry of Finance and the various departments that deal with carbon taxation.

As the changes that take some time get implemented, what is the expectation, or has there been zero modelling done by the ministry, as to what impacts that would have, as they’re asking for a confidence vote on the removal of carbon tax?

[9:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Stopping a tax can occur quickly. However, winding down a tax takes much longer. Audits, refunds, appeals and debt collection can take a number of years.

Staff that undertake these functions generally also administer other taxes. I think it’s worth noting that there are no staff members who specifically work on the carbon tax alone.

Peter Milobar: Their workload will be diminishing. I guess we are trying to figure out how that gets reconciled when you have a tax that collects $3.10 billion over the next few years.

Highly technical in its application in terms of fuel in particular, in terms of volumes and coming across the border and gas stations and everything else…. The minister is saying that, essentially, as things get phased off the books, there will be no change to staffing whatsoever and people will just have a little less to do on their desk, and there will be no actual savings to government with the removal of a tax. Is that what I’m hearing?

The Chair: Asked and answered.

Peter Milobar: Well, excuse me, Madam Chair, with all fairness this is supposed to be the opposition’s time to be asking questions of the minister to get clarification. But I guess am I supposed to be getting clarification through the Chair on all things?

Maybe I could ask the Clerk for clarification on that clarification because it could be a long night if this is the road we’re going down.

The Chair: Minister, you are inclined to answer the question?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I believe the question would be the same answer that I previously gave, that these folks are working on multiple files and it will take a number of years to wind it down. So that’s the answer I’ve prepared.

[10:00 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: To be clear then, we can’t identify any savings for staffing by getting rid of the carbon tax. We can’t identify any programs that may be cut or not out of the $1.8 billion remaining that’s not been identified of carbon tax taxation that would be removed with Bill 8.

We know that there would still be $200 million of revenue coming in from the industrial side, and we know that low-income households can expect $1 billion less in payments.

Does that about summarize the government’s position on Bill 8 at this point in terms of the $3 billion of carbon tax that’s slated to be collected starting tomorrow to the end of the fiscal year?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The climate action tax credit was brought in specifically to help people offset the cost of the carbon tax. They’re in concert with each other. With the removal of the carbon tax, so too are we getting rid of what offset it, which is the climate action tax credit.

On average, people in British Columbia would pay $410 in carbon tax, and the average that people who receive the climate action tax credit would receive is $485. We do acknowledge that there is a gap there, and that those in fact are averages.

But our government remains deeply committed to addressing affordability, and we’ve been working very hard on many affordability measures, including rental assistance programs and the renters rebate. We’ve increased the minimum wage multiple times. We’ve lowered car insurance costs. We’ve reduced child care fees. The B.C. family benefit has been brought in and increased. We’ve made transit free.

The member asked the question about affordability, and I’m answering it. And we’ve also brought in three….

Interjection.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Member, you have asked a number of questions that I’ve indulged you in. I think that you can sit through an answer that is related to the question that you asked about us eliminating this tax credit.

The Chair: Minister, if we could go through the chair.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you, Chair, for the reminder. Excuse me.

The reality is that these two go hand in hand, and that we’ll continue to do the important work that we do on affordability.

Jeremy Valeriote: Many of the financial questions have been asked, and my colleague has a couple more. They’re on a broad level.

My question is: what is the minister’s plan to address the loss of worldwide respect from being a leader in addressing the climate crisis, especially its impact on the clean technology industry?

[10:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I very much reject the framing of the question. British Columbia is a technology leader, and we’ve done extraordinary things in regards to clean technology. That work will continue. We’ve won numerous awards for this, and I can mention many, many companies that are succeeding in British Columbia because of the environment that we’ve created for businesses to be successful in this regard, and we’ll continue that really important work.

In fact, innovation is going to be a major focus of this government going forward. We’ve made huge investments in innovation already, and you’ll see, even just in this last year’s budget, a $30 million investment supporting Innovate B.C. to continue their work to help businesses grow. And one of the categories that they look at specifically, through our legislation and guidance to them, is companies that are having an impact on climate.

I’ll share an example with you. The integrated marketplace initiative, which is $30 million out of this budget, supported a company called Moment Energy out of Coquitlam. The way the model works is it helps a business that is looking for a large client in order to help them have that to point to in their growth plan. We partnered Moment Energy with YVR, and government de-risked that partnership. Since then, they have been listed on the recognition of the top 100 global clean energy companies, and that is largely because of the work that we’ve done through Innovate B.C.

There are many other examples I could share. This work will continue. It’s deeply important. I know that the member is disappointed in this bill being brought forward, but it’s important that the member knows this does not mean that we don’t care and won’t continue to invest in addressing climate change in many, many other ways, including, and so importantly, through innovation.

Jeremy Valeriote: A different topic. From our understanding, the new output-based pricing system has had a downward impact on B.C.’s carbon tax revenues. I would appreciate if the minister could tell us what the revenue was from industrial carbon pricing in 2024-25, and how it compares to the previous pricing system for industry.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This bill that we’re talking about tonight, Bill 8, does not address the area that the member is asking the question about.

This bill is specific to the consumer carbon tax, and I would recommend respectfully that the member take up this question with the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions.

Rob Botterell: Earlier you mentioned that there would be program reviews, and you also mentioned that a variety of the programs that are under review are baked into legislation.

Could the minister confirm that each cut to a program as a result of program review, after this bill passes, will be subject to approval of the Legislature?

[10:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There are multiple programs over the 17 years that this tax has been in place. Some of them are in legislation, and some of them aren’t. I’ve described that there will be an extensive program review happening within the ministries involved.

But I really think it’s important that we get to the bill at hand. Clause 1, after all, is about removing the requirement to collect tax, and we’ve canvassed the question of offsets quite extensively. So my recommendation to the member is that we move on to the bill.

Rob Botterell: One other question on clause 1.

Should this bill pass later tonight, the climate action tax credit will end. There will be a benefit to drivers of cars of, potentially, a 17-cent-per-litre drop in gas prices, although it’ll be interesting to see how much of the 17-cent drop actually reaches drivers.

How will British Columbians without a car be supported when they no longer have the climate action tax credit? They won’t see the impact of the reduction in tax. How are we going to support those British Columbians?

[10:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I do just want to highlight that it’s not only savings at the pump — and I agree; I hope that those show up tomorrow as they should — it’s also natural gas. So, for example, heating your home would be an area that people would see decreases.

We’re hoping also, perhaps, in grocery areas where there’s a transportation component or areas that people will have paid the tax. Those deductions should be passed on to consumers.

Peter Milobar: Just a couple of other follow-up questions based on my friends from the Greens’ questions and the minister’s answers.

It sounds like Innovate B.C. is not on the chopping block in any review, based on the minister’s answer saying that it’s doing well, it’s functioning well, and they have no plans to take any steps towards it. And it sounds like transit, despite many government announcements around transit being funded by carbon tax, is not on the chopping block either.

Can the minister confirm that Innovate B.C. and transit, based on her previous couple of answers, are not actually part of the review and not subject to potential cuts?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will repeat the same answer that I’ve given the member many times tonight, which is that there will be a fulsome review of all of the items that are funded through the carbon tax, and that that review is forthcoming.

