Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 7, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 285

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services

Hon. L. Beare

B. Banman

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Hon. P. Alexis

I. Paton

M. de Jong

M. Bernier

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship

Hon. N. Cullen

L. Doerkson

D. Ashton

A. Olsen

M. Lee

TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2023

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

K. Greene: On behalf of the member for Richmond-Queensborough, the member for

Richmond South Centre and myself, I’d like to extend a warm welcome to our

very dear Richmond firefighters Jim Wishlove, Mike Frampton, Julia McDonald,

Stuart van Niekerk and Mike McDonald.

Will the House make them very welcome

and thank them for the very honourable and caring work that they do in our

community.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main House, I call debate on the supplementary estimates of the

Ministry of Citizens’ Services, followed by the Ministry of

Agriculture.

In Committee A, I call debate on supplementary esti­mates for the

Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF CITIZENS’

SERVICES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s call this committee into session.

We’re here with the supplemental estimates, Ministry of Citizens’

Services.

On Vote 21(S): ministry operations, $85,000,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, thank you. I want to begin by acknowledging my fabulous team

that I have with me here today. I have Shauna Brouwer, my deputy

minister for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services; and Susan Stanford, the

assistant deputy minister responsible for connectivity in the province.

I want to just say thank you to everyone and good afternoon. It’s great

to be here today.

We’re on the traditional territories of the

Lək̓ʷəŋ­in̓əŋ-​speaking

people, the Esquimalt and the Songhees First Nations.

We’re considering an expanded investment in cellular services here

in British Columbia, as well as increasing high-speed Internet access in

southeast B.C.

Last year we negotiated a shared funding agreement with ISED —

Innovation, Science and Economic Development — with Canada’s universal

broadband fund to secure a $415 million commitment for B.C. projects. We

announced this agreement in March 2022, for a total investment of $830

million into connectivity. However, this agreement did not include

cellular connectivity along highways or in communities, which is a key

piece to completing our connectivity goals in the province. The $85

million supplemental estimates tabled today includes a $75 million

investment to expand cellular connectivity and $10 million for

high-speed Internet in southeast B.C.

We all know that cellular connectivity along highways is important

for a number of reasons. We know that it helps communities be resilient

and for them to respond faster in emergencies and extreme weather

events. I know the member opposite, who will be posing questions today,

will have great experience in that area. I’m sure we’ll have a number of

questions along that end. We know that it supports the flow of people,

goods and labour across the province, keeping our supply chains

moving.

When we have intermittent, or a complete lack of, cellular

services in remote communities or along B.C.’s rural highways, it does

create that significant barrier for access to services, it affects

response times, and it affects public safety. We know that, here in

B.C., there are currently 15,000 kilometres of highway, and that 4,200

kilometres, or just over 28 percent, of those highways do not have

cellular service. This $75 million funding request will support

expansion of cellular coverage along those highways.

Today we are targeting 550 kilometres for the $75 million. This is

based on current programming, which allows for funding levels of up to

90 percent of project costs and considers the more remote areas needing

coverage and the higher costs of construction.

Where possible, of course, we’ll be leveraging other funding to

increase the number of kilometres of cellular coverage. Currently there

is no matching federal funding program. However, should one be announced

in these coming months, the province will work with the federal

government to leverage this funding. This will make the most of every

provincial dollar spent to deliver increased returns to British

Columbians.

We’ll continue working with the Northern Development Initiative

Trust, which continues to administer the original connecting British

Columbia program and has projects in flight, until they are all

completed by 2027. They have great experience in these systems in place

to work with service providers on these projects, to disperse funding

efficiently.

Our other funding request of $10 million is to support

accelerating connectivity by moving forward, to fiscal 2022-2023,

funding from the previously announced 2025-​2026. This is going to

allow for the acceleration of connectivity funding and to support a

high-speed Internet project that is anticipated to connect over 6,600

homes in 59 communities, including two First Nations communi­ties,

to the high-speed Internet in the Columbia Basin. This new high-speed

Internet service will help strengthen rural economies in the area and

build economic resilience, unlocking all the benefits that high-speed

Internet has for rural and Indigenous communities.

I really look forward to the conversation that the member for

Abbotsford South and I will be having over the next couple of hours. I

look forward to the questions.

[1:40 p.m.]

B. Banman: Thank you to the minister for opening up and explaining some of

the things that this is going for.

I guess the first question that comes to mind is that $85 million

is a heck of a bump from the $13.705 million, I think it was, in the

estimates in ’22-23. I guess the minister has done sort of a broad-scale

job of breaking some of that down. But the question that I have is: when

was the minister first aware that we would need a rather large number? I

mean, this is…. Let’s call it $14 million. It’s a considerable increase

from what was proposed.

When was the minister first aware that additional moneys to this

extent were going to be required?

Hon. L. Beare: I believe the member might be referencing…. The first time we

invested in highway cellular was in 2020 through StrongerBC. That was

the first time in the province that there was the direct funding program

allocated for highway cellular.

Obviously, we knew then, and we know now, that there are 4,200

kilometres of highway that don’t have cellular service, so we’re

continuing the investment with the $75 million now, and we will continue

working towards covering highways all across the province in the

future.

B. Banman: I was talking about cellular. I’ll deal with the cellular first.

We need to talk about the high speed afterwards or at such time…. If

they were both identified at the same time, by all means, you can

include them.

We’ve known, as you pointed out, that 28 percent of the highways

in British Columbia do not have cellular coverage. I agree fully with

the minister that this is an impor­tant safety net. I remember

getting the phone calls via radio stations about trapped truckers during

a weather event that had no access to even the most limited of coverage.

I agree and many would agree that if an accident happens, sometimes it

takes…. Those minutes that tick by as you’re trying to get help there….

Sometimes that would be a helicopter or whatever is needed. We’ve seen,

sadly, where helicopters have had to land to extract people from

accidents.

[1:45 p.m.]

On the coverage, we’re in agreement, but this is a one-time

expenditure of $85 million and $75 million with regards to the cellular.

At what time since we talked about the budget…? At what time did this

$75 million…? Was it identified to the minister that we needed to spend

that kind of money? That’s a huge amount of money compared to, as I was

saying, the $13.705 million.

At what time was the minister first aware that these types of

dollars were going to have to be spent between the budget that was

presented and now? This is a one-time expenditure. When did she first

realize that we needed to spend this extra capital?

Hon. L. Beare: I just want to be clear with the member. I’m not sure if he’s

specifically asking when it was that we put forward the $75 million.

That would be when the ministry was asked for supplemental budget items,

and that would be in 2022 that we were asked to provide projects for

supplementary estimates.

If the member’s asking a more broad question on connecting the

province in general and allocating funding for that, I know the member

will have a follow-up question, I’m sure.

