Contents

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[A song was sung.]

The Speaker: Thank you so much.

On behalf of all the members, I welcome the many guests who have joined us today to witness this momentous occasion for the K’ómoks First Nation. Thank you for being here. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.

Now I invite Chief Councillor Jerome Thomas of the Esquimalt Nation to offer a territorial acknowledgment and welcome.

Blessings and Acknowledgements

Seesanuk / Jerome Thomas: Həysxʷ q̓ə. Good day, everyone. I’ll start by introducing myself. My traditional name is Seesanuk. It comes from these grounds here, which was once the village of the xʷsepsəm People.

I’d like to welcome the K’ómoks Nation here to our traditional lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, the xʷsepsəm and the Songhees Nations.

It’s great to be part of your procession and see so many people in their regalia and their headgear. I welcome each and every one of you and everyone here from the parliament. Həysxʷ q̓ə, everyone. Welcome.

The Speaker: Thank you, Chief Councillor Jerome, for starting our proceedings and acknowledging the traditional territory on which we gather. We are so grateful that we are able to do that. Thank you so much.

Routine Business

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I move that the K’ómoks Treaty Act, 2026, be introduced and read a first time now.

I wish to acknowledge, I want to acknowledge, the K’ómoks First Nations, the delegation in attendance and, indeed, all of those who’ve worked so hard over so many years to bring us to this momentous occasion of togetherness. Indeed, that’s what we are doing — coming together today.

I want to acknowledge elected Chief Councillor Nicole Rempel, of course, their Elders and other negotiators, Hereditary Chiefs, council, the treaty team, the leadership, the family members — all those who sacrificed to bring about this great day.

I want to acknowledge chief negotiator Mark Stevenson; our friends at the B.C. Treaty Commission — I know there are a number of commissioners here today; locally elected representatives from local governments; federal representatives; of course, my team with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations; and, indeed, all of the government folks who put in the work to bring about this day.

We’ve been working together. Our teams have been working together for over 30 years, bringing a path together, a shared journey together — instead of coming at each other — walking together, as we are meant to do.

It provides a first step, this act, for the provincial ratification of the treaty. It establishes the legal status of the K’ómoks treaty, with statutory provisions necessary to implement the treaty and consequential amendments to other statutes.

Of course, members will note that treaties are a comprehensive form of reconciliation between First Nations, B.C. and Canada. They are negotiated, constitutionally protected, and they provide a framework for reconciling Crown title and the inherent title of First Nations. Like most other modern treaties in the province, this treaty was negotiated under the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

If fully ratified by all parties — that’s B.C.; that’s Canada; and, of course, it’s already ratified by the K’ómoks — this will be the first comprehensive treaty to come into effect since the ɬəʔamɛn treaty of 2016. It provides the basis for self-government, self-determination for the K’ómoks. It fosters certainty, partnership, economic and social benefits, cultural benefits to the K’ómoks — but, I should say, to all the people in the region and, indeed, to all British Columbians.

[1:40 p.m.]

Treaties enrich all of us. They’re a commitment to building our future together, and I’m so honoured to work in partnership with the local governments; with, of course, the K’ómoks Nation; with the federal government; and with just the broad general public in that region, who so want this treaty to succeed.

They’ve supported the treaty development over many years and forged very strong relationships with the K’ómoks People. I know this treaty will lead to many, many, many good outcomes in the region and, indeed, for all of British Columbia. It secures a bright future of walking in togetherness.

It’s my great honour to rise in this House today, on behalf of all those who’ve wanted to see this dream come about, to bring forward this legislation.

Members, I would like to move first reading of this bill.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Members, pursuant to Standing Order 25C(1)(a), I invite Chief Councillor Nicole Rempel of the K’ómoks First Nation to address the House.

Address by Indigenous Leader

Malidi / Nicole Rempel: [An Indigenous language was spoken.]

In my K’ómoks language, I greet you. I am happy to see you and thank and honour you all for coming here today. My traditional name is Malidi. My Canadian name is Hegus Nicole Rempel.

I’d like to thank the Chief for the welcome to his territory and to acknowledge the territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt, the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People.

Hon. Speaker, Members of the Legislative Assembly, thank you for the opportunity to stand here today before you and witness this important moment together. Today marks an historic milestone for K’ómoks First Nation and British Columbia.

The introduction of the K’ómoks Treaty Act represents more than three decades of work, work carried forward by many hands, many voices and many leaders across generations. I want to acknowledge all those who walked this path before us, the leaders who first had the courage and vision to begin this journey more than 30 years ago; and those who followed, who stayed committed through those challenges, changes and long negotiations. Their perseverance and the support of our treaty team and our membership have brought us to this day.

I want to recognize our treaty partners, B.C. and Canada, and all those across governments and communities who contributed to this process in good faith. This has always been about working together.

Our members have spoken clearly. In March 2025, they voted in strong support of the treaty and our constitution. That mandate guides us forward with both responsibility and purpose. This treaty is about recognizing our inherent rights and advancing true self-determination. It provides a foundation for strong, accountable governance, for sustainable economic development and for long-term stability, not only for K’ómoks but also for the broader region we all call home.

We are confident in this agreement and in the integrity of the process that has brought us here today. We also recognize that this work continues. We remain committed to respectfully working together with our treaty partners and our neighbouring nations as we move into this next phase.

Today is not the end of the journey. It is a meaningful step forward and an important step in implementation and toward a future where our nation can fully realize its potential. It is the beginning of a new chapter in our history, one focused on delivering results, on strengthening partnerships and on realizing the full promise of what we have built together. We see the opportunity to deepen those relations with our neighbours, with local governments, with industry and with all who share in this place — a future where we move forward together with clarity, respect and shared purpose.

For K’ómoks, this moment carries hope — hope that began with our past leaders, who believed that a better future was possible; and hope that lives today in our leadership, in our people, in our children and in the generations yet to come.

[1:45 p.m.]

Let us move forward with purpose, with certainty and with a shared commitment to the future we are building.

[An Indigenous language was spoken.] Thank you.

The Speaker: Chief Councillor Rempel, on behalf of all members, I want to say thank you. It was a great honour to have you here. Thank you so much for addressing the House today. It’s just such a special occasion.

Members, now, pursuant to Standing Order 25C(1)(b), I will recognize the leader of each recognized party or their designate to offer remarks. First we’ll start with the Premier.

Ministerial Statements

K’ómoks Treaty Act

Hon. David Eby: I am honoured to rise today and provide remarks on this historic occasion of the introduction of the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

First and foremost, let me congratulate you, Hegus, Hereditary Chiefs, the K’ómoks People. Your unwavering commitment to your community, your strength and your enthusiasm for a brighter future is recognized by all of us here today.

Members of this House, while this treaty has been a remarkable 30 years in the making, the work of the K’ómoks People to insist on their rights to protect their land has been going on for much, much longer than that. Their ancestors arrived in their territory thousands of years ago. They harvested and managed the land and its rich natural resources.

Shortly after European contact in the 1800s, wars and disease forced them to leave the land that was their home for millennia. They had to relocate south to amalgamate with other tribes at the time. Today the K’ómoks First Nation consists of descendants from numerous separate and distinct tribes with their own origin stories and languages.

In their history, in their present, the K’ómoks People define resiliency, define strength. They never ceded their territory. They continued to fight for their rights, and they are standing strong, as you see here today.

I know there has been a lot of talk inside and outside of this House about what reconciliation means. This treaty act today, this treaty is what reconciliation is. It is the very definition of it. This agreement is a major step forward in repairing damaged trust, creating certainty and building a new relationship from which all of us will benefit.

Once ratified by all the parties, the treaty doesn’t begin and end here. It’s a living agreement. It means it can be updated so it stays current, innovative and responsive. It will not extinguish rights. It will recognize the rights and title, including the inherent right to self-government, of the K’ómoks People. It includes co-management and shared governance throughout the K’ómoks First Nation territory and will provide certainty and a framework for sharing the land. It will create the foundation for ongoing cooperation and partnership.

British Columbia is different than other parts of this country. Most of our land was never covered by treaty. Courts have consistently recognized Indigenous rights and title in British Columbia. These rights cannot be erased by any government of any stripe. But for too long, that reality was ignored. The result was constant conflict, court battles and uncertainty.

More than 30 years ago British Columbia decided that part of the way forward would be modern treaties, with the Nisg̱a’a treaty. Today continues that proud tradition.

Once the treaty is fully ratified, K’ómoks will join eight other Modern Treaty Nations in B.C. This is a path of healing, of partnership, of affirming long-sought rights and self-determination, towards lasting reconciliation that is at all similar to the other treaties our government has signed. It will lift the boats of everyone — the K’ómoks People, the entire region and all British Columbians.

It is my honour to stand here and speak in support of the act and the treaty. May we continue to work together, government to government, to build a stronger and brighter future for all British Columbians.

[1:50 p.m.]

Á’a:líya Warbus: Éy swayel. Á’a:líya tel skwix, teli tsel kwah Stó:lō Nation. Telí kw’e xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Se:math, Sq’èwlets casta Sts’ailes tel selsilalh.

[Halq’eméylem text provided by Á’a:líya Warbus.]

Good day. It’s my honour to speak my Halq’eméylem language in the House today in recognition of our guests and the long legacy of fighting for the rights to speak our language, to reclaim parts of our history, our culture, the land and to be in partnership with Canada and the province of British Columbia.

I want to recognize that although Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act, comes before us today, the work spans not just decades, in terms of a statement of intent signed in 2007, but generations — generations of people that didn’t live to get to see these momentous steps that the Chief Councillor is taking today on behalf of her people.