Peter Milobar: I appreciate that’s the answer the minister has given me, but she gave the Green Party members a slightly different answer on those two specific questions — around Innovate B.C., which she actually offered up as an example of a program that is doing great work and has nothing to fear, and then the question in response to how people would reasonably see the same benefit of the carbon tax reduction if they take transit instead of driving a car. The answer there, to the Green Party again, made it very much seem like those two programs are, in fact, safe.

Is the minister now saying, despite the previous answers to the Green Party, that, in fact, those programs are still fully under the review and could see cuts depending on the outcome of those reviews?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m not going to accept the opportunity for the member to put words in my mouth. That is not what I said.

I pointed out to a member of the Green Party that in this year’s budget, there’s $30 million that has been provided to Innovate B.C. for innovation programming, including prioritizing programming on sustainability.

Peter Milobar: Well, in this year’s budget, there’s also $3 billion of carbon tax that is being removed — sorry, $2.8 billion of carbon tax that is being removed — as a revenue source. So apparently, what’s in the budget is somewhat irrelevant, as there’s this ongoing review of all things in the budget, including the allocations of carbon tax.

One would assume that green initiatives like Innovate B.C…. Again, the government has repeatedly referred to transit investments as coming from carbon tax, some of those programs coming out of the $1.8 billion. So I’m just….

These aren’t really gotcha questions. It’s just trying to get a clear sense of what is actually truly on the cutting block or not with this government’s plans.

Again, this is the government’s prerogative — to bring this bill forward with the spending priorities attached with it or the cuts that might have to happen as a result of this. It’s a confidence vote. I think the public and the opposition are entitled to figure out, before they vote with confidence for the government or not, whether they have confidence that this has been well-thought-out or not.

The minister made it seem like Innovate B.C. has money in the budget and that that won’t be touched, based on how she framed her answer. We’ll probably be going long enough that we’ll probably have the Blues updated by the time we get further on, so we can always go back and read the exact wording.

Then when the question was around transit versus cars, the impression was that people taking transit will have the same access they always have. In fact, they might have other low-cost avenues to access transit.

I’m just simply trying to get a sense of if those are still safe and not threatened by any potential review in the first quarter. Again, we won’t be reviewing Bill 8 in the first quarter — we’re reviewing it tonight — and the intentions of government wrapped around Bill 8.

[10:20 p.m.]

So could we just get some clarity on those two items that have had fairly clear indication, at least to the Green Party — I’m not sure if the minister thought I wasn’t paying attention or not, but I was — compared to the answers that I was receiving for the previous hour and a bit?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member has asked me a number of times this evening to make speculation about the outcome of the work that is ahead of us in regards to reviewing all of the different programming that is linked to this tax.

I am not going to do that. That’s work that needs to be done in a thorough and careful way with the ministers that are involved.

Chair, I recommend that we move forward with actually taking a look at clause 1, which we have not yet done.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Peter Milobar: To be clear, we’re simply trying to get the mindset of the government as they introduce legislation. That’s really what we’re trying to do.

We’re not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth. We’re trying to understand the bill and the government’s intentions with the bill, and that’s pretty standard in any piece of legislation.

Typically, we would have much more time to go through these ahead of time to talk to stakeholders that might be impacted, to talk to people that might be associated with Innovate B.C. or transit systems and things of that nature to find out what concerns they might have about a carbon tax removal.

But we don’t have that time afforded to us because the first we saw this bill was around 11 o’clock this morning. I get that the minister might be frustrated by this process, but this is a process designed by her government.

I would suggest the frustrations could be discussed in the Premier’s office or the Government House Leader’s office, not with the opposition simply trying to do their job on behalf of the residents of British Columbia.

On clause 2, section 28 is amended. A lot of the discussion today in the morning about the urgency of this bill was how it had to be passed today, had to be passed in advance of April 1. The impression was that retroactivity was not really an option.

What is the technical reason why section 28 cannot be amended in a piece of legislation as a retroactive clause? In other words, why did we have to pass it today for it to take effect on April 1?

Why could we not have had proper length of debate and scrutiny by the public and the opposition over the course of this week, pass this bill on Thursday or Monday of next week and had it retroactive to April 1?

[10:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question.

This clause, specifically clause 2, adds a new subsection to provide that, despite the general rule requiring retail dealers of natural gas to remit all carbon tax collected in error to government, retail dealers of natural gas can retain carbon tax collected in error from customers on or after April 1 if the retail dealer refunds or credits the amount back to the customer.

The reason for this change is to implement the new refund and credit mechanism introduced under clause 4, which we’ll get to shortly, of this bill. Retail dealers of natural gas must be permitted to retain carbon tax collected in error on or after April 1. This rule would not result in a windfall for the retail dealer, as the retail dealer can only retain amounts collected if they directly refund or credit the customer who paid the amount. Remember that this is specific to natural gas retailers.

Peter Milobar: Well, it appears, and it seems like it’s a safe assumption to make, that in fact the changes to section 28 of the act in clause 2…. Really, the urgency to deal with everything tonight appears to be a political decision, not a technical decision. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The situation that the member is pointing to is one of natural gas, and natural gas providers have a relationship with the consumer. They know who the consumer is. They bill the consumer, and the consumer pays them. It’s quite a different circumstance when you’re filling up your car at the pump. There’s not the same relationship, and so the circumstances there are quite different.

It was pressing that we get the information to the gas providers so that they can ensure that it is available at the pump as of April 1, and that’s what we’re doing in this bill today.

Peter Milobar: Section 28 of the bill that is being amended by clause 2 appears to always have been around remittance to government as it relates to natural gas.

The reason I say it appears to be political and not technical in nature is when you read the legislative changes that have happened, in the legislative book on the Carbon Tax Act…. The interesting thing is on section 28 of the act. It was amended in 2008, was amended in 2010, and it was amended again in 2010, both January and July. It was amended in May 2012.

Interestingly, it took effect May 1, 2012, retroactive from when it received royal assent on May 14. So there was no technical reason, on a clause that deals solely with remittance to government, a section in the act that deals solely with remittance to government for natural gas…. There’s been no previous technical reason that it could not be retroactive.

[10:30 p.m.]

Yet we’re being led to believe today, through the morning debate, the request to the Speaker and through second reading debate by the government, that it was critical that clauses in this bill be dealt with today because retroactivity was seen to be not possible.

Again, how can the minister explain that section 28 of the act, in clause 2, appears very much, on a technical basis, to be able to be a retroactive passing, in fact two weeks later, but not now?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The urgency of this bill is really around the dropping of the rate to zero. It’s not around any specific one clause.

Peter Milobar: Well, there are all sorts of tax changes. Rates change. They go up or they go down. In Bill 6, there are multiple tax changes in this year’s budget implementation bill that have retroactive clauses in them. Some go back years. Some go back almost a decade or more to when they would take effect. There have been retroactive clauses with carbon tax changes over the years as well.

Again, the Premier signalled very clearly — and the Premier has a majority — to retailers and that that this was coming. I fail to understand how a retroactive clause would not have been deemed to be possible under this and that it was critically important to ram this through tonight.

And when I asked, when I made a statement earlier, what happens if we’re still debating this after the clock strikes 12…? We know what happened to Cinderella when the clock struck a certain time, but I’m not sure if we were into April 1 with this bill, or potentially even April 2 if we start having some amendments, that we wouldn’t have retroactivity by default anyways.