B. Banman: I would assume if it’s $13 million, and if there was an extra $2

million, for instance, that were to be asked for, that would be one

thing. But this is an extraordinary jump in what’s required.

On behalf of the taxpayers, I think what they want to know is what

triggered the minister to decide to have such an extraordinary ask.

There’s no argument that it’s needed. That’s not the issue. The issue

is: at what time was the minister aware and decided to ask, or it was

brought to the minister’s attention? At what time during this process

did the minister decide that additional $75 million were

required?

This is a one-time expenditure. It’s not an expenditure that goes

on in perpetuity for year after year. This is a one-time thing. So there

had to be a mechanism or a time frame upon which the minister knew that

additional $75 million to achieve the goals that she’s put forward were

put on there. I’m just curious as to how and when that decision was

made, and particularly when. If I could get a date or a timeline, it

would be helpful.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The $15 million…. I’m not sure. The member keeps referring to $13

million, which I believe is being referenced as part of the $289 million

last year, which was focused on broadband. But when we had the first

investment in highway cellular in 2020, that was $15 million, so we’ll

start from there.

Knowing that highway cellular hadn’t had a dedicated program, and

making changes to our StrongerBC program to allow for highway cellular

investment — that was the first time that happened, in 2020. We have

been looking at highway cellular, of course, as part of our goals in

connecting all the province.

Since 2020, we’ve been doing the work on connecting the entire

province in a number of ways, including the historic MOU that we signed

with the federal government for $415 million each, for a total of $830

million, to help connect every community to high-speed Internet. These

are all part of the connectivity goals. Cellular is part of that, but it

wasn’t part of that MOU. The program at ISED for the universal broadband

fund was focused solely on Internet, and it didn’t have a highway

cellular component, so we created that highway cellular component in

We know, as I’ve said, the numbers. There are 4,200 kilometres. We

know it’s going to take this investment, as well as more into the

future, to continue connecting the province and to reach our ultimate

goal of having full connectivity in the province. So we’re going to keep

doing that work, and these are steps that we’re continuing to

take.

B. Banman: Let me explain where I’m getting the $13.705 million. It comes

right out of the supplementary estimates. Perhaps this $13.705 million….

It’s right here. I can provide a copy of that if you wish. The $13.705

million may have included both high-speed and/or cellular.

I guess the next question then would be…. In this supplementary

estimates, it goes up to $85 million. The minister did break that down:

$10 million of that was to go to high-speed connectivity, broadband

connectivity, and the other $75 million was for cellular connectivity.

There is no argument on whether it’s needed or not on those 4,200

kilometres of highways — absolutely. I’m sure this side of the House

would be in full agreement, especially those that have travelled the

roads over the last few months.

Keeping in mind that the $13.705 million came out of the

supplements, which is the 2022-2023, I guess the question that I want to

know…. If the minister is unable to provide a time as to when the

decision for the allocation was to be made, could she at least, then,

explain what the process was that was followed to determine an

allocation of this amount? What studies were made? How did the minister

come up with that $75 million was what was needed, and what process was

followed to do that?

A timeline of when that happened would be even better. Was it done

in the last six weeks? Was it done in the last six months? Was it done…?

Did she know about this prior to the estimates in 2022-23, but it was

put on the back burner? Some kind of timeline and process as to how this

number was come to, I think, would make the taxpayers sleep a little

better at night.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The member is asking for a timeline. To the best of my ability, to

the member….

In December of 2022, ministries were asked by the Ministry of

Finance and the Premier to identify priorities that would be suitable

for supplementary estimates and that would fit within the work that

we’re doing in our ministries. This is work that has been ongoing for

our ministry, obviously connecting the province. We’ve made that

commitment.

In December of 2022, we identified highway cellular as a key

priority to put forward in this supplementary estimates process. It went

through the Treasury Board process in the past weeks. It went as a major

item and as a stand-alone item. That takes us to where we are now in the

timeline of the supplementary estimates.

B. Banman: Well, thank you. I appreciate that.

December of 2022 is when this ministry identified they want to

expand cellular coverage throughout the highways of British Columbia. In

particular, this only covers the southeast corner or area of British

Columbia. Is that accurate? I believe that’s what…. Did I not read in

there somewhere that this was for…? Was the southeast broadband

connection or cellular connection?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: For the member, the $75 million for highway cellular is

provincewide. Then the additional $10 million, in the $85 million that

is in the supplementary estimates, is accelerating connectivity in the

southeast by advancing funding that was previously announced in the

2025-2026 fiscal for the Columbia Basin project, advancing $10 million

of that into 2022-2023, which is going to allow for acceleration of the

connectivity funding in that area.

That project in the southeast, in the Columbia Basin, for the

member’s knowledge, is going to support a high-speed Internet project,

and that is anticipated to connect over 6,600 homes. It’s going to be in

59 communities, including two First Nations, and it’s going to cover

that Columbia Basin area.

We know that having both is vitally important, which is why we

created highway cellular for the province. Also, as we’re moving through

and connecting all communities in the province to high-speed Internet….

Where we can, advancing and moving projects forward in a timely manner

is good to do as well.

We want to unlock the power of high-speed Internet in communities.

The member knows how vitally important — and I know he won’t disagree

with me — and how critical that is to that region. So being able to

advance $10 million into that region for that project is a fantastic

goal, as is a separate goal of highway cellular for $75

million.

B. Banman: I agree with the minister. You’ll get no argument from me as to

how vital broadband connectivity or high-speed Internet is to every

region within the province. I’ll come back to that in a bit, as I said I

would.

With regards to the cellular, again…. The minister has now said

that this is actually to cover rural highways in all of British

Columbia, which I think is fantastic. She has pointed out that there are

4,200 kilometres of highway that are not covered.

I guess the question is: is the minister able to break down…? I’m

going to go back to…. How did we arrive at $75 million? That’s number

one. There had to be some kinds of metrics that were used. There had to

be some kind of input that was required. There had to be someone that

was asked to determine that $75 million would connect the 28 percent

that’s remaining and be able to get cellular coverage on that 28 percent

that’s remaining.

How did the minister…? If she could break down the funding formula

for how this funding is now going to be allocated by region. How did she

come up with the metrics and the number of $75 million in the first

place?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I want to say: “Buckle up, Member.”

We have, as I said, 15,000 kilometres of highway. There are 4,200

kilometres that currently don’t have cell coverage on them. Some

sections of highway are more feasible, at the moment, to put in cellular

than others. This could be due to available power. This could be due to

the province, to cellular than others right now.