I also want to recognize the welcome from Esquimalt First Nation and remind everybody that these protocols are really important. They actually reflect back to a history that was here long before Canada became a country and B.C. joined Confederation. That is why those protocols are being reflected, and I’m glad that they’re being welcomed in the House today.

As an elected MLA and House Leader for the official opposition, I often say: “We don’t know what we don’t know.” There’s so much learning and so much opportunity in front of us to learn from each other, from the different perspectives and the complicated history that we’ve all been witness to here in B.C.

This is a bright light, I believe, in that history. It is a single step that can be marked today and witnessed by everybody in this House. I want to thank everyone for the opportunity to reflect on what this means.

To all of the honoured Chiefs and dignitaries and guests, the business in front of us today reflects the generations that have walked to improve and define the relationship between Indigenous nations, B.C. and Canada.

I can only speak from what I know and what I’ve learned, and I humbly admit it’s just a drop in the bucket. I continue to be committed to listening and learning as long as I have the privilege of holding elected office. I take this role very seriously. When I’m asked to respond on behalf of our caucus and the citizens that we represent, I find myself feeling that words cannot quite grasp the gravity of what we can accomplish when we work together, shoulder to shoulder, with honour and respect.

I’d like to read a quote, and I think it’s fitting today more than ever, from a leader that served this House to capture exactly what I think we can all agree on today. Of course, this leader holds a special place in my heart.

The Hon. Steven Point, Xwelíqwetel, said: “We have both paid too much attention to the differences between us, and I want to see that change, and I hope you do too.” I believe those words to be more true today than ever.

He also left some special, sobering words to our caucus on the night that we were sworn in, a night when he stood on the floor, and I felt the pride from everybody in the House on that day. “We must all get in the canoe, learn to paddle together. Now get to work.”

I am committed to the work. I know our caucus is committed to the work, to contributing, realizing and recognizing that many people have dedicated their entire careers and lives to one mission and one mission only — to finding a path forward for everyone to live, work and thrive together.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’d like to thank the Premier for his words today. The rising tide to raise all boats. We don’t always agree, especially in the House, but I think we can all agree that we do need to find a pathway forward for all British Columbians to have success. This question has been before B.C. and Canada for over 150 years, and this marks a small piece of putting that puzzle together.

We often say that we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. I know I wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for the sacrifice of my grandparents, all of my aunts and all of my uncles, who fought to survive the horrors of residential school, only to end up on the other side and still continue to fight to this day for all of the things that we should all be able to enjoy together.

Although we stand on their shoulders today, I have a strong feeling that our ancestors feel like giants. They are so proud. They are smiling upon all of us. They are putting their hands up in thanks to everyone that had a part in realizing this goal today. There may be more complications and rough waters ahead of us, but if everybody could just grab their paddle, hold onto it tight and keep moving forward one step at a time, I know that we’ll answer every complicated question if we can answer it from our hearts.

Kw’as hó:y. Very proud, very happy, and I know that everybody else looking on today is feeling the same way. [Halq’eméylem was spoken.]

Rob Botterell: It is with excitement and gratitude that I speak to the introduction of the K’ómoks Treaty Act today. As we’ve heard, beginning in 1994, this collaborative endeavour has involved over 30 years of engagement with government and the public alike. As a living agreement built in partnership and good faith, this treaty represents one of the highest forms of reconciliation between Indigenous nations and the Crown. This agreement offers a guiding light by which we can all move forward in a good way.

Thank you. Thank you to all who put their time, heart and expertise into this treaty. In my years as a lawyer involved in negotiations, including treaty negotiations at the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth tables, I have borne witness to the incredible hard work of nations when building a bright future.

It is not lost on the B.C. Greens or any of us that treaties require an incredible amount of trust, labour and faith. It is with that trust, labour and faith in our hearts and minds that we move into a future built on growth, self-determination and mutual respect.

I hold my hands up to the K’ómoks Nation today. Heartfelt congratulations to Chief Councillor Rempel, Hereditary Chiefs, the Elders, everyone, the K’ómoks People. This is a very special day, and I want to offer you all of our congratulations.

The Speaker: Thank you so much.

Again, I offer a special thank you to Chief Councillor Jerome Thomas and Chief Councillor Nicole Rempel for being here and to many guests who have joined us for the special occasion today.

We hope to see you all today later on in the evening at the reception.

The House will take a brief recess now, and we will come back shortly.

The House recessed from 1:59 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: I call the House back to order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:06 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Agriculture and Food
(continued)

The Chair: Members, I’m going to call a brief recess while we wait for the minister’s team and our critic to begin our estimates this afternoon.

The committee recessed from 2:06 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call the chamber back to order, where we are going to contemplate the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $108,012,000 (continued).

Ian Paton: Thank you to the minister for a short spell we had before lunchtime. We’re back at it here, and, hopefully, we can complete Agriculture estimates by the end of the day.

I know you’re waiting for some of your staff members to arrive.

I’d like to read out a quote from Country Life magazine.

“The B.C. Agriculture Council says the insignificant increase in the ministry’s operating budget represents a missed opportunity to strengthen investment in the sector. However, farmers and ranchers provide a stable and reliable supply of food and agricultural products, also a critical service.

“Danielle Synotte of the B.C. Ag Council, who chaired the Premier’s task force on agriculture and food, which recommended eliminating the provincial PST on all agriculture, aquaculture and food input and equipment….

“Instead, the budget will expand the PST to include professional services, including accounting, architecture, engineering services and different things that are going to add to the cost of work needed for a range of on-farm projects.”

My question to the minister. Based on this budget and based on introducing PST to engineering services, to architectural services…. These are all things that farmers are going to have to make use of if they’re building a new barn, if they’re putting in a lagoon for irrigation.

There’s a myriad of things that farmers are now going to be taxed on with PST, which has been added to farming through this recent budget. Could you please explain to me why this has been added and how it’ll affect agriculture in B.C.?

Hon. Lana Popham: It’s a good question. The reason why the things were added under the column of PST was really to harmonize items across the entire jurisdiction of Canada. It brings things in line to where they are charged PST in other areas.

[2:15 p.m.]

I take the member’s point that, especially as new barns are being constructed, there are costs to be considered. I know that’s very apparent right now with the amount of activity, positive activity, with our ag barns. There are a lot of barns being built, so that is something to consider.

I can say that we do have programs in the Ministry of Agriculture which, I guess, counteract those new charges, specifically $100 million in the ag water infrastructure program. It’s $100 million to help with issues of the cost of engineering, permitting — any of the considerations when building a new barn, a new greenhouse. So there are programs that offset those changes, and I have a lot more details if the member is interested.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

I will expand on the fact that many, many farming operations, organizations, commodity groups — the minister knows them very well; the B.C. Ag Council, the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, B.C. Dairy Association — have all expressed outrage over professional services used in farm infrastructure and development projects, especially in areas like irrigation water systems; agriculture building design; PST expanded to professional services like accounting and bookkeeping, architectural services, engineering and geoscience services and real estate commissions on non-residential property.

This is very disappointing for the farming community of B.C., to see PST added on to these different things. It’s going to make just one more cut of a thousand cuts to what’s happening with agriculture in British Columbia.

I also want to quickly ask one more PST question. As you know, Minister, we have a huge cranberry operation in Delta and Fort Langley, and for years they’ve been making the change from planting their cranberries in straight black soil to now on sand. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars bringing sand in, but they’re being charged PST on the sand, and they are asking me to ask you if we can have the PST removed on sand that is used to replant cranberry bogs.

The Chair: Just a reminder, Members, that questions should all come through the Chair.

Hon. Lana Popham: That’s a really great question actually. I don’t know the answer to it, but I’m going to find out.

It sort of leads me to another question. Was there PST on the soil input as well? Is it remaining an input that PST is charged on, or is this a brand-new PST charge on sand? I don’t know. The member may know, but we’re going to get the team to dig down and find that answer.

Ian Paton: My next line of questioning….

To reply to that, I don’t believe there has ever been PST on topsoil. But there is PST on replanting cranberry bogs with sand, which is a specialized sand that I think they barge in from Texada Island or maybe Quadra Island or something like that. You would know all about that.

My next question. I want to also talk about the budget. In this article by my favourite newspaper, the Country Life, the province also plans to cut 15,000 public sector jobs, affecting staff across multiple ministries that producers engage in.

[2:20 p.m.]

Mr. Chair, through you to the minister: tell me what kind of cuts to the 15,000 employees that are likely going to be cut from the provincial public sector will affect agriculture.

Hon. Rick Glumac: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Rick Glumac: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a visiting class from Anmore Elementary and their teacher, Alex Cullum, who is here today with 29 grades 4 and 5 students, again, from my constituency and from Anmore Elementary.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

I’m sorry that I could not be there today in person, but I wanted to take the opportunity to welcome you.

The Chair: Indeed, welcome to everyone in our gallery. It’s great to see a bunch of youth in our chambers today. Thank you for coming.

Debate Continued

Hon. Lana Popham: To the member’s question, yes. I think the member understands that there are expenditure-management programs going on across government, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is not immune to that activity.

We are trying, right now, to meet what we need to do with attrition, and so far, that has been successful. But I know the member is also well aware that there have been six staff reductions at the Agricultural Land Commission.

Ian Paton: If I could get, on the record, a more specific answer, if you will.

Could you tell me if there are going to be losses to extension services with our Ag Ministry, which is very important, losses to people that work in our laboratory in Abbotsford and losses to people that…?