So, there are bulletins that go out from the Finance Ministry all the time about tax changes coming. There are all sorts of tax changes built into the budget that was presented on March 4 that will be retroactive — not just in this fiscal year or a coming fiscal year, but previous years — and people make tax adjustments and everything else to the like.

[10:35 p.m.]

Why, if in previous years section 28 of the act was able to be retroactively amended, was it not possible to retroactively amend it in clause 2 of this bill this year?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I understand that the member is frustrated to deal with this bill in an accelerated way, but I think that this question has been already decided upon by our Speaker. The leaders of each party, House Leaders, presented their arguments to the Speaker, who made a ruling that, in fact, it was passing the test for urgency. That ruling stands, and I think we should focus on the bill at hand.

Peter Milobar: I am trying to focus on it. I didn’t ask about the Speaker making a ruling. I don’t think the Speaker read through the bill with any level of scrutiny to figure out the urgency or not of the clauses, whether or not retroactivity was appropriate or not. The government said they were.

I started this off asking if it was a political or a technical decision. That wasn’t actually answered, other than it kind of leaned towards a technical decision that retroactivity would not be appropriate to amend section 28 in the act. I then pointed out it’s actually been amended with retroactivity in the past.

The Premier made very open and very public statements that the government would be instructing people not to charge carbon tax on April 1. That will have the same impact getting out to the broader community and gas stations and Fortis and everyone else as us passing this at 11:30 tonight, thinking that they will magically have everything changed in half an hour at 12:01 or at six o’clock tomorrow morning.

It’s going to take time for that information to filter out, in a bulletin to be issued by Ministry of Finance. There are all sorts of taxation bulletins that get sent out to businesses on taxation across the board. I used to get them all the time with my hotel and bars and liquor store. You’d get tax notices from government all the time. There are all sorts of tax measures that wind up with retroactivity attached to them.

So again, can the minister point…? If there’s not a technical reason, given that section 28 of the act has previously been amended with retroactivity, is clause 2 a political decision or a technical decision for why retroactivity would not be appropriate this year versus why it was in previous years, when this exact section of the act has been retroactively amended?

[10:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Clause 2 is a technical clause, and it’s part of what is required to eliminate the carbon tax. Having royal assent in advance provides certainty, the most certainty that we can, to the business partners who are going to be eliminating the carbon tax. That’s what we’re hoping to deliver.

Peter Milobar: To be clear, in the limited time we had for a briefing today…. And admittedly, I cut it short once I felt I had the answers because it became clear with staff that they couldn’t answer on the technical side and they rightfully so indicated that the minister would be more appropriate to answer some of the questions once we get to committee stage.

It was very clear that, again, there doesn’t seem to be a technical reason. The minister and the government may want the political certainty around having clause 2 dealt with today before April 1, but there’s no technical…. In the technical sense of the way that the tax would not still be able to go to zero by the end of this week with an April 1 implementation…. And gas stations have either charged it or not charged it and other retailers given that — sorry, this is natural gas — they would have been given the notice ahead of time that the bill is progressing through, because we see that with all sorts of tax changes.

I guess I’ll just either raise my voice up a notch at the end to make it into a question, I guess…. Or really it’s just more of an observation that this clause has very clearly been amended before to allow for retroactivity despite what we had heard when the bill was first introduced today.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

[10:45 p.m.]

On clause 4.

Jeremy Valeriote: On clause 4, how will these refunds or credits be monitored? Who is responsible for ensuring that all credits are passed back to consumers?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The ministry undertakes risk-based audits and that’s how it’s ensured.

Peter Milobar: Again, section 36 being amended here in clause 4 of the act…. Go back to the handy little chart. I’ll tell you, these law books are just wonderful. You get there nice current information. So, June 2, it received royal assent in 2011, retroactive to February 16. Once again, May 14, 2012, retroactive to May 1.

What exactly was the problem with having section 36 being amended retroactive, similar to section 28 questions in clause 2? Why the political urgency to deal with a bill that, very clearly…? These clauses could have been dealt with through a regular pace of legislation this week, and we could have had retroactivity take effect, and perhaps, we might have had more clarity around where the missing $1.8 billion in revenue and spending will be.

[10:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will reiterate what we’ve already discussed with this member in regards to the questions of retroactivity. This question has already been litigated this morning by the Speaker and by the House Leaders of the three parties, and the decision was, in fact, to go ahead, and the reasons provided for this accelerated timeline were accepted. It has been litigated. It’s accepted. This is what we’re doing.

Clause 4 is really about providing certainty to natural gas customers to ensure that should they erroneously be charged carbon tax, it will be returned to them.

Peter Milobar: Again, I’m not trying to litigate what the Speaker’s ruling was. I don’t think it really shocked anyone what the Speaker’s ruling was, frankly, today. It tends to be how the standing orders operate. It doesn’t matter which government is in, in which Legislature. Standing orders tend to tilt to the benefit of whoever the sitting government is. I’m not taking issue with that at all.

Point being, I’m asking for technical answers from the minister’s point of view as to why retroactivity was not deemed to be appropriate enough. One would assume that either the Premier’s office or the House Leader of the Government would have consulted with the Minister of Finance around how fast and how expedient it was necessary, on a technical basis, to make sure that this bill was in place by April 1.

However, we’re on the second of three clauses so far that have details around natural gas dealings, and two of those three have been subject to retroactivity amendments in the past. I’m simply asking, given that clause 4 would enable there to be carbon tax refunds and 180 days for that on top of that….

Given that natural gas customers, the vast majority except for the very few that might fill up a vehicle with natural gas, a few remaining ones in the province…. There are credits with Fortis on people’s home heating bills, who is the predominant natural gas supplier in the province, if not the only one, all the time. This provision would allow for 180 days for those credits to be accounted for, by the looks of it.

[10:55 p.m.]

Again, why on a technical basis was it imperative that this clause be passed tonight, as it’s being passed with a retroactivity clause attached to it?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It is the act as a whole that it is imperative that we pass tonight, not the specific clause that the member has pointed to.

Peter Milobar: Well, so far, just about every clause has previously had retroactivity attached to it. I’m not quite getting the urgency piece of the overall bill, but we’ll keep working our way through it and figure that part out, I guess.

In terms of clause 4, why is the 180 days the required time to send out a carbon tax refund? Why was it landed on 180 days, on what is typically a monthly billing, and not three months or 30 days?

We’re told that retroactivity wouldn’t have been a wise move, because people need to know and get their refunds dealt with immediately, yet this provision would enable six months for that reconciliation to happen between the supplier and the customer.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There were two reasons for that decision of 180 days. The first reason is that there was a reference to section 146 of the PST Act, which has a similar provision. The second reason was that this is a new mechanism that these natural gas retailers are putting in place, and we wanted to ensure that they had time to set it up.

The Chair: Given that the committee has been working on this bill for some time, I declare a recess of ten minutes. We’ll have everybody back here in the room at 11:10.

The committee recessed from 10:59 p.m. to 11:11 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Welcome back to Committee of the Whole, Bill 8.

We’ll be starting at clause 4.

Peter Milobar: Just to clarify with the minister on clause 4, the section 36 amendment, this is really more, then, geared towards a homeowner or a small business that is a natural gas customer. It’s to ensure, if they are deemed to have overpaid carbon tax, delivered on or after April 1, that there is a refund mechanism.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, that is correct.