This $75 million that we’re investing is going to leverage all the

learnings that we have from the $15 million investment we did and the

projects that are now coming online from the 2020 investment. The goal

of the $75 million isn’t the entire province, Member. As I said in my

opening remarks, the goal is to connect at least 550 kilometres, and

that’s what I can say at this moment. That’s just on….

Our base funding is for the 550. We’re obviously going to be

looking to leverage that with other investments. We do continue to talk

to the feds about the need for a cellular program nationally and to be

able to match our program with theirs and increase the number of highway

kilometres through that.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’ll see, as the application comes in and the private sector

funding, what the telcos are able to achieve with our investment. At the

moment, with just having that base learning, our goal is 550. We know

that the anticipated cost per cellular tower is $1.5 million. And towers

typically accommodate between six to 15 kilometres of highway service,

the terrain, all of that.

When we have our provincial contribution being up to 90 percent in

these calculations, the anticipated cost to the province would be $1.35

million. Now, again, like we said, we’re going to try and leverage other

funding sources, see what the telcos do, talk to our federal

counterparts.

But you know, that took us to…. If we had asked in estimates for

$25 million, that would have got us 185 kilometres of new service; $50

million would have got us 370. We asked for $75 million to enable 550

kilometres. Obviously, it would be a benefit to everyone if we’re able

to leverage more than that.

B. Banman: Thank you very much, Minister, for the answer. So if I’m to

understand the minister accurately, or correctly, of the 4,200

kilometres that are left, for $75 million, we are only going to achieve

550 of that. So there will still be approximately, I’m going to guess —

what is that? — somewhere around 20 percent left that’s still to go.

Will we be able to get to 8 percent? If that’s the case, would the

minister be so kind as to identify…?

I’m sure the minister has got a map and figured out what the most

crucial areas are. What areas of the province does this ministry plan on

— I don’t know whether the word “attacking” is the right word or not —

building the towers on first? What specific highways, after we spend $75

million, will have better coverage? As you say, the province is a pretty

big place. You know, we’re a massive province, and I can appreciate the

difficulty in that.

So would the minister be so kind as to…? For those that are

travelling up and down those highway systems now, what highways will get

these towers versus…? Where will these towers actually go along, what

highways, if they have the specific routes? I’m sure that would be

helpful to anyone in the logistics industry, for instance.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Funding for projects will be project-based. We do have program

criteria that were already established in 2022, for expanding highway

cellular, during the provincial connecting British Columbia program.

When we worked with the Northern Development Trust to develop that new

program, we established those practices in there.

Telcos and others are going to be able to apply, program-based and

project-based, within this program for it. An eligible applicant that

can apply is a corporation, so either a profit or a not-for-profit

that’s incorporated in Canada — a Canadian, provincial, territorial or

municipal entity. We do have those who are active in the field as

well.

We have Indigenous entities who are able to apply, being a profit

or a non-profit organization run by and for First Nations, Métis and

Inuit peoples, who we also have across the province. We have band

councils within the meaning of

section 2 of the Indian Act. We have the

Indigenous government authority established by self-government. We have

the comprehensive land claims agreement.

We have projects that build and operate broadband infrastructure

or those that enter into contractual agreements with an entity that

designs, builds, owns and operates broadband infrastructure. We’re going

to be doing those with cellular. These are already existing programs

that we had through NDIT when we created the 2020 intake.

The key here is…. Obviously, we’re going to be trying to get as

much as possible for highway expansion. So as in all the programs we do,

we’ll be looking for new builds. It won’t be overbuilds in areas that

already have cellular. We’re going to be focusing…. The program always

focuses on areas that don’t have coverage so that we can expand it

across the province.

I’m going to continue my work to expand the program in the future

and continue to talk to the federal government so that we can leverage

potential federal funds and create a new federal program. We do want to

make sure that we’re connecting highways all across this

province.

B. Banman: I’ll come back to that in a minute.

The minister has now mentioned the federal government as a partner

several times, looking for federal moneys to help with this or

cost-sharing. I can’t recall the exact wording that the minister used

but that the federal government, at times, participates in

this.

Would the minister be so kind as to let this House know how many

times her ministry has reached out to the federal government since

December of 2022 to ask about funds that they may participate in to help

subsidize this on behalf of the B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. L. Beare: Just to be very clear for the member, there currently is not a

federal program, which I think he was understanding.

Our team talks with the federal government weekly. We have

check-ins with them on a weekly basis. We have continued to express our

interest in highway cellular and the need to expand. We are hopeful that

the federal government, in the coming year, would potentially launch

their own program.

[2:20 p.m.]

We know the provinces and the federal government are all committed

to connecting their citizens. We know how important this is for not only

the connectivity side of it but for safety all across B.C. and all

across Canada. While I have no insight into what the federal government

obviously will ultimately decide to do with future programming, we

continue to have weekly meetings with the federal government on all the

great, shared work we do, and we’ll continue to advocate for a potential

future program.

B. Banman: In those discussions, has there been any talk of if the federal

government does come up with a program, whether or not any of those

moneys will be applicable to what we’re currently spending of this $75

million, or are the B.C. taxpayers on this on their own, and that would

only be for future moneys that may occur from the feds?

Hon. L. Beare: I think, actually, it’s a really good question, and I have a

really good answer that I think will make the member comfortable here,

because the federal government has been a really good partner in lots of

provincial infrastructure projects over a number of years with us on the

connectivity file.

There was, as part of the original UBF program, $50 million from

the feds for highway cellular, which we did leverage as part of the $15

million that we announced here in B.C. on highway cellular with

StrongerBC. We were able to leverage, for example, the $2.5 million in

highway cellular that’s along Highway 16 right now, the Highway of

Tears.

We have these established criteria and these established working

tables already with the federal government. We have an established

process with them of these matching funds and building the programs

together. When we signed that $830 million MOU with the federal

government, it was the province that came first with the funding, and

then we were able to come together to complete the MOU with shared goals

and shared funding.

[2:25 p.m.]

We have a long-standing partnership. We have long-standing

criteria, and we have a long-standing history of MOUs on these really

important files. We’re able to conti­nue that work that we do on a

daily basis here in our ministry. I really look forward to being able to

continue that.

B. Banman: Thank you very much, but with all of that, what I didn’t hear was

whether or not there is an understanding that any additional moneys that

come forward from the feds will actually be able to be applied

retroactively to the $75 million that we’re about to spend. Has the

minister even had that discussion, with any future plans, or have

ministry staff or anyone within the ministry had that discussion with

their counterparts?

Hon. L. Beare: To be really clear, we have no knowledge of a future potential

program from the federal government. It really is a hypothetical

question because there isn’t a program being discussed right now. I

continue to lobby for that and have those discussions — how important it

would be. But I have the confidence in the established criteria we

already have, the work that was done in 2020, the MOU and the leveraging

of those conversations, that we have that partnership with the federal

government that, if by chance the federal government were to create a

program, we would be able to marry our program to theirs.