I’m trying to remember. It’s a Ministry of Agriculture person that works up in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek area.

Interjection.

Ian Paton: Yeah, exactly. They help navigate between the oil and gas industry and the farmers in that area.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thank you for the question. I understand the line of questioning that the member is taking. It is a tough time right across government, and I think it’s better to be upfront about what we’re facing. We will see vacancies that are open right now. We will not be filling those vacancies. Some of these vacancies are at the lab and extension services. There will be a reduction in numbers there.

The efficiency reviews that government is undertaking are looking at how services are delivered. It is a good opportunity to move some of the ways that we have been delivering services into another way. AI is one of those things, of course, that’s being looked at across the board.

The one thing I can say that we’re absolutely committed to is making sure that we’re there for farmers — the front-line services that they need. We will be delivering services to them. We have a very open door policy at the ministry. I think farmers know that they can call us up — my staff, including myself — at any time of day. We strive to always be there for them.

Ian Paton: In the essence of time, I’m going to try and get through as many questions today as I can, so hopefully we speed up some answers.

I just want to specifically key in on two public sector…. Well, maybe not public sector. My colleague from Peace River South reminded me of a letter, which I’ve got in my hand, from the Peace River Regional Cattlemen’s Association. Mr. David Harris is wondering about the imminent lack of funding for the farmers information service.

Two, I might as well throw this in while I’m here. I need to know if there will be a cut to funding to our 4-H in British Columbia.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Maybe let’s talk about the farmers information service first. I’ll try to keep it short. I’ve got my marching orders from the member.

The farmers information service was originally developed to help farmers and other landowners in the Peace River regional district work with the oil and gas industry. There has been a change in the way that’s going to be delivered.

The B.C. Energy Regulator currently has existing landowner liaisons in place, a community engagement team, and offers similar services that the farmers information service was offering, so we feel confident that they will be able to deliver to the farmers what they need through the B.C. Energy Regulator’s system that they have now.

So 4-H. In fact, we increased the funding for 4-H over three years. The reason we did this is because we began to work with them to transition some of the supports that staff in the Ministry of Agriculture were giving to 4-H over to 4-H as an organization. We wanted to make sure that this transition was successful, so that’s why we put a three-year transition in place with an increase in funding.

I can report out. We’ve done one year, we’ve got two more years to go, and the transition, we believe, is going very well. It’s successful at this point.

Ian Paton: I just want to go on record that I’ve been involved in 4-H since I was seven years old and continue, to this day, to be involved with the 4-H movement in B.C. I just completed 40 years of being on the B.C. Youth in Agriculture committee at the PNE.

Interjection.

Ian Paton: Yeah, yes. Great. Thank you.

I want to move into a bit of a controversial item. My brother, Dr. Paton, who is here today as a veterinarian, has always said to me: “What the heck’s wrong with the lab we have in Abbotsford?” It’s a pretty darn good lab. It was only built in the 1980s. I know it had some flooding issues, but certainly, to save some money, we could put some flooding restriction berms or levees around that particular building.

Now, what I want to speak about is that the province has recently purchased a 40-acre property in Abbotsford where it plans to construct a new plant and animal health centre on McKenzie Road. It was purchased from a subsidiary of a group in Richmond, of all things, the Panatch Group, for $27.8 million.

First of all, my first question is: why in the world…? Who allowed a piece of land that’s in the ALR to be used as a lab? Okay, we don’t see that happening in our ALR, but apparently, it’s happening with this new lab.

Secondly, the sale price…. This is unbelievable. No wonder this province is in such massive financial debt. The sale price works out to $695,000 an acre on this piece of land in the ALR.

[2:35 p.m.]

Right now in British Columbia, you’re lucky if you could get $150,000 an acre for farmland. Yet this government just paid $695,000 an acre to put a laboratory on agricultural land.

Hon. Lana Popham: I’m glad that the member brought up the lab, because it’s something that I think, as a ministry, we’re really, really proud of. It’s an exceptional project. I haven’t run across anybody in agriculture that doesn’t agree we needed to have a new lab. The current lab…. I do understand that the member is bringing up an issue: do we need it? Is it a good spend, investing on something new when we already have a site for a lab?

Unfortunately, the water table around that lab has changed significantly, and there is water that’s leaching in through the parking lot, going into the basement, which is where the electrical systems are, and a really important CL3 lab testing facility.

It’s certified by the CFIA, and we have to keep cobbling things together to get it through that testing. Unfortunately, as much as we would have loved to have saved that lab, it has reached the end of its life, and it’s not going to be there for farmers when they need it.

[2:40 p.m.]

It’s also inside the flood zone, and it is currently bermed, as we speak. It’s just not helping, because of that water table change. So we did endeavour, through Citizens’ Services, to find a new site for the lab.

To the member’s point about why we’re placing a lab on viable agricultural land, there are a lot of non-farm uses that are approved in the agricultural land reserve if there is a reason to believe that they are supporting B.C. agriculture. This would have been one of the reasons. It went through the process at the Agricultural Land Commission, the same process that everything else goes through with non-farm use.

There is the question around the price of the land per acre that the member brought up. What has maybe made this piece of land more costly is that it is rich in aggregate underneath that soil. If the former owner had applied for an extraction permit, the entire piece would have been most likely used as a gravel site for extraction for gravel.

I would like to say that we did have an event to mark the occasion of investing in that lab, and we had farmers and hunters from rural areas coming down to celebrate it. This will widen our scope as far as the activities that we can do as a province in order to test heads, for seasonal hunters, for chronic wasting disease, etc.

We also have a moment in time when we’re in the middle of avian influenza, and we need to ship some of those tests over to Manitoba. We will be self-sustaining once this lab is built. I think it’s a real proud day for agriculture, and it’s one of the largest investments that agriculture has seen in B.C.

Ian Paton: Well, the minister is selling an answer to me. I’m, frankly, not buying it. When agricultural land all through the Fraser Valley right now…. I mean, the real estate market is dead in the Fraser Valley. You’d be lucky…. I wish you’d come to my farm for $695,000 an acre. You could have built a really nice lab on my farm.

I mean, that’s just an outrage. It’s a complete outrage that we would put a lab on agriculture. I don’t care if there’s gravel or aggregate underneath that farmland. And 690…. How are you going to explain that to people? I just don’t follow your answer whatsoever.

I will ask this though. In the budget, it says capital expenditures are pegged this year at $922,000. Could you tell me what the $922,000 is going to go towards? Any capital projects?

Hon. Lana Popham: That expenditure is not going towards the build for the new lab. That process is actually happening in the Ministry of Infrastructure. So the member might want to go to the Ministry of Infrastructure to talk about the process of the lab build.

I can say that the $922,000 that the member is mentioning is for the purchase of assets, like lab equipment, that are currently being purchased. That is our infrastructure fund.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

Something that just hit the media, literally in the last 24 hours…. I’ve been trying to keep up on it. But I believe there’s a task force that the province of British Columbia has set up with regard to the war in Iran.

[2:45 p.m.]

I’ve thrown this question in, hoping that the Minister of Agriculture could tell me, with this task force that’s put together…. I mean, the minister obviously knows that we have fertilizer. We have fuel. We have all sorts of things that are very, very important to British Columbia agriculture — including the war in Ukraine, which has affected our fertilizer, and the war in the Middle East, which affects our fertilizer. Of course, I could go on and on about feed, fuel and fertilizer. My goodness.

I can tell you a quick story. The Guichon family in Delta normally, with 26 tractors and 15 trucks, would use about $250,000 worth of diesel every year. This year they figure they’ll burn probably $400,000 worth of diesel fuel in their farm equipment to farm about 1,500 acres of potatoes, etc.

I’m just wondering, to the minister, if you could give me a bit of an update on what British Columbia is doing with this task force, with the war in Iran, that could possibly help out farmers in B.C.

Hon. Lana Popham: Maybe I’ll just add one comment back to the conversation we were having on the lab. It was really important that that lab be outside of the floodplain. I understand what the member was saying about the cost of farmland inside the floodplain, but trying to find a secure place outside was more difficult. As I probably mentioned, there were 77 different pieces of property that were investigated.

As far as the task force that’s being formed, it is to look at the impacts from the war zones on British Columbia. That does include effects that will be happening to agriculture. We know that we’re already seeing those increases.

The federal government today announced that the gas tax will be removed for a number of months just to address part of the problem, but that’s of course not all the problem. So our task force has been formed. I will be sitting on that task force to keep an eye on things and to have a constant line of communication between our interest groups. I will be hearing from farmers. I know I’ll be working with the B.C. Agriculture Council just to keep an eye on things — the costs that are rising.

I will say I’m glad the member brought up the Guichon family. I just saw some pretty cute photos online of the new generation helping to plant. That was great.

To have that large of an increase in fuel is significant. That’s one of the issues that the program called AgriStability can help with. I’m sure the Guichons are very familiar with AgriStability, but I’m happy to run them through how that program can help with those input costs.

Ian Paton: Is there anything in particular that the province of British Columbia can do for the price of fuel for farmers in British Columbia?

Also, this is a long shot, but has there ever been consideration for compensation for farmers on Vancouver Island? Everything that they use that we all use on the Mainland has to go by barge or ferry — whether it’s feed, fertilizer, hay, equipment, all those things. Would there ever be a consideration for the farmers on Vancouver Island?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I definitely hear the member on the rising costs of inputs for farming. It definitely costs more to farm on Vancouver Island.