Peter Milobar: Again, I’ll go back to the importance, or not, of retroactivity if there were to be some charges incurred for the first couple of days of April, or not. Is the hesitancy by government to have this bill be dealt with in the normal course of action through the course of this week and to get royal assent by, say, Thursday of this week…?

The hesitancy around having that retroactivity…. Is there a materiality that the government felt would be a problem in terms of dollar value of potential refunds that consumers may have been paying for their natural gas between Tuesday to Thursday?

[11:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member, it really is the same question that we have been asked. The same question will get the same answer: it is the totality of the bill that is the urgency, not the specific clause 4.

Peter Milobar: My question was if there was a worry about the material dollar value. Is there a threshold that the government was worried about hanging out there, with refunds all over the place, to a large dollar figure for individual customers, particularly homeowners, if this were to take effect on, say, a Thursday, retroactive to the Tuesday?

That’s really what I’m trying to get at, because this section is about refunds. Again, was there a dollar threshold that the government was concerned about retailers having to refund back to their customers and trying to circumvent that with the 180-day period? What does that dollar value look like?

[11:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: By accelerating the act, we expect that there will be very few refunds necessary. Actually, by moving the bill quickly, it mitigates the risk effectively.

Peter Milobar: I hope the minister can bear with me. I know we’re pushing midnight here.

Section 36 is amended by adding the following subsections: 1.1 “despite subsection 1 of this section” and sections 42(1)(a). If you go to the carbon tax and 42(1)(a), which I just happen to have here, it deals with refund limits and says, “Despite section 16 of the Financial Administration Act,” which actually says, around refunds: “Money received by the government that is erroneously paid or collected or for any purpose that is not fulfilled may be, subject to directives of the Treasury Board, be refunded from the consolidated revenue fund or the appropriate trust fund in part or in full as circumstances require.”

Despite that section, 42(1)(a) says: “A refund of less than $10 must not be made.” That means if people were to incur carbon tax charge on Tuesday to Thursday of less than $10, they would have no ability, under section 36, to ask for that refund anyways, as I read this, because it says: “Despite subsection 1 of this section, sections 42(1)(a)….” So despite that. Then it goes into what you can ask for a refund on, and it goes into giving you 180 days.

Now the reason I ask that is the rest of 42 goes into how “a refund other than a refund referred to in paragraph C must not be made on a claim for a refund that is received by the director more than four years after the date on which the amount claimed was paid or remitted,” and a refund to a person under section 38(5) “must not be made on a claim for a refund that is received by a director for more than four years after the date on which the person who sold the fuel referred to in section 38 writes off as unrealized or uncollectable amount owing to the person who bought that fuel despite the limitation act in action for a refund must not be brought more than four years after the date on which the amount claimed was paid or remitted.”

Now, I’m just wondering…. Section 36 of this bill gives people 180 days, and it refers to section 42 of the act. Section 42 of the act gives people four years. So which is the overriding piece of legislation if someone is looking to get a refund? Is it 180 days or is it four years? It’s a little bit of a difference.

[11:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is testing me at this late hour, but we’ve got the answer for the member.

The way that it is structured, the seller, in this case the natural gas retailer, has 180 days to credit a consumer should they be charged carbon tax and they shouldn’t have been charged carbon tax. That 180 days, as we’ve discussed, is time for the retailer to set up their systems, but also is a benefit to the consumer to make sure that they’re refunded in a timely way.

Now, if on the off chance, there’s an error and that customer isn’t refunded in that 180-day timeframe, you can go to the default, which is the four years, and seek that money from government, which they would be refunded.

The member also raised the question of the $10 limit and there is language here that says despite 41(a) there will be the ability to have a refund of less than $10. So that has been addressed.

[11:30 p.m.]

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Peter Milobar: To be clear, on clause 4, let the record show that was not me that caused that interlude for a minute there. I get blamed for enough delays in this place.

The Chair: I agree.

Peter Milobar: With section 5, it appears that these changes don’t actually make a material difference. I’m not quite sure why the urgency or why the need for these changes.

Could the minister enlighten us as to what the material difference these changes would actually make her?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The proposed change here…. This amends subsection 37(2) to ensure that persons can receive refunds in respect to an amount paid as if it were security, i.e., an amount of security that was paid despite there being no legal obligation to do so under the same refund rule.

The reason for this change is that the change is consequential to the removal of carbon tax as of April 1, 2025. It fills a gap in the legislation to ensure that businesses can apply for refunds if they are charged security in error.

Peter Milobar: Again, section 37, May 14, 2012, to take effect May 1. Section 37 actually had some interesting ones later on. It was dealt with retroactively March 2018 to take effect February of 2014. Again in 2016, it had a couple year lag of retroactivity that backdated it.

Again, it seems like a clause that can be fairly easily backdated and amended without causing massive indigestion for the people that would be impacted by it.

I guess I’ll go back to the same question. Why? Why, again? This is a third of four clauses now that have any substance whatsoever to them.

Retroactivity has not been an issue in the past. Why, oh why, do we have to be here until midnight dealing with a bill that we could have easily dealt with on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday of this week?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As the member has asked before, and I will answer again, it is the totality of it, not the specific clause that drives the urgency of this bill.

Peter Milobar: Well, what I’m pointing out to the minister is that essentially the totality of the bill has been retroactively passed at some point in the past. All the various clauses.

That’s really the fundamental problem that we’re trying to get to here is: why the urgency? Frankly, we could have been back over the last two weeks to deal with this as well, but we’re here today.

[11:35 p.m.]

That’s really the essence of this. In terms of section 37(2), however, what are the dollar figures that would be typical with a clause like this in terms of the security and the difference between the amount the person paid? Are these the high-volume people? Are these just regular individual homeowners? Who is trying to be captured and what’s the order of magnitude that this clause would actually purport to be rectifying?

[11:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Before I recognize the Minister of Finance, I would like to just remind members that, despite the fact one may not appreciate the response of a minister, they should avoid repetitious lines of questioning.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked about: is this corporate? Is it large sums of money? Is it individuals? These are very large corporate actors and it’s large sums of money. These are corporate sellers. In the normal course of business, they would be significant transactions.

This is particularly consequential, this amendment, because it fills a gap, and it ensures that, should there be an amount transferred in error…. It allows that amount to be returned.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Peter Milobar: I’ll keep down my lines of questions. Hopefully it doesn’t seem repetition, because they are….

Retroactivity comes up yet again. Section 84 has been amended in the past: October 9 takes effect September 2 — or October 29. June 2 takes effect February 16, May 14 comes back on May 1, and so on and so forth.

I asked that because this section deals with a regulation made on or before December 31, 2025: “Under this section for the purposes of section 23(7) or 35(12) or under subsection (3)(a)(b)(c) or (s) of this section may be made retroactive to April 1 or a later date. If made retroactive, it is deemed to come into force on a specified date.”

Then 9 is “a regulation made on or before December 31st, 2026. Under this section in relation to refunds may be made retroactive to April 1, 2025, or a later date, and if made retroactive is deemed to have come into force on the specified date.”

So that is now clause 4 or 5 of this bill that has previously had retroactivity attached to it in previous amendments to this bill. In fact this is a section making regulations that will allow the ability for orders-in-council to be made retroactive to April 1 of this year all the way up to and including December 31, 2026.