As we said, in the $830 million MOU, it was the province that came

first with funding, as is happening right here. Should the feds in the

future develop a program, we have a precedent already set and we have

criteria already set that we’d be able to leverage.

B. Banman: I would say to those that are watching at home, now would be the

opportunity if you need cellular coverage and you want it on all of

British Columbia’s highways, to write your federal minister of

parliament. You know, a letter or an email goes a long way. Oh, that’s

right. Some of you can’t use an email, because you don’t have broadband

coverage. So you do it the old-fashioned way, I guess — handwritten. It

gets there. I believe that you don’t even have to put postage on the

stamp to get it to your MP. A letter actually does go a long way. People

don’t think it does, but we pay attention, don’t we?

Would the minister please be so kind as to…? Okay, we’ve got $75

million. We’re going to cover 550 additional kilometres of highways.

From the day after this budget is approved, when can we expect that that

550 kilometres will have coverage? What will be the buildout

date?

[2:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

I first need to start off by thanking the member for his support

in lobbying the federal government and lobbying our local MPs here on

the very important need for highway cellular all across our province.

I’m very glad to have an ally across the aisle in that

effort.

The program would open this summer through NDIT, with a completion

date requirement of 2027. As with all connectivity in the province, no

matter what they be, Internet or cellular, timelines are project-based,

so there will be projects being finished all along that timeline from

this summer to 2027.

It will just depend on each of the projects, how long they will

be, but the ultimate completion date needs to be by 2027.

The Chair: Member.

B. Banman: Welcome to the chair, Madame Chair.

I’m happy to encourage people to survey their federal government

to help pay for badly needed infrastructure such as cellular

connectivity, because I think it actually empowers the entire country,

and I think it’s very deserving of federal moneys. You know what? In

this case, anything I can do to help. I’m more than willing to do my

bit. I would again encourage people to send a letter to their MP saying

why it’s important, because it actually has to do with the protection

and security of the entire country.

Now, the minister was so kind as to give a dateline, 2027. We’d

expect to spend this money and have towers erected by 2027. The minister

has also said that there are areas, I’m sure, that she has identified of

higher need than others. At least, I would hope that the ministry has

done that.

Are there certain areas that the minister can share with us that…?

Not all of the 550 kilometres that she has pointed out, but could she

identify some of what she considers to be the higher need or higher risk

or more urgent-need corridors in the province and name some of those

highways that the ministry has pointed out that are in need of coverage

and where these 550 might expand to?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: We do have existing criteria already with NDIT for the cellular

program that was established in 2020. The type of projects that resulted

from that program and that intake in 2020 were…. As I said earlier, we

did have cellular coverage expansion along 252 kilometres and two rest

areas of Highway 16, the Highway of Tears in northern B.C. The

construction is well under route on that project and is expected to be

completed by this fall.

The joy of this kind of construction, particularly on this

highway, is that you don’t need it all to be complete for the coverage

to happen. As individual cell towers are going up, it’s providing

coverage in these pockets of areas all down the highway as we go. So the

full continuous coverage will be by the fall, but already there are

ample areas of the highway now that are already being

covered.

That highway came about from this 2020 criteria. We have Highway 3

between Hope and Keremeos, which was a key transportation route. That’s

an example of the project that got covered in that $15 million through

the existing criteria. We have cellular coverage in the area of the

community of Wells, north of Barkerville. I really wanted to say that

while the member for Cariboo North was in here, but I’m sure she knows

well about that project. There’s a six-kilometre stretch of highway

there that is now covered.

The existing criteria are there, and then we have these great

priority areas that come about from that criteria. I would anticipate,

moving forward, that this $75 million is going to drive out the same

kind of similar high-priority projects all across the

province.

B. Banman: That’s great to review what’s already been done, but I guess the

question I have is: what areas has this ministry identified as high

priority to put cellular towers in? So for instance….

Let me put it another way. If I want to build a cell tower, is

there a list that this ministry has of high priority where the ministry

expects those towers to go? Have they identified…?

[2:40 p.m.]

Of this 550 kilometres that you wish to cover, whereabouts have

you decided, or has that decision even been made, as to what takes

priority? Of the 4,200 that are left, what are the criteria for the 550

that you wish to cover? Is there a particular highway, for instance,

that you want to cover? Are we going to hopscotch it so that there’s

coverage every 50 miles or so to speak, so people can come in and out of

cellular coverage and at least be able to check their messages or have

their cell phones ping or alert or a host of other things that comes

with cellular coverage?

What’s the plan for this 550 kilometres? Is there anywhere in the

province that takes priority over another?

Hon. L. Beare: For the member, I very much appreciate the question. I understand

what he’s trying to get to. But the important decision was the criteria

that was established for the intake program in 2020. That criteria is

already established with NDIT, who are going to be administering the

program, who are going to be making those final project

decisions.

It is NDIT who did it in 2020 through the connecting British

Columbia program. They’ve been a fantastic partner in administering the

programs. That’s what’s going to continue to happen. Ultimately, the

NDIT recommendations go to the NDIT board for the final

decision.

Just to be very clear to the member, the criteria is there. If the

member would like, we can look up the NDIT criteria to share it with the

member in the House right now, but it’s readily available. It’s an

existing criteria list that’s already there. They will make those

project decisions through the programs that we already have

existing.

B. Banman: I understand how it can become very difficult. When the $75

million was discussed, and the ministry came up with that, did the

ministry actually sit down with NDIT to achieve this number? Were they

consulted? Were there any other groups or communities that were

discussed to come up with the criteria for (

a) the $75 million and (

b) where these towers may end up being?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: NDIT is the program administrator, not the funder. They don’t

develop the costs; they’re the administrator. We were able to come up

with the cost of $1.5 million per pole through the analysis of the

projects from the 2020 intake and from working with service

providers.

Can we take a brief five-minute break?

The Chair: Yes. We will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:46 p.m. to 2:49 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

B. Banman: That was a quick five minutes.

The Chair: It was very efficient. Thank you.

[2:50 p.m.]

B. Banman: Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you,

Minister.

Let me go about this in a different way then. One of my colleagues

was actually just mentioning something I think is actually vitally

important, and I’m sure the minister will agree.

We’ve got 4,200 kilometres to go. We can subtract 550. Now I did

the math while the minister was out of the room, and that works out to

cover what’s left. We’re looking at approximately half a billion dollars

if the province was to pick up that tab by itself, based on the

minister’s…. My math might be off. I do not profess to be the greatest,

you know, mathematician in the world. It’s not my strong point. However,

what’s important, until such time as those 4,200 remaining kilometres of

highway get finished with cellular coverage, is that at certain rest

areas, at certain spots, has the minister considered, along some of

these highways, putting up signs of actually where there should be

cellular coverage so that people can use it?