The ministry creates programs to help the province as a whole. As far as a solution to gas or another input that I would have right now, I don’t have anything to give to the member today, but the committee, the war committee, has been formed and will be meeting a.s.a.p.

The Premier is also going to a first ministers conference very soon where this will be the top topic. So I will hopefully have more to report out to the member in the coming weeks. But as he knows, my door is always open, and we will be keeping in touch.

Ian Paton: I was about to move on, but I got a note from a good friend, a dairy farmer in Sumas Prairie.

As we know, we were hit twice now by floods from the Nechako River. I don’t know what the compensation has been from the most recent flooding, but farmers are asking me all the time: “Where do we go from here?”

What is being done about protecting Sumas Prairie from the Nechako flooding, and what sort of compensation is there if this happens again in the next upcoming year or two? Is there money from the province to compensate these farmers that continue to go through this?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I absolutely am just as concerned as the member about the flooding that has happened out in the Fraser Valley, the Nooksack. I think the member said Nechako, but I think he meant Nooksack.

Interjection.

Hon. Lana Popham: That’s okay. I knew what you meant.

It has been a really rough go out in the valley, and farmers are rightly concerned about if it happens again.

My ministry is right now working on a recovery package for farmers, and we will have the details in the coming weeks. That will be welcome news to farmers.

Back in January, I hosted an animal producers round table where the dairy industry and poultry industry came together. We knew, when we invited folks to that table, there were going to be some pretty rough stories that we were going to hear. We were aware of them, but it was really important for myself and my ministry to hear firsthand again what farmers are going through.

Not only is it a financial burden, but it is also weighing on their mental health. That came through loud and clear. Just like the member, I know the folks out in that area, and it’s heartbreaking, and I’m sure I’m as worried as the member about their mental health and how they plan on moving forward.

The things that we are doing to make sure that they know they haven’t been abandoned are that we’ve been working really hard with the city of Abbotsford, local governments, First Nations. The federal government has come back to our table that we’ve been holding about what it looks like into the future, what type of mitigation needs to happen, what the investment is.

We do know that we need the federal government at that table, and there has been a stream of ministers, including myself, going to Ottawa to make that point. I feel like we were getting some pretty positive vibes out of our last visit. The federal government is listening. So I feel positive about the direction of those conversations.

This Friday we’re having another one of those meetings where everyone will be there.

I think what I’ve noticed is that everyone agrees something has to be done, and we’re just trying to move that dial closer to a funding package. It’s obviously a huge concern.

But I will let the member know as soon as we have that recovery package that’s coming from our ministry. Any details on that available, he’ll be the first to know.

Ian Paton: I want to talk now a bit about our agriculture wildlife program. I travel this province, as the minister does, and it has become absolutely out of control — the number of elk, bears, ducks, geese and swans that are damaging farmers’ fields, eating their crops.

I’ve seen instances in the Kootenays, in the Cranbrook area, where a farmer has planted a very expensive alfalfa crop, and he walks out of his house in the morning and sees 250 elk walking through his alfalfa crop, eating it down to just about nothing. This has become a huge problem.

I’ve had at least five different associations write me letters regarding the agriculture wildlife program and damage from elk, especially: the Nechako Valley Cattlemen’s Association, the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, the B.C. Dairy Association, farmers in the Kootenays, farmers on Vancouver Island.

As you know, Minister, elk is a huge problem even on Vancouver Island here.

From the B.C. Dairy Association, they write to me and they say:

“We are concerned that the current AWP budget no longer reflects the scale, frequency or regional concentration of wildlife damage facing B.C. agriculture. Without adequate compensation, affected farms will face increased input costs, reduced resilience and growing pressure on long-term viability.

[3:00 p.m.]

“We understand that claims under the program have exceeded the $5 million budget for 2025, and that has resulted in compensation levels being reduced from the long-standing maximum of 80 percent to approximately 50 percent. This reduction will have significant and immediate financial consequences for affected producers.”

Now, to the minister, I can tell you that my farm is on the same AWP program, with the little net enclosures in my fields that monitor how much the ducks and geese eat grass. I have neighbours whose fields are practically just black from the amount of grass that has been eaten by ducks and geese during the winter.

I can tell you that farmers are outraged right now that the program has dropped from 80 percent payout for damage to 51 percent, and there’s a cap of $5 million. If that cap runs out, everybody’s out of luck, from what I can gather.

I’m asking. Can you give me an update if this is the reality, that there’s only a $5 million cap for damage from elk and ducks and geese and bears, with only a 51 percent payout?

Hon. Lana Popham: The member is correct. There is a bucket of $5 million. That $5 million has been consistent. It’s $2 million from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and $3 million from the federal government. That’s the envelope that we have always had.

[3:05 p.m.]

We have accessed contingencies over the years, but we are being held to our budget this year, so that’s part of the reason why the member is seeing the change and the farmers are seeing the change.

I’m hearing from the same people that the member is hearing from — so acutely aware of the issues that farmers are having with this decrease in compensation. I can tell the member that we are consulting with farmers. We’re working with the Ministry of WLRS to come up with perhaps a different type of program design, given our financial constraints, something that will be more effective for farmers.

It’s a work in progress. If the member has any ideas, I’m happy to hear it.

Ian Paton: I don’t want to belabour the AWP too much, but when we talk about cuts to public sector workers, there are people that run the program that actually physically go out, deal with the farmers, put up the enclosures and then subjectively monitor those closures every spring to see the amount of grass inside the enclosures versus what’s outside that the elk or birds have eaten.

That’s how it all works. Of course, you know that. Will there be any layoffs to the people that are running this AWP program?

Hon. Lana Popham: There are two streams of people. The folks that are running the program are inside the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and there are no cuts to that, programming or staff-wise.

Then the folks that are going out to do that monitoring are actually outside contracts. Again, there will be no reduction in those.

Ian Paton: I want to talk briefly while we’re on the topic of damage from elk and deer and whatnot. I have a colleague from the Kootenay region that is asking…. I’ll quote the question.

“I understand that we have a program for compensation related to livestock due to predators,” which we’ve just been talking about. “But what is happening with poaching? As people are getting more and more desperate, how do we protect our ranchers from livestock loss associated with poaching?”

Hon. Lana Popham: I just want to clarify something. Is the member referring to poaching or rustling?

Ian Paton: If it was 1895, I would say it’d be rustling. But I think, in this day and age, it’s called poaching.

I think what my colleague who’s not here right now is referring to is that, of course, with the price of beef, believe it or not, there are people out there when cattle are grazing with no one around that are actually taking beef cattle as a prize to….

You know, I don’t want to get into the details, but it’s becoming a serious thing because the price of beef is through the roof.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: On poaching, we do have a program that deals with large-scale cattle theft, and the member will know that it’s regarding branding, the branding program. As far as, maybe, theft of an animal for personal consumption, that would fall under criminal activity. We don’t have any programs in Agriculture to compensate for that, but that is something that should be reported to law enforcement.

I haven’t been getting a lot of information on this coming my way. If the member has information, I’d love to sit down and chat about it. We can try and figure out how wide-scale this is.

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

I’d like to move on to some agricultural land reserve issues, Agricultural Land Commission issues. As you may have heard earlier today, it has been a huge issue. I hate to keep bringing this up, but my dad, by the same name, was chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission at one time. So I’m pretty passionate about preserving our best farmland in British Columbia.

I see in the media…. Country Life, the B.C. Ag Council, B.C. Cattlemen’s, B.C. Dairy — they’re all upset about more staffing cuts to the Agricultural Land Commission. Year after year, I must say, I see your staff from the land commission sit here and see little or no increase to funding. They’re trying their best to do a good job to protect farmland in B.C., to look after the enforcement of issues going on, on our farmland in B.C.

Please tell me where these cuts are taking place at the Agricultural Land Commission. How will it affect farmers with making applications, decisions for secondary homes, new buildings? Different things like that, which are very, very important to farming in British Columbia. Please explain how these cuts to six staff will affect everyday agriculture.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: We did canvass this, of course, in question period today. I did say to the member that, yeah, the pressures are increasing on the Agricultural Land Commission, and, unfortunately, there will be six jobs that will be lost there.

I have a lot of confidence in the ALC. Saying that, I know it’s a really difficult time. It’s going to be much harder for them to meet the targets that they have.

I can say that over the last year, they processed just over 200 applications, and over half of those were completed within 90 days. Those were already slower because of the job action that happened in the fall, so that number would normally be higher. If we didn’t have the job action, we would have seen that. But they are committed to fulfilling their mandate, which is to protect farmland and to encourage farming.

I know that as applications come in, they are prioritizing farming activities and things that are agricultural and help producers, support processors. They do get a lot of other types of applications, and even though we’ve modernized the act over the last number of years, there are still a lot of applications that come in.

I’m going to say a majority. The majority of applications that come into the commission are nothing about farming. These are like subdivisions, non-adhering residential use, transportation and utility and non-farm use. There’s a ton of those. They will be prioritizing the ones that are connected to agricultural production and value-added food production.

I do have a lot of confidence in them, but I also absolutely understand that it is a very tough time.

Ian Paton: There was a target of 90-day turnaround for application to the land commission. Now there are going to be six less staff members. I think, if I’m not correct, they’re not going to be enforcement officers, but probably in-house staff, land use planners, etc.

Where do you see this 90-day turnaround going now that we’re going to have six less staff at the ALC?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I think, to be honest, it’s a bit early to say at this time. The Agricultural Land Commission will be doing its best to monitor the speed of applications or where there might be some pinch points. Of course, we are in contact with them as well, and we’ll be watching.