Could the minister please explain why retroactivity is okay for the regulation-making powers of orders-in-council, but it was deemed too onerous of government to have this bill proceed at a normal time frame throughout this week?

[11:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Clause 6 is really adding the authority to make retroactive regulations under section 84, related to cancelling all appointments and certificates, prescribing a time and manner for remittances under the new section 35(12), clause 3 of this bill, addressing unanticipated refund scenarios, removing the requirement to pay international fuel tax agreement deposits and ending irrelevant administrative requirements.

Really, what’s driving the change on clause 6 is that it allows regulation changes to ensure a smooth transition away from the carbon tax, and it must be implemented via regulation.

Peter Milobar: Well, I started pointing out that these are four or five clauses that previously had had retroactive changes made to them, in previous iterations of the legislation.

The interesting thing is in section 84(8) on this bill, where it says, “…or 35.” Interestingly enough, section 35, in clause 3, is the one section out of the five that had never actually had retroactive provisions enacted on the changes that were made legislatively. Now it does.

The totality of the bill, as the minister keeps saying, is why retroactivity was deemed to not be acceptable. We now literally have every section of this bill — that previously had retroactive legislation, up to and including this current piece of legislation — that has amended sections being dealt with in this bill.

Now that we are at five out of five of these clauses all having been subject to retroactivity, including this clause, which actually gives this current government the ability to make regulations on or before December 31, 2026, which can be “…retroactive to April 1, 2025 or a later date, and if made retroactive is deemed to have come into force on the specified date.”

Again, what was the political calculus here? It has obviously not been a technical calculus as to why we needed to deal with this bill in its entirety today, when every single clause has very easily been dealt with, with some very long retroactivity time frames, including what is in this — which will be up to a year and a half from now.

The Chair: Hon. Member, I note that the minister has responded a number of times today regarding your question. I ask that you reframe your question towards a new line of questioning. Thank you.

Peter Milobar: Mr. Chair, I’m not sure how to reframe, respectfully, when I’m asking, frankly, different questions.

The minister has said it’s the totality of the bill. I am painting a picture — clause by clause — of the totality of the bill: that every single one of these clauses has been dealt with retroactively, except for the one clause in section 35, which previously hadn’t. Now in clause 6, it actually is being dealt with in a retroactive manner. So the discussion, to this point, has been that we weren’t able to deal with this bill in a retroactive manner. Clause 6 is all about retroactivity.

I’m not quite sure how we can get to what the government’s intention is on a bill without asking questions specific to each clause. The questions I’m asking, although they may be repetitive about retroactivity, actually are specific to each of the clauses, based on the sections in the act, of the carbon tax, and based on the interconnectivity with that and the other provisions that we’ve read in other acts.

I’ll be delving into the Income Tax Act, when we get to there, as well, and the retroactivity potential on those. Really, I’m kind of at a loss. I get that the minister might not like the line of questioning and feels it’s repetitive. But clause 6 is much different than the other clauses. Clause 6 actually allows for retroactivity once Bill 8 is passed.

[11:50 p.m.]

I’m not sure why the government doesn’t want to answer the political calculus. Only the minister can answer that. The technical staff cannot answer that question. I tried canvassing that in the briefing today. They rightfully pointed out that it would have to be more of a politician’s answer to these types of questions. I’m not quite sure when the opposition is supposed to access information from this government if we’re not empowered and enabled to ask the question.

It’s up to the minister whether they actually want to answer what the political calculus was on this versus the technical calculus of this bill in its entirety, given that we are now on clause 5 of 5, with retroactivity previously been established and now being established in this clause specifically.

The Chair: Shall clause 6 pass?

Some Voices: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

Peter Milobar: Point of order. I still have questions on clause 6. There was no answer given, so how was I to assume there was going to be a vote?

I’d like to ask questions. I don’t know if the vote….

The Chair: Thank you. I would like to ask the committee if it is okay if we go back to clause 6 so that the hon. member is able to continue their line of questioning?

Some Voices: Aye.

Peter Milobar: Later on in this legislation, there are regulation-making powers that have sunset clauses in them.

Is there a reason that this section does not have a sunset clause the same as the upcoming clauses?

[11:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: These tools in this clause are primarily administrative. They’re designed to stay in effect as part of the administrative theme to ensure proper wind-down.

Peter Milobar: In part 2 of this clause, subsection (9), the minister is giving the government 640 days from now to continue to make regulations that would be retroactive to April 1, 2025.

What types of regulations does the ministry foresee that will be needed?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is really designed to cover unanticipated refund scenarios that are not accounted for in this bill.

Peter Milobar: I can appreciate not foreseen in this bill. But obviously, those changes, by virtue of them being done by regulation means that they won’t come in front of the Legislature; it will be an OIC signed off on and posted to the website at some point in the future.

Given that obviously there is that ability, then, to set within the Carbon Tax Act the ability to provide for future unforeseen regulations that may be needed to deal with removing carbon tax in its entirety…. And given what was unfolding all through January, February and March leading up to the budget, the language in the budget talking about recognizing that there may be a shift in carbon tax policy in the country moving forward, and that the government would take action and remove carbon tax if the federal backstop was removed…. That type of legislation could have come forward with enabling, by way of regulation, the government to strip down carbon tax to zero.

Why was that not pursued over the last month and a half that we’ve been in Victoria, instead of things like clause 6, which now gives you that ability, by regulation, to deal with unforeseen issues with the carbon tax removal, as opposed to that just being the legislative piece in the first place? Then we would have actually had a fulsome piece.

[12:00 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m hoping to scope this question down to relevance on clause 6. The member is asking a hypothetical question about process, and really, what we’re talking about is clause 6, which is quite specific, so I’m going to decline.

Peter Milobar: Clause 6 gives the minister and the government the ability, over the next 640 days, to make retroactive changes on anything they may have missed in terms of removing the consumer carbon tax.

If, by way of example, item 1 in column 1 in schedule 1, aviation fuel, is missed today, if that had been left out of this bill and missed, would clause 6 enable the minister to make, by regulation, a retroactive change? Let’s say they realize that on May 1. The airline industry comes to them saying: “Wait a second. We’re still paying carbon tax on our aviation fuel.” It gets discovered on May 1. Would the minister, by way of regulation, with clause 6 be able to amend that retroactive to April 1 of this year and remove the carbon tax retroactively on aviation fuel?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No.

Peter Milobar: So what errors, then, would be missed — that the minister may have missed, the staff may have missed — that would not lead to the removal of consumer carbon tax? If something as basic as a fuel listed on a schedule wouldn’t qualify, what types of things, then, would be subject to future orders-in-council under these clauses?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Specifically, this adds authority to make retroactive regulations under section 84 of the Carbon Tax Act if they are related to cancelling all appointments and certificates, to prescribing a time and a manner for remittance under the new section 35(12), to addressing unanticipated refund scenarios, to removing the requirement to pay international fuel tax agreement deposits and to ending irrelevant administration requirements.

Peter Milobar: Okay. So to be 100 percent clear — and again, I’m truly not trying to be argumentative here — the possible regulation changes of any possible missed regulations that are needed are simply confined to those areas and no other areas as it relates to consumer carbon tax. So this is not a catch-all, as was semi-conveyed in a previous answer. This is very tightly constricted down to those certain areas.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, that is correct.