I attribute it to way back when, in the United States, they used

to have telephone call phones along the highway. When I was going back

and up and down I-5, I always remember that there were these telephone

call…. If you were in trouble, there was a phone that you could pull out

literally along the I-5 and make an emergency call.

Has the minister considered identifying for those that are

travelling where these points of cellular coverage are? Because it

doesn’t take very long and you’ve driven through one. Where it’s spotty,

is that part of the plan moving forward, or has this ministry even

considered that?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes. We have considered all the things that the member is talking

about, and I really do appreciate the suggestion.

In the $15 million that we allocated in 2020 for highway cellular,

our goal out of that program when we established it had been a named 140

kilometres of highway coverage, 14 rest areas that have coverage within

the rest areas so that you’re able to make that call, and four call

boxes, the ones that the member was referencing.

[2:55 p.m.]

Through the program with the $15 million, we were able to get 532

kilometres out of coverage, so 148 to 532. We were able to get 30 rest

stops with coverage, so 14 to 30, and we were able to put five call

boxes in.

The member is absolutely right. The five call boxes that went in

are along the Alaska Highway, which currently is unpowered and not going

to get cellular coverage anytime soon. So it was important to get this

critical piece of infrastructure. And they are marked, the call boxes,

so that people know that they have a place that they can make calls for

their safety at these five locations.

I very much appreciate the suggestion, and I agree with the member

on all of it.

B. Banman: I’ve kind of done a calculation.

The Chair: Excuse me, Member. Electronics are not to be used.

B. Banman: I’m sorry. Thank you very much.

Of the $75 million that was requested in the one-time estimate and

the fact that we have 4,200 kilometres left to go, and it now seems that

cellular coverage along highways has become naturally an increased

priority, can we expect in next year’s budget the ask of $75 million or

thereabouts to be able to cover an additional 550 kilometres?

As I was saying, I did the math. That gives us

approxi­mately seven years of additional funding, and then we’ve

got that 4,200 put to bed. It’ll be covered.

Will it be the new ask of this ministry moving forward that there

is an increased priority on expanding cellular coverage along our

highways? Can we expect a jump from the $13,705 or $15,000 or whatever

it is? The minister and I have got two different numbers based, because

it’s not just cellular coverage; it also includes broadband. But for

cellular coverage, can we expect that $75 million or thereabouts with

inflation will be the new ask in future budgets?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: This funding is one-time in nature. We know that this is vitally

important, to continue these supports for people in the province. We

invested in 2020. We’re investing now, in 2023. We’ll continue to have

these conversations within our government, have these conversations with

the Minister of Finance, and have the conversations with the federal

government and opportunities there.

This is going to be a shifting field over the next four years as

well, as this $75 million is spent. We do have a reliance on service

providers on where to build and their knowledge on what’s possible to

build in the areas. We have our expertise and our criteria, as well,

that we combine with that to provide the most affordable and the most

sustainable supports of cellular in the area.

The member is also very focused on cellular. The goal is coverage.

We talked about the five call boxes along the Alaska Highway, for

example. Cellular is a tool, is a technology. But tools and technologies

are shifting daily. We’re seeing satellite coverage coming more and more

online. This is going to be a different conversation a year from now,

when the member and I have it in estimates again a year from now, and it

will be another conversation two years from now, when I’m still standing

here and the member is sitting over there asking me these questions as

well. We’re going to keep having these conversations.

Technologies are continuing to evolve. While we’re focused on

cellular for this $75 million, we’re going to have to see what the

future holds with it as well.

B. Banman: I will choose to take difference with the minister’s

over-exuberance on how long she thinks she’ll be on that side of the

House. But that aside, I’d be careful of drinking my own Kool-Aid. That

would be the only advice I could give at this point.

Basically, what I hear the minister saying is that based on how

fast technology is changing, we could have low orbiting satellites, for

instance, that could change cellular and broadband coverage within a

very short period of time, perhaps, as one type of technology. Who knows

who the next Marconi is going to be that’s going to come up with a way

to connect us. He’s the one that invented…. Never mind. We won’t go

there. I won’t go down that. It makes me appear older than I actually

am. I’m just a history buff when it comes to that kind of

stuff.

I think we have covered pretty much the cellular and expansion. I

hope that the ministry will have a live map of where these new

satellites are going to go, so as people get ready to take their trips,

they’ll know where there will or will not be cellular coverage along

some of these highways, especially for truckers and those that are….

Logistics. I would hope that somewhere within the government area, there

would be a map, as the new ones come up, where they’re being built and

when they’re completed.

[3:05 p.m.]

That aside, I’d like to change a little bit and go to the $10

million with regards to broadband connectivity. The minister, I do

believe, said that there was — I wrote it down somewhere — 59

communities that plan to be covered in the southeast, and two First

Nations.

How much consultation was done? I’m sure there are more than two

First Nations in the southeast. I’d be willing to bet; I could be proven

incorrect there. How much consultation was done with First Nations, and

how many of the First Nations that are in that area still are left to

have broadband connectivity brought to them?

Hon. L. Beare: Just to backtrack on the coverage, yes, all coverage is available

on the CRTC website. You’re able to see where existing coverage is and

where the gaps are when you’re making your travel plans. I thank the

member, because that is vital information for those wanting to know when

they travel.

For the Columbia Basin project, the CBBC, the Columbia Basin

Broadband Corp. has an existing approved project here in British

Columbia. It was approved on May 9 last year, I believe. This is a

project that has been years in the making. It’s been ongoing since 2021,

would be my guess. It’s one of the largest projects…. It is actually the

largest connectivity project in the province.

The application, when they made it, was required to have, first,

the ISP…. CBBC, the Internet service provider, was required to do that

First Nations consultation and bring a submitted. or multiple submitted,

council resolution as part of the project if there are nations that

they’ll be working within the area. All that work…. I thank the member

for the question, because it’s very important to have that knowledge and

know that that work is being done.

That work was done. It was approved by the province, and we’re

just advancing funding for the Columbia Basin Broadband Corp. so they

can continue the good work on what is the largest connectivity project

in the province.

B. Banman: Now, with regards to the consultation, in particular with regards

to First Nations, was that consultation…? Is that public knowledge

someone can go get or — pardon me, but seeing that you taunted me, I’ll

taunt you back a little bit — am I going to have to pay a $10 FOI bill

to try and get it?

Is it public knowledge? Can someone go look at it and take a look

at the record of what kind of consultation was done, how often they met?