As I said, I have a lot of confidence, and I’m very grateful for the work they do. This Saturday is, I think, the 53rd anniversary of the Agricultural Land Commission. In my view, the ALR is the most important land use tool we’ve had in this province. If you think about us not having the ALR in place, there would probably be no farmland left in the Fraser Valley or in Delta, even.

People like to build homes on flat spots as well, but because of this incredible land use tool, we do have agriculture. It’s really important. Their mandate is to protect it and to encourage farming. We can never lose sight of that.

Ian Paton: Without getting too critical to that statement, but I will get there with the Cowichan Bay farmland, the minister speaks constantly of the value of our ALR lands. We cannot lose our ALR lands, but I see, constantly, ALR lands where I don’t see the minister coming out and speaking adamantly about the removal of these lands.

There’s a federal piece of land in Surrey that we all know about and that the Heppell farm is farming — I haven’t heard anything from the minister about that to the federal government — which is in total jeopardy, right now, of being turned into an industrial park.

The loss of 30-something acres of land out of the ALR for the SkyTrain that’s going to Langley. The Cowichan Bay lands that came out of the ALR. Many other instances…. The 150 acres in Richmond that came out of the ALR — I haven’t heard a word from the minister about that.

I would think, as Minister of Agriculture, you’d be standing up, you’d be in the media, you’d be on TV going: “We cannot keep seeing these parcels of land coming out of the ALR.”

Including Saanich. I don’t want to get into First Nations, but you know that there are big chunks of land in Saanich that are being handed over to First Nations. Just like the Tsawwassen treaty, where they’ve taken agricultural land…. It is their treaty, good for them, but a shopping mall and Amazon warehouses on 800 acres of good farmland in Delta — I just don’t get that. I don’t get it.

Where I want to move…. I’m going to come back to this Cowichan Bay farmland, trust me, but right now I want to move on to unauthorized farmland developments, including construction of large structures unrelated to farm operations, the use of agricultural land for commercial vehicle parking and unauthorized deposit of fill material on farmland.

This is from the city of Delta: “We respectfully request that the ALC move forward with enforcement action, including implementing a monetary penalty and/or an order to remediate the property to a suitable agricultural standard where compliance has not yet been met.”

Now, I know the minister and I sat at Delta city hall with the executive director of the land commission and met with the mayor of Delta.

[3:25 p.m.]

We said that something has got to get done about these crazy structures that are being built that are supposedly barns, but they’re not barns for agriculture. We found chandeliers inside of them. We found total operations for housing for people to come and stay for the weekend and enjoy a wedding in these barns.

In that conversation, the minister, I think, will agree that we all said there has to be some sort of relationship between the city of Delta, our municipalities and the land commission so that we all know what’s going on and we can get to the bottom of these facilities that are being built for weddings and non-farm uses before they get up and running.

Now, I know in Delta, some of these buildings have been put on a stop-work order, and they’re starting to look pretty tired and run-down because nothing has happened to them. I would just like an update, if the city of Delta or municipalities are working with the Agricultural Land Commission to start working together with local bylaws and the ALC enforcement people to get a stop to these buildings before they get started.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Lana Popham: That’s a great question. The member and I did sit with Delta and the ALC in Delta. We talked about possible changes that needed to be made, and everybody had agreed that there was a lot of concern about the activity that was happening there. I am happy to report that last Thursday the Agricultural Land Commission and the city of Delta met with the Delta Farmers Institute to lay out possible changes to the permitting process to stop this kind of activity.

I have heard from the Agricultural Land Commission that the city of Delta has been just a really excellent partner in this process, and the work that they’ve done is commendable. Hopefully, we will see some changes come out of that partnership of the ALC and Delta working together, which is really how it has to happen. Any time that the ALC can engage with local government and come up with a positive process, this is exactly the type of process that will be successful.

Now, as far as the large structures that are already in place…. There are three or four applications right now that are non-farm use applications, and they are currently making their way through the commission. This would be a decision of whether or not those particular structures that the member has referenced stay in place or get removed.

[3:30 p.m.]

Ian Paton: During last year’s estimates, it was mentioned that the ministry is exploring some new options regarding illegal dumping on farmland but was unable to provide details at that time.

What are those new options? Has the ministry implemented any options to eliminate illegal dumping of toxic waste material on our farmlands?

Hon. Lana Popham: I don’t have anything to report out on as far as the comment I made last year. It’s still a work in progress, but I will report out as soon as I can.

In the meantime, I held a round table with the Urban Development Institute and the B.C. building association in downtown Vancouver and brought all of them together to talk about the issue of illegal fill dumping. It was a really interesting, informative and, I think, important meeting. We will be bringing everybody together again just to kind of discuss where we’ve gotten to since our last meeting.

[3:35 p.m.]

There was an obvious interest in not supporting illegal dumping sites and having a better process to support legitimate dumping sites. This was the first time that we’ve ever brought the development community together to talk about it, and there was great interest. Currently they also understand it to be a major problem.

The amount of fill that’s being dumped into the Fraser Valley is significant, and it’s really hard to control it. But I think there are a lot of smart heads around that table, and we expect to have some kind of action plan, working with the Ministry of Housing, to try and control it.

Ian Paton: Just to move a little bit further into illegal dumping, how many illegal dumping cases were investigated and enforced in the past year? As we know, it’s actually the media that informs the people of British Columbia, more so than any of us, with features that they do with dumping up in the Columbia Valley, the Hatzic area. We’ve seen it many, many times, where Global or CTV has gone out and actually tracked down illegal dumping.

My question is: how many dumping cases were investigated by the ALC, and what sort of enforcement? Were there actual fines handed out for illegal dumping in the last year?

Hon. Lana Popham: I can give the member numbers for this year: 27 stop-work orders, four remediation orders and four administrative penalty orders totalling $355,000.

Ian Paton: In 2025, Research Co. did a survey. Four in five British Columbians, 78 percent, feel that our food security is threatened and that the province should take immediate steps to increase the amount of food grown, processed and packaged on the ALR. In 2025, Research Co. also said that seven in ten British Columbians support allowing food-processing facilities on ALR land.

Food processing on ALR is permitted only if half of what is processed is grown on the farm or the farm co-op. The other half can be sourced from anywhere in the world, known as the 50-50 rule. We’ve had several prominent people in the agricultural world — Dr. Lenore Newman, Murray Driediger, several of us — that have suggested that in order to improve agriculture and farming in British Columbia, we need to improve the number of processing facilities that we have for farmers.

You can grow all the crops you want, but if you don’t have a place to take them to get them processed, packaged, frozen — whatever it takes…. We need more. We need more abattoirs. We need more berry-processing plants. We need more vegetable-processing plants.

I will even give you an example, Minister. Years ago I was travelling in eastern Washington, east of Moses Lake — thousands upon thousands of acres of wonderful farmland in eastern Washington — travelling for hours amongst potato fields. Suddenly in the middle of nowhere amongst potato fields was this massive concrete building — it said Carnation foods on the side of it — where they process scalloped potatoes, french fries and all those things. I thought: “What a wonderful place to have a food-processing facility, right there in the farmland so the trucking for the farm product doesn’t have to go very far to get to a processing plant.”

[3:40 p.m.]

Now, to the minister, I know we’ve had different opinions on this. I don’t want to see processing plants on good agricultural land, but there are pieces in the ALR that are of poor quality and that haven’t been farmed for years. So I’m asking you now: do you see a future for adding some processing to our agricultural lands in B.C., on our ALR lands, and removing the 50-50 rule?

Hon. Lana Popham: I completely agree with the member that we need to, for one thing, protect our best farmland for growing crops. Whether that is root crops, fruit crops, all of it, it’s really, really important. We don’t have that much land in our province that we’re protecting. There is other land, of course, that is less productive, but if we look at the activities that are happening on farmland within the ALR, there is a whole ton of processing that’s happening right now.

We do have a 50 percent rule. If a farm would like to process something that they’re growing, out of the 100 percent of the ingredients that are being processed, 50 percent have to be grown on that farm. That’s without an application. If you want to do the type of processing that doesn’t involve growing something on the farm, that’s by application.

We do see that all over the place within the agricultural land reserve. There are processing facilities that are built on ALR that don’t require any farm inputs and that necessarily don’t include B.C. or Canadian inputs. There’s a lot of stuff that’s being imported into the province that’s being processed, but we do have to strike a balance.

What do we want to happen to our non-productive lands? These, the member will know, sometimes are neighbours with a poultry barn, or sometimes it’s neighbours with another type of animal agriculture. The more industrial activity that moves into the ALR, the more we have to try and strike a balance so that everybody can operate together.

The member knows that the Agricultural Land Commission approves processing facilities all the time. Just in the last year, they’ve approved a major food hub for processing in Summerland; a chick transfer facility, to deal with biosecurity requirements, at a building in Chilliwack; an abattoir in the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district; one abattoir in the Comox Valley and two in the Kootenay Boundary regional district; and a poultry processing facility up in Bulkley-Nechako.

[3:45 p.m.]

The list really goes on and on, so there is a lot of processing. Do we need more? I think everybody is at a moment now where we want to see more food grown and more food processed in B.C. and Canada.

Going back to one of my original comments, when we’re thinking about all of this activity, you have to strike a balance. I guess my question is back at the member. What is that balance?

Ian Paton: I think the minister understands the 50 percent ruling. What I know, in this province, is that farmers are saying: “Well, why would I want to…?” This is all about adding to agriculture, as far as I’m concerned. Anything we can do to improve agriculture and to produce products and be able to take it to a plant to get it processed and have that plant send you a cheque in the mail, that’s a good thing for agriculture.