Peter Milobar: Not a question on 6, because I’ve been down this road before. I thought I would give a heads-up to the ministry so that they could double check, before we get to clause 10, about a possible error. I only say that to give you a heads-up, because before, we went back and forth. We had different versions of an act that were being read in two different areas.

[12:05 a.m.]

When I look up the Income Tax Act — and I’ve double checked — it’s chapter 21596 in subsection 2 and the (a) the striking out of a month specified for the 2021 and subsequent tax years.

The only wording I can see in that section is referencing 2007, so when we get to it, maybe the minister could clarify if I’m reading from the right book of laws in this chamber or not. That would be great. That’s just a heads-up.

No questions left on 6 for me.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Peter Milobar: This clause takes effect now. Well, five minutes ago. How about that? This clause was supposed to take effect five minutes ago. What is the notification process to make sure gas stations, purveyors of diesel, any of these types of fuels, have notified the retailers that this tax or these rates may be in effect sometime in the next few hours?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The ministry has been in communications with retail throughout the week leading up to this. The general webpage, when it’s updated, kicks out a notification that goes to sellers, and they will have been paying close attention to that.

There’s also a communication that goes out to sellers via something called eTax, which is a communication platform that they’ve signed up to be members in.

Peter Milobar: For things like home heating, the predominant fuel is natural gas. It’s a real-time delivery system to the homeowner, with a meter at the house.

[12:10 a.m.]

So I’m assuming that as of today, Fortis will be instructed to drop the rate from that 15.2 cents per cubic metre down to zero, and that your on-time delivery for your home heating fuel, if it’s natural gas, to your home will be at zero?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked the question if someone had fuel delivered today if they would be charged the carbon tax on that fuel from…. The example given was Fortis. Many other natural gas providers as well. Certainly, the intention is no. We expect that it will be dropped to zero, but on the off chance that there is a consumer that is charged the carbon tax, that’s why we’ve built in the refund mechanism that we’ve already canvassed in the previous clauses.

Peter Milobar: That covers off a large portion of the population that uses natural gas to heat their homes. As I say, it’s on demand; it’s metered. It’s all that. That’s understandable.

But there’s also a very significant portion of the population that deals with the fuel in item 12, which is propane. I know in my former riding, Kamloops–North Thompson, the whole North Thompson Valley, there is no pressurized natural gas line. People use propane or wood to heat their homes.

However, those are very large propane tanks that people would have been filling up, especially if they just filled it up as they’re getting to a tail end, and then they would have filled them up to make sure they get through a cool spring and things of that nature.

What is the refund mechanism for those people that would have paid to fill, essentially at a consumer level, a bulk purchase of propane that in all likelihood won’t really be tapped into at any consequence of volume out of that tank until they head into the next fall, but they prepaid, and so they would have paid carbon tax on all of those home heating fuels? Are they just out of luck, or do they have a refund ability like a homeowner would have if they had the benefit of being on a Fortis pressurized natural gas line?

[12:15 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It is in regard to the date of April 1. Yes, folks who are using propane — if they purchase propane April 1 or beyond and are charged the carbon tax — have an opportunity for a refund, but after April 1.

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s not, “Wait for the first-quarter update,” like the homeowner grant. I guess that’s some solace to northern and rural residents.

I guess the question is…. That homeowner purchased, on bulk, very large tanks of propane for their home. It’s no different than a gas station that would have been purchasing, over the last few days, to refill their tanks in the ground. Is there not the mechanism for those storage tanks to be recognized, moving forward as of April 1, with the credits and the values that would be stored in those gas station tanks as to when the carbon tax is applicable or not, and then back to their distributor, and so on and so forth?

Or are the automotive gas retailers who have filled up tanks in the ground…? Too bad, so sad. If you paid carbon tax to your distributor to fill up your in-ground tanks two days ago, do you have to eat that as well? Are you only exempt from paying carbon tax to refill your in-ground tanks at the gas station, as the operator, from April 1 moving forward?

[12:20 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is a sales tax that applies only to the end consumer.

Clauses 7 and 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Peter Milobar: So again, this is to deal with any transition regulations that are needed that will be done by order-in-council as well, not by legislation.

I’m just wondering what, typically, would be the transition regulations that we could expect to see under clause 9?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I want to begin talking about this section by describing the reasons for the changes that we’re requesting here.

Although the Carbon Tax Act contains extensive regulating authority, these existing authorities were drafted under the assumption that the carbon tax would remain in place, and they’re not broad enough to support the government through a transitional period.

The total elimination of a tax is a legislatively complex process that the Ministry of Finance has not undertaken in over a decade. Broad transitional authorities are needed to ensure that any issues that arise in the process of dismantling the carbon tax can be swiftly rectified via regulation.

As any regulations made under this amendment are automatically repealed by April 1, 2026, any amendments the regulations made under this section must be done by subsequent legislative amendments if government wishes to have those amendments remain in effect after a year.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The proposed changes add authority to make regulations for the following purposes: any matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers is not provided for in the Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025; any matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate for bringing the amendments of that act into operation; any matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate for limiting or addressing transitional difficulties related to the repeal of the Carbon Tax Act; and resolving errors or inconsistencies in the Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025.

[12:25 a.m.]

Regulations made under this provision can be made retroactive to April 1, 2025. This provision and any regulations made under it are repealed automatically April 1, 2026, or at an earlier date.

Peter Milobar: I’ll go back to my example about aviation fuel. It’s May 1, and it’s discovered that aviation fuel, in fact, was not dropped to zero cents per litre. Under 9(1)(d), it would seem resolving any errors or inconsistencies or ambiguities arising from the amendments made by this act….

I’m assuming that omitting aviation fuel off of schedule 1 would be considered resolving an error, and that could be corrected by this section and then, in fact, retroactively dated back to April 1.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Just for the benefit of my team, I want to point out for the record that aviation fuel is, in fact, on the table and is No. 1. I know the member is using it as an example, but it’s definitely included.

Yes is the answer to the question. It could be used to make an amendment of that nature.

Peter Milobar: In actual fact, then, essentially, had the government brought forward clause 9 over the last month, that would have given them all the powers they needed to enact any changes by way of regulation as it relates to carbon tax, correct?

[12:30 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked a question about a theoretical process that is not the process that led to this act, nor is it in relation to this clause or this act. I don’t know if the answer to his question would be yes or no, whether it would be possible to legally create this fictional version of the act, but it’s not relevant to the work that we’re doing tonight.

Peter Milobar: It’s not a fictional version of the act. The premise for Bill 8 was that it had to be done. It had to be done at the earliest possible date, which was today — well, yesterday now — because the federal government didn’t make a change until March 15. Despite the fact that we had a budget come in on March 4, despite from January 31 on, every federal leader or potential leader was saying they were going to scrap the consumer carbon tax, the government said they couldn’t take any action at all on carbon tax removal in advance of any of that happening.

In actual fact, and I get that it might wind up being slightly more complicated than just the provisions in (d), however, the basic catch-all of clause 9 is that anything that’s missed can still be dealt with by regulation on the premise and the fundamental goal to remove the consumer carbon tax, up to and including the schedule, which actually sets out taking the carbon tax to zero.

The first question I asked was, “If aviation fuel was missed in this schedule and was discovered on May 1, could it be made retroactive to zero as of April 1 under the provisions of clause 9?” and the answer was yes. So there was the ability for the government to bring forward legislation dealing with carbon tax over the last month and a bit that would have set the stage for a zeroing of the carbon tax to be done by order-in-council if and when the federal government changed the rules around the federal backstop.