All the things that would help people put to bed that yes, it wasn’t

just a quick little bypass, but there was actually meaningful,

respectful consultation done — is there any kind of history or record,

that’s public knowledge, of that?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The expectations for consultation are available in the application

guide, which NDIT holds. We can provide that to the member if he would

like the very clear outline of what is required of

consultation.

Having that requirement of a council resolution or multiple

council resolutions from nations clearly demonstrates the understanding

and the level of support required of each nation.

Now, each of these applications, each project application, is

submitted to NDIT, and they are not publicly available due to business

confidence. There’s proprietary information in it. While I appreciate

the spirit of the member’s question, those records would not be publicly

available.

B. Banman: Sometimes the knowing why they’re not public is actually,

probably, just as important as to whether they should be public and

whether or not I do have to pay a $10 FOI, but that’s another story. I

digress.

Now, I know that the minister and I talked about this once before,

and a lot of people don’t understand that when you have broadband come

into a community, people will often say: “You know, the thing went right

by my front door, and I’m not allowed to hook up.” As it was explained

to me, sort of in municipal terms, you have a high-pressured large water

line that goes through a community, and you can’t just start pumping

one-inch lines off of that high pressure, because you end up, basically,

damaging the integrity of the high-pressured main water line coming

through the city.

The main bulk of the fibre optics that would maybe go by — what is

required is a distribution network. They, generally, have an end point,

and then you have a distribution network that finds its way back. What

we found out is that sometimes, in order to allow others along that

stretch to connect, there needs to be a secondary connecting line, so to

speak, run parallel at the same time.

[3:15 p.m.]

Can the minister confirm that there will be said connecting line

that will run by on the way to a First Nation so that other communities

or other individuals, perhaps, that live a tad more remotely than others

will have the same benefit as the endpoint where this is going, so

they’ll be able to connect along the line as well?

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for the question, because that obviously is a

concern for communities. What the member is referring to when projects

are going by that front door without access to it are projects that are

solely funded by service providers and don’t have a provincial or a

federal funding component to them. So we have no oversight into

that.

Connecting lines. Transport builds those large ones that the

member’s talking about, that are funded by provincial or federal dollars

and are required to have open access to it, are required to provide that

access to communities.

I want to assure the member that any of the projects…. We’re

talking about $10 million for the Columbia Basin. It has those

parameters that are established here in the province put around them

because there’s provincial and federal funding within that project. The

goal of the Columbia Basin project is to generally cover the entire

basin.

There will be some gaps, as in every project. Once it’s built,

you’ll have to identify those gaps in behind it, and we’ll have to find

solutions for those last homes that are missed. What that’s going to

look like in the future, whether it be a last mile project into a

smaller community, whether it be satellite access, we’ll see those gaps,

and we’ll see those as the project is being built.

This is a very large commitment from the Columbia Basin to try and

connect that entire basin area with, obviously, there being gaps, as

we’ve discussed. But it’s the largest project in the province currently.

To be able to advance that $10 million in funding for them to continue

the work that they’re doing is going to be vitally important for the

Columbia region.

B. Banman: The minister brings up a good point, which begs the question. She

has mentioned that there will be 6,600 homes, approximately, that are

not covered now that will be covered.

[3:20 p.m.]

I guess, just so everybody can get their head around the scope of

this…. Like you say, it’s the biggest project going on. What percentage

of people within that basin are covered by broadband now, if the

minister or her staff know? It doesn’t have to be…. You know,

approximately.

Of the 6,600 additional people that will be able to get broadband,

how many…? Is there an estimate of how many of those last miles, which

the minister spoke about, would be left? Will there be approximately

2,000, 4,500? How close are we getting to 100 percent coverage within

that basin by expanding this $10 million project?

Hon. L. Beare: I’m sure the member will appreciate…. I don’t have those numbers

now, and I don’t think the member wants to wait while I contact the team

and have those looked up. I can commit to providing the numbers for the

member.

I will let the member know…. We work in close collaboration with

these service providers and with the CBBC to identify what the gaps are

and what needs to be done moving forward. We have made a very clear

commitment, in the province, to connect everyone by 2027. So we need to

know those gaps to fill them, moving forward.

That is a goal of ours. It’s a goal of the Columbia Basin. They

want to ensure that their residents and members have coverage as well.

To be able to connect 6,600 homes and advance that additional $10

million into this year to help that project move along is just great

news for this entire community as we bring this life-changing

connectivity into their homes.

B. Banman: Pardon me if I’ve got this wrong.

When we were talking about the $75 million…. That, you said, was

discussed in December of 2022. I’m going to assume that this is May 9 of

2022, for the $10 million for this connectivity. No, I’ve got that

wrong. Was it before that date? If so, what was the year that this came

through? I’ve got the day of May 9, but I don’t recall the year. My

apologies for that, if you did say it. Was this particular $10 million…?

Did it actually go through the Treasury Board for approval as

well?

Hon. L. Beare: The decision to accelerate was simultaneous. It was part of the

same submission as the $75 million in December 2022. That’s the

acceleration.

[3:25 p.m.]

When we talked about the approval of the project, the whole CBBC

project, the big, large project, that was the May…. I erred. It was on

May 8, 2022, that the project was approved.

We had the $10 million in fiscal 2025-26. The request in December,

alongside the $75 million for cellular, was to advance the $10 million

into this supplementary estimates process.

B. Banman: My understanding, then, if I heard the minister correctly, is that

this $10 million originally got its approval on May 8 of 2022. Is that

what I just heard? No, apparently I was listening but I wasn’t paying

attention, I guess. But this particular project did have an approval

date. Did the $75 million for cellular coverage have a similar approval

date that we can talk about that was prior to this? When did that $75

million…? Did it go through a similar process? And do we have a similar

sort of proposal and/or approval date?

Hon. L. Beare: They are together. It’s the same submission. As I let the member

know earlier, we were asked for the supplementary budget submissions in

December 2022. We, in our ministry, submitted $75 million cellular, the

advancement of $10 million from the Columbia Basin project, which was

already approved for 2025-26. We requested that it was advanced into

this supplementary estimates.

That was December ’22, and they simultaneously went to Treasury

Board, as I said. They went as a major item and as a stand-alone

package, and they were both approved at the same time. So when I talk

about the project approval, May 8, that’s entirely separate. That’s for

the entire broad Columbia Basin project. That is actually irrelevant in

what the member is asking about. The dates the member wanted to know are

the December date of being asked to submit a proposal.

And yes, it all went simultaneously together, the $75 million and

the $10 million advancement of preapproved funds.

B. Banman: I see we have only a few minutes left. I’ve got to ask one last

question, and I’ve got to have at least one question that might just

ruffle the minister’s feathers just a little bit.