With your 50 percent rule, what farmer would say: “Okay, I’m going to set up a processing plant on my farm to process strawberry jam, but I only actually grow 30 acres of strawberries on my farm. I can’t meet that 50 percent rule, so I would have to go out and get strawberries from other farmers to make my processing plant work all year round, to keep the labour going 12 months of the year.”

That’s what I’m saying. It’s that the 50 percent rule is going to make farmers not want to start a processing plant, because they just don’t have enough product on their own farm to make their processing plant worthwhile.

I don’t know if you would like to respond to that.

Hon. Lana Popham: That’s a really great example, because that farmer, if they would like to pursue making strawberry jam as a commercial product, can use what they have growing on their own farm. If they submit an application to the Agricultural Land Commission to expand into a large-scale jam factory, you’re allowed to put an application in like that. Most applications for processing are approved by the Agricultural Land Commission.

I guess my concern is that if we take away the 50 percent rule completely and make no requirement for B.C. input, then what’s the road we’re going down? Does it mean that the entire agricultural land reserve ends up being processing facilities for potentially non-B.C., non-Canadian food? How do you protect that agricultural land base?

Ian Paton: Once again, it’s my role to be the critic, and I know you did that for many years. But I drive around the entire province, like you do. I know the Fraser Valley inside and out.

What I see going on agricultural land is just beyond comprehension. In Delta alone, the Beedie project, an industrial park just on the edge of farmland and the Burns Bog; greenhouses going up; highways, byways, railways — all these different things that are taking up farmland. I’m going: “For crying out loud, let’s at least….” If we’re going to take up some farmland with all these other things, let’s take up farmland with some processing facilities that are going to benefit farmers.

Now, I want to go back to greenhouses. Trust me, if this is recorded, I love the greenhouse industry. We’ve all toured them. They do a wonderful thing. But in the ’90s, it was a bit controversial with the farmers in Delta — for that matter, the biggest greenhouses are in Delta — what they were doing. So when we talk about preserving good agricultural farmland, at the end of my road, and I think the minister knows where I live, was a beautiful 50-acre farm which was called Wellbrook Winery, but it got purchased by the greenhouse people just down the street, and they wanted to expand.

It was the most beautiful black soil, which my friend Brent Kelly always grew potatoes in. The greenhouse came in and covered that entire 50 acres with three or four feet of the worst-looking fill material I’ve ever seen. But it was okay because it was going to be a greenhouse.

[3:50 p.m.]

Now they’re driving treated piles, wooden piles, every ten feet into all of this 50 acres to build a greenhouse. I find that rather disturbing. We talk about preserving agricultural land. Greenhouses are great, but we used to say: “Why aren’t they built on the actual soil instead of covering up the soil material?”

So my question to you, through to your people with the Agricultural Land Commission: where does this come in with the land commission ruling on covering up good agricultural soil with fill material and treated pilings on good agricultural land for the use of building more greenhouses?

Hon. Lana Popham: I understand and appreciate that the member is trying to bring up the value of soil. We should value soil. It’s something that is a concern around the globe, having productive soil to grow food in.

In British Columbia, at least since the early 2000s, there has been a lot of support for the greenhouse industry. I’m really thankful for that, at this point, because the greenhouse industry is highly, highly productive. It uses less water, and it’s able to supply food for western Canada, British Columbia. We’re getting to 12 months a year now, so it is a really huge food security issue.

Not to go back and forth with the member, but when the member talks about building a structure for food processing, that is also taking away soil capabilities. But I hear what he’s saying. I think it comes back to what I said in my original answer. You have to strike a balance.

We know that soil vegetable production is critically important to our food security here. We do a lot of storage crops. BCfresh is one of the largest distributors of soil-based agricultural products, and we are really proud of the work that they do. But we’re also really, really proud of the greenhouse industry. We see a lot of investment being done.

I just travelled to Leamington, Ontario, with many of the greenhouse growers in B.C. represented, along with my deputy. We talked to the folks in Leamington, which is known as the greenhouse capital of Canada. The greenhouse industry has made incredible strides over the last number of years as far as their energy consumption, water consumption and light abatement opportunities.

So the concerns that the member brings up about soil…. I will give the member credit for that, but we also have a really serious issue on our hands around food security, and I think the greenhouse industry in particular is one of the solutions to that.

Ian Paton: Just to stay on the ALC and some of the rules for a few more minutes. I’ve always been pretty adamant about housing for farming families, the next generation coming along.

[3:55 p.m.]

This time last year I brought up a farming family on my road, the Terpsma family, that got so frustrated after finally giving an approval to have something somewhat bigger than 970 square feet for their daughter and husband and two children that they just finally gave up. There was just too much hassle, too much red tape to be able to go ahead with that.

I’m a real believer in secondary and third homes on bona fide farms with young people that are grown up, now married with children, that want to work on the farm. They should have the right to build a house to live in on that farm.

What I’m going at now, back to greenhouses…. I find it very interesting, Minister, that a greenhouse operation can set up…. They’re like Lego blocks. You can take Windset Farms in Delta, any one of them. You look at them, and there are 100 workers living in Lego-block housing for foreign workers that work at the greenhouses. Yet right next door could be a third-generation bona fide dairy farm that’s fighting to get a second or third home on the farm for family members.

I’m just asking you, how do I square this peg with…? Certain industries on agriculture can have housing for 100 to 150 migrant workers, yet the dairy farm next door has a heck of a time getting a second or third home.

Hon. Lana Popham: Maybe I’ll just first address the issue that the member brought up about many of the folks that he knows in the dairy industry that are just tired of trying to get an application or the complications of the application.

When it comes to animal agriculture and an application to allow a family to build a second home or even a third home, one of the considerations in approving that application is having livestock oversight, so somebody who’s always around. For a dairy farm, we know that it takes not just one family member but many family members to keep it going.

[4:00 p.m.]

The chair of the Agricultural Land Commission has stated that she doesn’t remember a dairy farm application for a secondary home or a third home that hasn’t been approved. Those are the easiest types of applications to approve because it makes the case for agriculture.

If you’re comparing that to a more industrial camp type of housing for temporary foreign workers…. Especially in Delta, we see…. Windset was an example that was brought up. There are many, many Guatemalan workers and Mexican workers that come up and help us. We’re up to maybe 13,000 workers that come up to B.C. to help us bring in the harvest and manage crops, and we’re really thankful for that.

But those are temporary work camp structures, so if push came to shove and they had to be removed, they could be removed. That’s completely different from a secondary or third home on a piece of property.

For the majority of non-adhering residential uses, which would mean secondary or third homes, there were 40 decisions that were made by application, and 78 percent of those were approved. So the approval rate is pretty high for a second home.

Then the member did mention that they were looking…. The example he gave is that his neighbour was looking to build a home larger than the 90 square metres. That can be done without an application. It’s just the larger homes that need to have an application.

That speaks to what I think the member believes in, which is making sure that we’re protecting agricultural land and that it doesn’t become either all housing or all industrial site. Getting back to…. We need to have a balance.

Ian Paton: My question, if you could answer this. There are some very, very large dairy farms now in western Canada. If you have a dairy farm in Chilliwack that’s farming probably 1,000 acres, milking at least 500 cows….

If the greenhouse next door is allowed to have housing for 100 migrant workers, would the dairy farm be allowed to have housing for, let’s say, even 50 workers on the dairy farm?

Hon. Lana Popham: The answer is yes, and it’s by application. Absolutely, if it’s temporary, the same as the greenhouse industry, they can definitely do that.

I did get some stats that I think the member will be interested in. This is just a snapshot of what has been approved as far as housing.

Applications for three residences on a farm — 21 applications, all approved.

Applications for four residences on a farm — three applications approved.

Maybe to the member’s point, applications for five family residences on a farm, five residences — there were two applications for that, and they were approved.

Ian Paton: The five residences, that would be on one title?

Hon. Lana Popham: We can definitely get that detail for the member.

Ian Paton: If you recall, there was somewhat of a controversy with Bill 52. You remember those good old days of Bill 52. Bill 52 was going to fix several things. It was going to fix, for one thing, mega-mansions being built on farmland.

I don’t know if the minister travels some of the same roads I do in South Surrey, south Langley, 16th Avenue, 8 Avenue, all the sidestreets in Abbotsford, Lefeuvre Road, Bradner Road, etc. It’s incredible. I mean, it’s what people talk about constantly when they drive up there: “Why are these mega-mansions still being built on agricultural land?”

[4:05 p.m.]

Do you feel that Bill 52 has solved that issue? Are we still sticking to your rule of a maximum of 5,200 square feet for new homes that are being built?

Hon. Lana Popham: We do believe that the legislation is working, but I think I can appreciate that the member is hearing from folks that are driving around in more rural areas than even the member himself and probably spotting houses that are 500 square metres.

They’re incredibly large homes. It’s 5,400 square feet. That’s much bigger than an average home in the city. I think they look large, but as far as what we were trying to stop, mega-mansions, that activity, we believe, has been stopped. If a local government approves a home over 5,400 square feet, then that’s a problem.

Ian Paton: My colleague would like to ask their question. While we’re waiting, I’d like to talk just briefly about foreign ownership of farmland in British Columbia.

Based on the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s advice to the minister, the B.C. government, through the Property Transfer Tax Act, imposes the additional property transfer tax, also known as the foreign buyer tax, on foreign nationals, foreign corporations and taxable trustees who purchase residential properties in specified areas in the province.