Clause 9 seems to take that into account by making sure it’s a catch-all of anything that may be missed in the few clauses that are in Bill 8 because, as the minister says, it’s very unwieldy to try to unwind a tax. I can appreciate that. Things may get missed. But this very clearly creates the legislative framework for things to be dealt with by regulation, up to and including the rates of tax, retroactively, to April 1.

Is the minister now saying that the first answer that I asked on this section was wrong? That in fact you cannot amend and make those types of changes on the example that I gave around aviation fuel?

[12:35 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The answer to the member’s question is no. The only reason that we can amend the rate schedule, the theoretical aviation fuel example, is because of the other clauses in this act, specifically clause 7. Clause 7 is the clause that brings all fuel cells to zero.

Peter Milobar: Well, I understand that clause 7 does that. And that assumes clause 7 is perfect. It assumes clause 6 is perfect and clause 5 and 3, 2 and 1 and that, in fact, the government didn’t miss anything, in which case, we don’t need the transition regulation provisions as the catch-all, indeed “resolving any errors, inconsistencies or ambiguities arising in the amendments made by this Act.”

Now, I get that. I understand the premise. But the minister seems to not want to either acknowledge, or what, my question. My question is…. If the government is able to demonstrate the ability to create a framework for essentially enabling regulation to happen on any and all aspects of carbon tax removal — in this case because of error, but it could have just as easily been worded something to the effect of “pass any regulations to match the federal backstop rules around the consumer carbon tax….”

That, by virtue of the fact we can, by regulation, take care of any errors, means that there must have been the ability for the government from when we first started sitting in the middle of February and had nothing but throne speech to debate for two weeks. Then we went into budget speech and had nothing but the budget to debate for the better part of two weeks because there was no actual, real legislation other than park boundary amendments, which is a yearly housekeeping thing, and the critical Conflict of Interest Commissioner two-clause bill and a piece of consumer protection that hadn’t been consulted on with anyone for over three years but then was rushed forward to have something to work on in the Legislature.

We could have actually had a carbon tax removal bill enabling…. This would be one of the few times you have opposition saying: “Why didn’t you just take it under regulation instead of legislation?”

Why was the decision not made to enable legislation to create the framework that we could be zeroing carbon tax by regulation and orders-in-council to sync up and match up with the federal government? In which case, we wouldn’t be in such a rush and a time constraint to have gas stations know what they should be charging for gas at this very moment.

That could have been dealt with, and they would have had two or three weeks’ notice to get it in place. In fact, they could have had all spring break, but no one was in this place working.

Am I missing something? Is there not, based on clause 9, the ability for the government to have done that?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is making a massive extrapolation based on one clause of the bill. This bill is very interconnected. I do not accept the premise that the member is bringing forward. The creation of bills is complex. The work of the drafters is very specific, and I’m not going to engage in this theoretical extrapolation.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister convey to the House when the work on this bill started?

[12:40 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m not seeing the relevance to clause 9 from the member’s question.

Peter Milobar: Well, the minister in her answer around clause 9 and the transition and my assertions, I guess, that we could have had similar clauses that would have enabled the removal of carbon tax to be done by regulation to line up with timelines and dates of any changes federal government may make, as is mentioned actually in the budget book that the government would be doing that…. That budget book came out on March 4.

The minister has conveyed that this is a very complex piece of legislation and takes a lot of time, and I totally appreciate that and agree with that.

The budget book came out on May 4. It has language in there that says the government is aware of, and preparing for, and will match any federal changes.

I’m sure by March 4 the ministry staff and the minister would have known any carbon tax changes would be complex then.

I’m simply asking when the transition regulations, when the overall bill with all of its complexities, was first being worked on based on the minister’s previous answer to clause 9.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I believe that’s been asked and answered.

Peter Milobar: Well, no, it hasn’t been answered. The minister’s answer was it’s not relevant.

When was clause 9 developed?

The Chair: It appears that the member is pursuing a line of questioning that is becoming repetitious.

Peter Milobar: No. Point of order, Madam Speaker. No, it’s not. The minister has not answered the question. It’s a very direct question about clause 9 of when it was developed or not.

The fact the minister doesn’t want to answer the question does not mean that it’s repetition or irrelevant. It just means the government does not want to actually answer a question that the opposition is rightful in their place to be able to ask and should reasonably expect an answer.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I do not see the relevance of this question about when we started working on clause 9 to the question of whether clause 9 should pass.

[12:45 a.m.]

I can remind the member about the reason for this change. The carbon tax already contains extensive regulation-making authorities, and these existing authorities were drafted under the assumption that the carbon tax would remain in place and are broad enough to support government through a transitional period.

They’re not, and so, therefore, we’ve extended what’s possible under clause 9.

The total elimination of a tax is a legislatively complex process that the Ministry of Finance has not undertaken for over a decade. Broad transitional authorities are needed to ensure that any issues that arise within the process of dismantling the carbon tax can be swiftly rectified via regulation. That’s what clause 9 is about and for, and I believe that’s what we should be discussing.

Peter Milobar: Well, respectfully to the minister: she doesn’t get to decide what I find relevant to why I may or may not vote in favour of a clause in a bill.

The minister has said that the bill has to be taken in its entirety and all clauses are integral to each other. So I’m assuming that all clauses are being worked on at the same time.

The minister, in her own budget document, on page 66, says that government remains committed to removing the consumer carbon tax should the federal government remove the requirement for carbon pricing across Canada. That’s in a document that was presented to the Legislature on March 4, which would have gone to the King’s Printer sometime in February, which means that decision of that wording was signed off on quite some time ago.

Today we had the Government House Leader, in justifying Standing Order 81, say that the opposition will have every opportunity to stand up and everyone that wants to speak on Bill 8 will get a chance to speak on Bill 8, and all questions that need to be asked will be fully canvassed and fully answered by government.

And repeatedly, I’m being told by the Chair that I’m being repetitive, and that’s because the minister has repeatedly refused to answer the question. If the question was answered, I would move on.

The question is really not that difficult. When was clause 9 beginning to be drafted by government? It’s a pretty standard question that opposition asks about every piece of legislation in this place. When did it start to get worked on? It gets asked about almost every piece of legislation, and usually there’s an answer.

There are not four questions in a row of a minister refusing to answer a most basic question, let alone a question about one singular clause, let alone the whole bill as to when it was being drafted. But we’re dealing with this at the eleventh hour on a topic that was referenced on March 4 in a government document that would have gone to a printer in February.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to know, based on clause 9 having provisions that will be a catch-all, to catch any errors by regulation and allow them to be retroactive — there’s that word again — to April 1, when clause 9 was being drafted to make sure there was a catch-all to catch any errors or omissions in the removal of carbon tax.

So to be abundantly clear, I’ll ask the minister again: when was the work done to draft clause 9?

The Chair: Member.

Peter Milobar: Well, Madam Chair, I’m not sure what exactly opposition is supposed to do with a minister that’s just basically saying: “I’ll give them the silent treatment, and we’ll see how that plays out.”

Is the minister aware of what date clause 9 was drafted and worked on by the Ministry of Environment, the staff she is supposed to be responsible for, to draft the legislation?