Here’s what it would be. Based on prior rules, prior to what

happened during, I believe it was, last session, it used to be that if a

minister had gone over budget by $85 million, as you’ve just done….

Would you have been given the holdback in the ministerial budget in the

minister’s own fund? I think it was approximately 10 percent. Would you

have qualified for that then, and do you qualify for it now?

Hon. L. Beare: I love the spirit of the question. Thank you so much.

Well, I have not spent the $85 million. That is what we are here

to do today. So I have not gone over budget. Provided the House gives us

approval, we are going to be investing in highway cellular all over the

province, and we’re going to be advancing funds into the connectivity of

the Columbia Basin, which is a win-win all around.

B. Banman: I’d just like to thank the minister for indulging the questions,

as it is my job to ask questions and try and hold government

accountable. Yet once again, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I look forward

to the estimates, which I believe are up probably in the next few days,

next week. I look forward to this debate continuing.

[3:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Shall vote 21(

S) pass?

Division has been called.

[3:35 p.m. - 3:40 p.m.]

The motion is the approval of Vote 21(S).

Vote 21(S): ministry operations, $85,000,000 — approved on the

following division:

YEAS — 49

Alexis

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Farnworth

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Rustad

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

NAYS — 23

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Milobar

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Wat

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. L. Beare: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion

on the supplemental estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:44 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: In this chamber, I call the supplemen­tary estimates for

the Ministry of Agriculture.

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND

FOOD

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:50 p.m.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’ll just wait for the ministry staff to

come in to be with the minister, and then we will begin the

estimates.

All right, Members. Let’s begin the supplementary estimates.

It’s the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

On Vote 13(S): ministry operations, $111,000,000.

The Chair: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. P. Alexis: I’d like to begin by acknowledging that we’re on the territories

of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people

of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

I’d also like to welcome the opposition critic. As the member

knows, I’m fairly new to the file. I look forward to meeting with him to

share information and discuss key issues in the agriculture and food

sector, as we did in late December when we were dealing with significant

avian influenza outbreaks.

I’m joined today by Peter Pokorny, the deputy minister for

Agriculture and Food, as well as assistant deputy ministers Eric

Kristianson and Michelle Koski.

Thank you for joining us today.

I look forward to discussing what is a very significant investment

in agriculture and food in our province, specifically the $111 million

supplementary estimate that is the focus of today’s proceedings. This

investment of $111 million reflects our government’s focus on food

security. It’s an investment in our farmers and food processors and the

food supply chain in British Columbia. It’s an investment in the supply

and affordability of healthy food for British Columbians.

It also reflects the mandate given to me by the Premier, which

prioritizes improving food security, helping agricultural businesses

grow, increasing Indigenous partici­pation in B.C.’s agricultural

economy, strengthening local and regional Indigenous food systems,

positioning B.C. to feed more people, both here at home and around the

world, and supporting food producers and processors in the good work

they do to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Agriculture is a key economic driver in British Columbia. These

investments further our commitment to supporting the hard-working people

who put food and drink on our tables.

[3:55 p.m.]

B.C.’s agriculture, seafood and food and beverage sectors posted

record revenues of over $18.1 billion in 2021, despite the many

challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and climate-related weather

emergencies. We are well positioned to continue that upward trend, even

as farmers deal with more challenges such as avian influenza and rising

input costs due to global events and supply chain

disruptions.

The strength and resilience of B.C.’s agricultural community have

been on full display over the past few years, and it’s absolutely

critical that we support them. By supporting our farmers and producers,

we are supporting food security for all British Columbians. That’s why

the Minister of Finance and the Premier are making good use of surplus

funds available in the 2022-2023 fiscal year and allocating $111 million

to Agriculture and Food.

Through this supplementary funding, we will also be focusing on

our commitment to Indigenous partners and communities, something that’s

very important to our government and to me personally. We will be

working closely with the B.C. Indigenous Advisory Council on Agriculture

and Food to improve food security and to support economic opportunities

for Indigenous communities. The Indigenous advisory council is the first

of its kind in Canada and demonstrates our commitment to meaningful

reconciliation.

This significant and historic investment in agriculture, which we

will be discussing today, will lead to tangible supports and action on

the ground — action that has food inflation, affordability, Indigenous

participation and resiliency at its core. I look forward to the

important work we’re going to be doing in the coming months in all of

these areas to ensure a brighter future for B.C.’s agriculture and food

sector.

With that, hon. Chair, I’d be happy to begin the debate and take

questions from the hon. member.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for her words. I must say that in the

world of agriculture…. Any time we can see money added to the budget is

something that is good for agriculture. But we have to look at how this

is done and in what sort of reckless manner these kinds of dollars have

been added to an existing budget.

If we look back at the Ministry of Agriculture from the time I’ve

been here…. We were at around $81 million for the annual budget, up to

$85 million. It jumped to $88 million, to $95 million, to $98 million

and now around $107 million.

Now, in the business of farming, especially in British Columbia,

the private sector farmer, mostly family farms…. These are people that

are extremely responsible about their budgets. That’s what farmers are

extremely good at.

Farmers owe a lot of money to the banks for what they do for a

living. Sometimes farmers — I should say always — would have a budget to

see what their income is going to be projected to have for the upcoming

year versus what their expenses are. If a farmer was to fall into some

extra money during that period of time, I’m not so sure a

farmer….

I’ve been a farmer my whole life. I know what it was like, back in

the ’80s, to have a lot of borrowed money at 16 and 17 percent interest.

If you fell into some money, you wouldn’t just run out and buy three new

tractors and ten new cows. You would probably pay down some of your

debt. Paying down some of the debt would be very important to a family

farm.

Now, this is a shocking jump, from $107 million in the budget for

’22-23. We’re going to be looking at those estimates in a matter of

weeks from now. But suddenly — I’m assuming in the month of March; I’m

going to try and find that out — towards the end of the fiscal year,

we’re adding $111 million, which is more than double the budget for

2022-23. It is probably one of the highest of all the ministries, more

than doubling a budget within one fiscal year.

[4:00 p.m.]

Then there was an announcement today, Minister, of $200 million.

We’re going to have to dig deep to find out where this $200 million came

from and where it’s going and what year it’s going to be placed

in.

I want to read from the heading of where this money is supposedly

going to go. It says here, under “Food Security Initiatives:” “Funding

for food security initiatives will support British Columbians’ access to

an affordable supply of nutritious food.”

Before I read this out completely, I would like to sort of pretend

we’re in committee stage. I’d like to ask for some

definitions before we

get started.

“Through a series of targeted initiatives, the province will

strengthen the food supply chain across B.C., including local and

regional food systems. This includes direct food support to underserved

people and communities through trusted community partners such as Food

Banks B.C. and the United Way.