In British Columbia, we have a vacant homes tax. But there is great concern, Minister, and I think you’ve heard about it, in northern parts of B.C., where we have foreign nationals coming in and purchasing our farmland, not necessarily farming it and using it for friends to come up and go hunting, up around Prince George, McBride, Dunster — areas like that.

So my question is: has the province or the Ministry of Agriculture moved forward in cabinet to suggest we need to look at how we can bring about some sort of a tax on people that purchase good farmland in B.C. and refuse to use it for agricultural purposes?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I have also heard the same stories that the member has heard. Some folks are definitely concerned about foreign ownership of farmland. I did ask B.C. Assessment to look into foreign ownership and pull the numbers. They’ve reported back to me that there is 1 percent of farmland owned by foreign ownership.

But it really leads to another concern, maybe not necessarily about ownership, but the activities that are happening on farmland.

I probably heard the same stories that the member has heard about folks using farmland up in the more interior and northern areas, planting bait crops and using it as a hunting site. That, to me, is almost a larger issue.

I’d be really happy to sit down with the member, and we can maybe share some of the contacts that we have and really look into this a little bit further, because that’s something that doesn’t sit well with me at all. I would really like to figure out a way to assess it in a proper way so we know exactly what’s happening and then put a stop to that kind of illegal activity.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

I just recently was on a podcast with my colleague regarding the Dunster area, where people are very concerned there with young people that want to continue on farming but they cannot compete with U.S. purchasers that are coming up and buying up farms in that general area at a much-inflated price, where the locals cannot compete to be able to purchase that farmland. Unfortunately, some of that farmland that’s being purchased by foreign nationals is not even being farmed.

That was just a comment. At this time, I think I’d like to turn it over to my colleague from Bulkley Valley.

Sharon Hartwell: I’m sorry to jump into this conversation, Minister, but I heard my colleague talk about a piece of property with multiple dwellings on it.

I have a situation at home which was agricultural land. It was called the experimental centre in Smithers. You might be familiar with it.

Now it has been purchased for probably the second or third time, and the gentleman on it…. All the buildings are original buildings. It’s my understanding. He has rented them out, fixed them up for rental units. Now he’s being told that they either have to leave or he has to spend X amount of dollars doing that. So where are these people going to go?

It has been traditionally used for other purposes as well, not just agricultural use. He has done nothing. There’s still agricultural land there, and it’s all in the same title.

I don’t know if there’s anything that you can…. We can have a discussion about that, and I can bring the file forward. But when my colleague had mentioned five residences on the same property…. These are already existing old buildings from the ’50s, except for that they’ve been brought up to date for whatever.

So that’s a concern at home too. Not only do we need rental accommodations; farmland is not being impacted. It’s still the original dwellings that are on the property.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. We’ve racked our brains, and we’re not familiar with this issue.

If I could ask the member to walk it into my office, then we can sit down and the member can walk me through it, because I’m not familiar at all.

Sharon Hartwell: I’ll be happy to get the file. Thank you, Minister.

Ian Paton: While we’re on the topic of farm classification, there’s an interesting article in Country Life of a young couple in Nanaimo on 17½ acres of ALR land.

“Built in 2024, having received permission from the city of Nanaimo and the Agricultural Land Commission, the couple began producing cider on their site. When assessors sized up the property last year for the 2026 tax roll, they designated an 8,000-square-foot section of the farm where the cidery sits as light industrial. This resulted in a 49 percent increase in the property’s assessed value, to $360,079.

“What B.C. Assessment has come and done is…. They’ve said: ‘We’re going to pluck out this fifth of an acre of your farm, and we’re going to designate that land and the buildings upon it as a light industrial building.’ That vastly increases the taxes that we’re going to have to pay.”

Here’s a young farming family getting started with their own cidery and saying: “Okay, well, this is where we’re actually going to produce the cider from the apples or whatever.” But B.C. Assessment is saying: “Whoa, you’ve got some industrial buildings here. We’re jacking up your tax rate.”

That, to me, is no different than a potato farmer that says: “Well, I need a barn to have my processing equipment to wash and grade and package my potatoes.” It’s the same with the dairy farmer that says: “Well, part of my farm has to be a dairy, where I’ve got a massive stainless steel milk tank and where I milk my cows and whatnot.” That’s not assessed any different than anything else.

So why is this young couple in Nanaimo being hammered with a small part of their cidery that they’re saying is a light industrial building?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I do understand the question that the member is bringing up. I can tell the member that all types of buildings that would be used for processing…. If there’s any commercial activity for processing, if there are employees that work in that building — it doesn’t matter if it’s alcohol, jam-making — those particular sites are all classified as either commercial, industrial or light industrial. It’s specific to the type of building structure that is created there. Barns and livestock are not classified in the same way.

It’s not unique to the cidery. It’s just the way it’s done right across the province. That is housed with B.C. Assessment. B.C. Assessment is housed in the Ministry of Finance, and I would maybe ask the member to attend the Ministry of Finance estimates and present the same question.

Ian Paton: According to the B.C. Agriculture Council, the minimum farm classification requirements to receive farm classification on properties in B.C. no longer adequately ensure that farmland is being used for agricultural production. This has been asked year after year when I approached the minister with Agriculture estimates.

When will the minister make a decision on raising the threshold to incentivize small-scale farmers to produce more on their land?

Hon. Lana Popham: The member brings up a really good topic. It’s something that I’m very interested in as well. This topic has been discussed for as long as I’ve been an MLA, since 2009. A study came out from the B.C. land commission with a list of items that the minister and the commission hoped could be addressed. One of them was the threshold.

It’s a bit of a sensitive topic, as the member might know. I have spent a lot of time, over the last number of months, talking with people, engaging with, for example, farmers institutes and small-, medium-, large-scale farmers to get a handle on what people want. That work is underway. I expect and hope that I will be able to go out and engage with all British Columbians on this issue, but I think that the concern that the B.C. Agriculture Council has is valid.

Right now if you have 20 chickens, you are able to meet your farm tax status. Although it’s great to have 20 chickens — many people have — I’m not sure that it’s considered farming, if that’s your only activity.

[4:25 p.m.]

It’s considered hobby farming, and it’s important. It’s probably part of your household diet, but does that allow you to trigger a pretty major tax reduction on your property? That’s what’s up for discussion. The opinions are varied, and the opinions are passionate.

Ian Paton: Thank you, Minister. We’re kind of on a topic of rehashing old things. One more question before I turn things over to my friend from Abbotsford South.

This is getting a bit redundant. I mean, this is, I think, my eighth Agriculture estimates. Every year we ask about the farm classification, which we just did. Every year I get up and try and make you look bad by saying, “Do we all remember the evening where you got up with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and said: ‘Farmers, please listen clearly. We will deal with the Trespass Act. We will make it tougher on people that trespass on farms, protest, put up cameras in people’s poultry barns and hog barns.’”

What has been done about that? Or am I going to hear the same answer this year as I have for the last six or seven?

Hon. Lana Popham: Well, I don’t want to disappoint the member in having a different answer to throw him off, but unfortunately, I don’t have a lot to report to the member. I guess this is a bit of an update.

When we’ve looked at trespass as a stand-alone, we’ve run into a brick wall. It will not work here in British Columbia, so we’ve gone a different route to try and use biosecurity as the trigger for trespass. We feel pretty hopeful on that, but I can’t report a lot of progress.

Bruce Banman: I thought, for a minute there, when my colleague from Delta South was going to talk about old things, he was going to pull out his curriculum vitae and talk about how long ago it was that he started dairy farming. That aside, I do have a question, at the risk of not being allowed to ask another question now.

Sort of following up on what my colleague was saying, there have been a lot of properties in the ALR that were orphaned off, back in the days, by being subdivided so that mom and dad had a place to live. It was what was done.

Some of them are two acres or smaller. The issue now is that those two acres…. If you have anywhere from two to thousands of hectares, I believe the threshold is $2,500 and you qualify for farm status. Yet if you have two acres or smaller, you have to produce $25,000 worth, I believe it is.

Interjection.

Bruce Banman: It’s $10,000. All right. I stand corrected. It’s $10,000. I knew it was in thousands. It’s considerably….

[4:30 p.m.]

Well, now with new farming techniques, with microfarms, with greenhouses, with things that we can do, we have all kinds of smaller pieces of property that are now put at a huge disadvantage. They’d like to farm, but they won’t get the farm status. It seems blatantly unfair. Has there been any discussion about making that threshold the same for all farms?

If you’ve got hundreds and hundreds of acres, and you can only produce $2,500 worth, it just seems blatantly backwards. Has there been any discussion about getting these smaller pieces of farmland to actually be productive farmland?

They should be able to produce, in many cases…. As I say, we’ve got types of vertical farming, greenhouses. There are all kinds of modernizations of farming that have occurred. It could be aqua farming, for instance. Is there any way that we can get that threshold the same for some of these smaller pieces so that they can actually produce valuable food to help feed this nation as well?

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. I actually really appreciate the conversation on the threshold because, as interested as I am in it, it gets very complicated very fast and there are a lot of opinions on it, which is why I am taking the time to do it right.

Now, the suggestion that the member has brought up…. We’ll throw that into the mix, absolutely. But let me just maybe report out on the opinions that I’ve heard so far on the threshold, and we’ll add the member’s in as well.

The member is correct; $2,500 is really what people aim for. Two acres or less is $10,000, and then over a certain size, you start to add in a percentage of what you’re making. So it is quite varied, but this is what has come back to me from different conversations.