[12:50 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is embarking on an effort to play a game of gotcha about when this legislation started being worked on. That is abundantly clear. I don’t think it’s relevant to this clause.

Also, when a piece of legislation is worked on is…. I’m very unclear what you’re even asking. We started work on it within the ministry, discussing it and planning for it, yes. It started being drafted, yes. You’re making an assumption that everyone’s working on it at exactly the same time. You said that. I don’t share that assumption.

It’s a nebulous question, it’s not relevant to what we’re discussing, and I don’t have an answer to it for those reasons.

Peter Milobar: I don’t know how the minister feels she gets to decide what I find, in my canvassing, is or is not relevant when I’m asking direct questions about the bill, on the clause.

She’s got four staff sitting with her. She’s got three more staff in the gallery. She’s got lord knows how many more watching on TV, able to provide information back into this chamber. Part of the reason we’ve been here as long as we have tonight is because of this back-and-forth of never-ending, unrelenting unwillingness to provide basic information.

Is the minister saying that the date the drafting of clause 9 commenced is under cabinet confidentiality?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There are a number of privileges that we think are at play: solicitor-client privilege, cabinet privilege. Also, it is my belief that the question of when we started working on the bill is a nebulous timeline, and it’s not relevant to the bill.

We’re here to talk about the bill, and the bill is the bill. It is here, and we’re meant to be debating it and talking about it. The member is going a different direction than that.

Before the member responds, may I request a bio break, Madam Chair?

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess. Members should return at 1 a.m., please.

The committee recessed from 12:55 a.m. to 1 a.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

Peter Milobar: Based on the artful dodging that we’re seeing, refusing to answer a pretty straightforward question, I think a lot of people in B.C. are probably relieved to know that the government’s not going to proceed with trying to get all-encompassing power that could be done out of the Premier’s office and not have to deal with the Legislature whatsoever.

It is beyond the pale that we have a minister of the Crown that refuses to answer the most basic of questions around a transition regulation clause that, by its very nature, being a catch-all to catch any other errors on a carbon tax repeal, which by the minister’s own words is one of the most complex unwindings of a tax policy in the last decade — there’s undoubtedly going to be the odd error made, just human error or a missed word search or whatever when this was drafted — clause 9 would be integral for. You wouldn’t draft a bill like this without a clause 9.

I haven’t asked when all the other clauses were drafted. It’s pretty easy to see that a schedule would just be inserted. That’s pretty standard boilerplate and things of that nature. But clause 9, whether the minister likes to admit it or not, is pretty consequential to the functionality of this bill, moving forward.

The first provision that…. Clause 6, with section 84, had a very tight prescriptive area that the government could, by order and regulation, deal with things retroactively to April 1. Clause 9 doesn’t. Clause 9 is wide open. So we have two of nine clauses that are dealing with catching errors and omissions with retroactive aspects to them, for long periods of time. This has a sunset clause, at least, in it, but there was obviously a lot of thought given to why this would be needed in a bill like this.

I’m at a loss to understand why the minister refuses to answer when this was drafted, when the work on this provision started in clause 9. It is beyond credibility to suggest that that answer cannot be found, given there are seven Ministry of Finance staff here and others watching. Somebody had to have done the work. Somebody has to have known when they were doing it.

I don’t expect the minister to know off the top of her head, but that’s why, in these sessions, ministers turn around and converse with their staff: so they can provide to the opposition and the public an accurate answer. This isn’t question period, where evasion is the name of the game. This is where we’re supposed to actually get the answer on behalf of the public.

The minister has documents that say the government was aware of carbon tax changes on the horizon, yet they budgeted for three years of budget tax revenues in that same document. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the public, given that we were all jammed at the last-minute nature of this bill, to find out when this was actually getting worked on, because the federal government didn’t sign off on any changes until March 15.

Based on the evasion by the minister, it feels like this was drafted sometime between March 15 and March 31. But the minister doesn’t want to give an answer. And in that vacuum, the public will be left to decide just how rushed this was or not.

So would the minister please grace us with the answer of when clause 9 was drafted?

[1:05 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We remain stuck with this question. The member has suggested that I haven’t answered it. I’ve, in fact, given three answers.

The member suggested I turn and ask my team their opinions. I have, and I’ve heard from them that they believe that there is client privilege and cabinet privilege at play.

My own opinion is that the measurement of when we started depends on who you ask, and it’s very nebulous. You haven’t been specific even in the question.

Also, it’s not relevant. It’s not relevant to what we’re trying to do here, to talk about clause 9, to talk about this bill.

The member said that this is a consequential clause. It is a consequential clause. Let’s actually talk about it. I think people would be interested in seeing what’s here and what’s actually at play.

[1:10 a.m.]

Peter Milobar: I actually think people would be interested to know, and I think the minister really doesn’t want to give the people an answer as to how rushed this legislation actually was or not.

It is beyond ridiculous to say that the process of drafting somehow has legal and cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege–type protections on something as simple as a date.

And for the minister to try to play games with saying, “Well, it’s always a moving target and it depends who you ask and it’s really hard to pin down,” but won’t even give one date….

That very clearly indicates — in the court of public opinion, I will guarantee to the minister — that this was rushed. And the minister doesn’t want to acknowledge that it was rushed, despite language and other aspects of documents that would indicate conflicting messages within their own budget book presented by this minister.

But the minister seems intent on insisting that she knows what constitutes my decision-making on whether or not I am going to support clauses or not on a bill that her boss, the Premier, has made very clear is a confidence vote, which means you’re supposed to have the confidence of the House. Typically, people would like to give confidence to the people that are giving clear answers on pretty straightforward questions around something as simple as when a clause is being drafted, that is a very consequential clause, moving forward, to this bill and to the overall actions that this bill is trying to accomplish, which is the removal of consumer carbon tax, because this is the catch-all clause.

This enables cabinet to correct any errors without having to come back to the Legislature. So, it actually is kind of important, and it is kind of important to myself, to my colleagues and more importantly to the public when things were drafted.

The minister seems to want to not to share that information with people. That’s disappointing. I guess we’ll see how the votes go.

[1:15-1:20 a.m.]

Clause 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Davidson	Morissette	Choi
Routledge	Sharma	Bailey
NAYS — 6
Milobar	Kooner	Dew
Boultbee	Williams	Botterell

The Chair: Members, there being six votes for and six votes against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of clause 9 to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at the second reading.

On clause 10.

Peter Milobar: This is the clause that I gave a heads-up to the ministry and the minister about — a potential typo.

[1:25 a.m.]

I’m glad I did because before, I’d gone down…. Myself and a previous minister spent about 45 minutes — I don’t think anyone would want that late tonight — going back and forth, debating language. We were both working off two totally different sets of legislation.

I’ve been informed that, apparently, the King’s Printer did not have proper paperwork in the legislative books that I’ve been working off, both here and in the main chamber. In fact, the online version has 2021, whereas the books here, in the Income Tax Act, have 2007.

Just to let the ministry know, I no longer am assuming that there is a typo in that clause. So no amendments would be needed.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I just wanted to thank the member for having given us the time to look at that. That was generous. Thanks for the correction. Not needed.

Clauses 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

On clause 14.

Peter Milobar: I’ve just got to ask, because otherwise it wouldn’t be me: would “April 1,” on sections 1 through 12, now be considered retroactive?

[Laughter.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No.

Clause 14 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 1:27 a.m.