There is a suggestion, and I think it was a motion at UBCM, that the threshold be moved to $7,500 for everybody. Some people think it should remain the same. There has been a suggestion of $50,000 in order to get that much of a tax reduction.

I’m explaining it this way just to illustrate that the number of opinions is extraordinary and no matter what decisions are made on what the threshold is, how that is landed on, not everyone is going to be happy. There are varied opinions and high emotion on this issue. It’s really critical to get it right, which is why I invite any member that wants to have this discussion with me, as it pertains to your own community, to come in and talk to me, because we’re just fleshing it out right now.

Bruce Banman: I’d like to thank the minister for that answer. As long as, I think, it comes in where it’s fair for everyone, especially when you consider young farmers…. They’re going to start off on a small scale.

Originally, the reason that threshold was put in place was to discourage people from subdividing off small pieces. Well, they can’t do that anymore. So the rule doesn’t apply. It’s a rule that has gone the way of the dodo bird.

[4:35 p.m.]

So I’m glad that the minister is actually looking at that. I would encourage small types of farming. I think farming and agriculture has changed. There are niches which could…. You could be productive in those areas. They’re put at a financial disadvantage.

The mayor of Abbotsford, as you know, would say that for the largest piece of city in British Columbia, 70 percent of the land accounts for 2 percent of his tax base. So I do understand, when it comes to taxes, why that is.

My other question would be…. We know that with scorch, which is a disease that hits blueberry plants that is airborne through aphids, we’ve had some heat domes that have devastated some crops, with regards to raspberries and blueberries and other crops that were affected by that. Also, cold snaps at the wrong…. Having the ability to get better varieties of crops, be that modifying blueberries or raspberries or whatever species it is that we’re modifying….

Now that the University of the Fraser Valley is up-and-coming, what plans does this ministry have to put research into those very types of things with regards to our universities so that we can ensure that the crops that are grown here will thrive here, and that farmers actually have a chance of being able to make a living?

I will remind the minister that land on the southern side of the border is $25,000 an acre, roughly, and land just on the Abbotsford side is $150,000 to $200,000 an acre, as an example. So anything we can do to help our farmers with research….

Are there any plans for this ministry to, in particular, go through the University of the Fraser Valley or any of the others to help with these issues?

Hon. Lana Popham: That’s a great question. I can let the member know that we currently have…. Research is part of our core funding, and we are in partnership with the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership.

We partner with them, and the research that’s done…. Some of it is done in our own internal lab, but there are a lot of partnerships with academic institutions. That work is going to continue. It’s part of who we are. We’re really proud of the work that helps to advance movement into more sustainable crops.

[4:40 p.m.]

Working with the different associations like the raspberry association and the Blueberry Council…. The research is industry-driven, so we take the lead from industry on what they want. Scorch berry is a huge one for blueberries right now, as the member has pointed out. So we need that to continue.

Of course, all of the weather conditions that the member has brought up…. We need things that are more resistant in every way, including drought tolerance.

I think one of the successes…. It’s just not known as a success far and wide, but I’m really proud of it. Years ago we had a burgeoning hazelnut industry. It became ridden with a blight. When I first became minister, we helped fund a project that ripped all of the blight-ridden trees out of the ground, and then we started a replant program.

Fast-forward to now, and a company called Fraser Valley Hazelnuts is actually starting to come into production. The production is increasing every year. Here on Vancouver Island, that hazelnut industry is also growing.

It just shows that when you put an investment into a crop, and you start looking at different resistant varieties, something that is more tolerant to our changing climate, you can see the production levels start to change. That’s really, critically important at this time, so I really appreciate that question.

Donegal Wilson: I would like to echo Abbotsford South around the two-acre issue. I do see it quite often in the South Okanagan, where we have rotating crops like garlic. Two acres is very hard to make $10,000 when you’re rotating a crop every first, second or third year. Most garlic farms are doing three-year rotations.

We also see it a lot in small livestock. Two acres isn’t enough to have a livestock breeding program big enough to make the $10,000. So I would echo my colleagues there.

The reason I’m getting up today. I wanted to talk about Movi — Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae, otherwise known as Movi. It continues to threaten the wild sheep populations here in British Columbia. I’m wondering if the minister could share what actions are being taken to implement mandatory testing for domestic sheep here in B.C.

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. I am also very interested in Movi, and I have been for a number of years. My first conversations around Movi happened with Chris Barker and the Wild Sheep Foundation.

[4:45 p.m.]

We are also very fortunate that our chief vet is keen to understand this disease more. I travelled out to the lab just a few years back, and I got to see the slides of the disease in a microscope. It was alarming on a slide, never mind out in the wilderness. I feel that there have been important conversations to move this issue along over the last number of years, but we really haven’t nailed it yet.

I can tell the member that just recently I’ve had meetings with stakeholders, meetings with First Nations, who have the same concerns. The outcome of that conversation was the idea of pitching a pilot project where we’d identify some critical territory where wild sheep are living, then basically drawing a circle around that area and talking about ways to manage the domestic sheep level in that area.

There could be a number of things. Testing could be one of them, once that area is identified, but also perhaps excluding domestic sheep from that area, just in order to watch the lifespan, over a number of years, on how the wild sheep either test disease-free or are susceptible for disease regardless.

I really like the idea of a pilot project, and I think that the stakeholders and First Nations also really like that.

I’d be really happy if the member joined me in my work on this. I’m really happy to know that someone in this chamber is also interested in Movi. It’s a devastating disease, and if it continues unchecked, without some type of intervention, as a pilot project might be, it could lead to the end of wild sheep in British Columbia. I’m happy to hear of your interest.

Donegal Wilson: I definitely accept the minister’s invitation to be part of that process.

I like the idea of the pilot project, but, on the other hand, the pilot project has been done. This is not new. The Yukon has legislation that has mandatory testing. It is required in the Yukon that all domestic sheep are actually tested. So I don’t know why we would just pick a small section of B.C.

You’re right; all the wild sheep in B.C. are at risk. This is significant. We’ve had to cull — I don’t want to say “thousands,” but it might be — thousands of wild sheep, to try to get this out of the populations. So we need to take immediate action.

While I appreciate the notion, and I’m sure that the people appreciated being invited to try something, I’m pretty sure that the request has been clearly, from the Wild Sheep Society and other organizations, for mandatory testing and exclusion zones.

I would like to go back to the minister and ask again: will we look at what Yukon’s legislation is doing and introduce mandatory testing in British Columbia?

Hon. Lana Popham: I appreciate those comments, and I’m not saying that testing isn’t part of the solution.

[4:50 p.m.]

The Yukon is a different beast. It’s smaller. It has a different population of wild sheep, and the farming community is smaller up there. I commend them for taking the actions that they’ve taken. We definitely appreciate the idea of testing, but it’s not going to be the end-all and be-all. I believe that you will need to use exclusion zones in order to properly address what’s going on.

That’s a difficult topic because it means that we’re going to be telling farmers who raise sheep that they can’t do that in certain areas. It’s something that I’ve tried to socialize with the farming community. I have had some really serious push-back on it, so happy to investigate where that can be done.

I thought the idea of identifying Grand Forks was a good one, containable. Maybe, combined with testing, we could have a serious project going on there. I’d love to have the support of the member.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate that and appreciate that it will be taking place in my riding, possibly, as well, so would definitely like to work with the minister on that.

My last question is just whether you’ve considered a compensation program for the culling of domestic sheep that are known to be infected — if there’s some kind of compensation program for those farmers to ensure that they can remove those infected sheep without impacting their livelihoods.

Hon. Lana Popham: Currently we don’t have any compensation programs provincially. We checked to see if it was a listed disease federally, which would mean they would have some programs, but it isn’t. That’s something that we can discuss.

We don’t have a lot of money right now to set up new compensation-type programming so unfortunately, it’s not a good moment for that. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t dream big when we’re talking about how to address a really critical problem.

Ian Paton: Good news, I’ve got a proposal that won’t cost any money.

I think people on the government side, MLAs on the government side, MLAs on my side of the House are all receiving endless letters from people that are upset about the home-based food criteria for farmers markets.

Minister, you may recall I brought forward a private member’s bill called the Home-Based Craft Food Act, where people could continue to make low-risk foods in their kitchens in rural areas of B.C. and take those food products to your church bazaar or to your school event or a potluck supper at your community hall.

Suddenly we’re getting letters all across B.C. telling people that you will no longer be able to make even low-risk food in your home kitchens and take them to anything other than a certified farmers market.

I’m wondering if you will stand up for these rural homeowners. Many of them are farmers, ranchers, agriculturists that pride themselves in making homemade low-risk foods — muffins, cookies, beef jerky, different things like that. This is quite an issue. We’re getting a lot of letters about it.

I’m asking if you will talk to the Ministry of Health and see if we can put a stop to this.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I hear what the member is saying. I think, when I also started getting those letters, it was really focused in on the farmers markets. Then everybody realized that the farmers market’s manager is checking a box saying they’re in charge, so it was okay. The farmers markets were actually not included. There was no problem in the end.

I think what the member is asking about is safe home cooking moving through to other, different types of markets where there isn’t a manager, necessarily. Anyway, this is a Ministry of Health question. But to the member’s point, I will have a conversation with the Minister of Health just to try and get a little bit more in-depth understanding of how this is working and who it might be hindering. So that’s my commitment to the member.

I think our time is up for today, but we’re going to continue tomorrow.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 4:57 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:58 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Josie Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 4:58 p.m.