“Dedicated funding will increase the availability of fresh food in

Indigenous communities, increase food processing capacity in B.C., and

support the development of new and expanded local food production

businesses. Funding will also improve the resilience of the B.C. food

supply by identifying and mitigating the effects of climate change and

the increasing intensity of climate events.”

Perhaps my first question could be a bit around

definitions,

because even though I’ve been a farmer my whole life, I’m still having

trouble looking it up in the dictionary or the Encyclopedia

Britannica .

To the minister: could you define the two words “food

security”?

Hon. P. Alexis: Food security means different things to different people.

Fundamentally, it’s about the access to supply and the affordability of

food.

I. Paton: When we look at what I just read out, we see the term “the

province will strengthen the food supply chain across B.C., including

local and regional food systems.”

To the minister: could you just give me the definition that you

have of regional food systems?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: Thank you, Member, for the question. You asked about a regional

food system. A regional food system is a food system, like a supply

chain, that includes primary agriculture, processing, packing,

distribution and retail sales. It is, technically, your supply

chain.

The reason why we’ve included regional in the mix is because we

recognize that every region needs to be capable of including all of

those steps.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for…. Now I know what regional food

systems actually mean.

How was the need for this one-time expenditure identified? At what

time of the fiscal year ’22-23 was this identified and recommended and

put into place?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: Thank you for the question, Member.

I was sworn in as minister on December 7, 2022. On the same day, I

received my mandate letter from Premier Eby, and my mandate letter is

very clear and focused around four key themes: enhance current programs

and implement new programs that improve food security and agricultural

business growth in British Columbia, increase Indigenous participation

in B.C.’s food production processing economy and strengthen Indigenous

food systems, position B.C. to feed more people within and outside of

Canada, and support food producers and processors in their actions to

mitigate and adapt to climate change.

It was late in December that Premier Eby asked me to identify ways

I could advance and accelerate my mandate deliverables.

The Chair: Of course, we use the title for members in this chamber and

not their names.

M. de Jong: Thanks to my colleagues for letting me step in for a few moments.

It’s a chance to congratulate a fellow member who represents, in part,

Abbotsford, on her appointment to this post and perhaps to ask a few

questions about, as my colleague from Delta has pointed out, a very,

very significant supplementary estimate spending authority that she and

the government are seeking from this committee and, ultimately, the

House in its entirety.

Over $100 million, I think $111 million, is in the supplementary

estimate — funds that, by definition, will need to be paid out of the

fiscal entity in the next 23 days. Who is getting the money?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: Thank you, Member, for the question.

We are in the process of fine-tuning program development. We are

actively working with our partners, New Relationship Trust and

Investment Agriculture Foundation. We’re also having extensive

conversations with industry regarding the implementation of those

programs.

M. de Jong: Well, that is an astoundingly vague answer. I think the minister

knows that.

The essence of the exercise, and the minister knows this as well,

that we are engaged in is…. The government has made a decision,

apparently, back towards the end of December, to take some additional

moneys and to expend them. In the case of the Agriculture Ministry and

this vote, it’s $111 million.

I hope it hasn’t come as a shock to anyone on the government side

that, confronted by the request to expend an additional $111 million,

more than double the size of the original budget for the ministry, the

opposition wants to know, with some particularity, where the money is

going. The previous answer provides no information. Well, it provides a

hint.

Let’s break that down a little bit. The minister mentioned the New

Relationship Trust — a fund, I can say proudly, I’m familiar with,

having been part of the government that created it. It sounds like a

part of the $111 million might be earmarked for the New Relationship

Trust. How much?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: Thank you, Member, for the question.

We are in the process of determining the value of each program,

and we are clear on our objectives. I was clear about working with our

partners, the New Relationship Trust and Investment Agriculture

Foundation.

M. de Jong: How much of the $111 million has already been spent?

Hon. P. Alexis: Thank you, Member, for the question.

Nothing.

M. de Jong: Is the entire amount slated for transfer outside of the government

entity?

Hon. P. Alexis: Thank you, Member.

Yes, subject to passing of the supplemental estimates.

M. de Jong: If I understand correctly, the minister is confirming for the

committee that the entire amount, the $111 million, over the course of

the next 23 days, will be transferred to agencies outside of the

government entity. Do I have that correct?

Hon. P. Alexis: Yes.

M. de Jong: Is the minister surprised that members of the opposition might

want to actually know who she is giving those taxpayer dollars

to?

Hon. P. Alexis: No, I am not surprised, Member, that you have an interest in

that.

I was clear. The money is going to the Investment Agriculture

Foundation and the New Relationship Trust.

The Chair: Of course, questions and answers are through the Speaker, or the

Chair in this case, rather than back and forth between

members.

Thank you, Minister.

M. de Jong: All right. Well, we seem to be making incremental

progress.

The minister has mentioned two agencies that will be receiving

funds from this supplementary estimate if it is approved. Are those the

only two agencies that will be receiving the funding?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: Through the Chair, yes, those will be our partners responsible for

administering the program funds.

M. de Jong: This is important. The minister has talked about administering the

program funds, but I don’t think I heard a direct answer. She has

referred to the New Relationship Trust and one other agency. She’ll

remind me of what that agency is when she stands up.

My question was: is the entire $111 million being divided between

those two agencies?

Hon. P. Alexis: Yes, they will. It is indeed the New Relationship Trust and the

Investment Agriculture Foundation.

M. de Jong: The obvious question that a committee like this would be

interested in, now having discovered that funds that represent more than

a doubling of the minister’s budget will be divided between the

foundation and the trust, is: who’s getting how much?

Hon. P. Alexis: The amounts to be distributed to those entities will be determined

very shortly, based on program refinement.

M. de Jong: All right. I’m going to, maybe, try this a little

differently.

I’ve known the hon. minister for a little while in her former

role. I’m curious to know how she thinks people would have responded if,

in her role as the mayor of Mission, she had announced her intention and

the council’s intention to spend…. Let’s make it more realistic. Let’s

not say $100 million; let’s say $20 million. When people said: “Well,

how are you going to spend it…?” “Well, we’re going to give it to some

agencies that we have no real control over.”

[4:30 p.m.]

“Well, how much are you going to give them?” “I’m not going to

tell you.” “But it’s our money. We’re the taxpayers.” “Well, I’m still

not going to tell you.” “But you’re asking for permission to give

taxpayers’ money to two agencies. Shouldn’t we know how much you’re

going to give them?”

Surely the minister sees the illogic in what she is presenting to

this committee. How on earth can you ask for permission to do something

on the scale the minister is purporting to do and withhold that

information from the committee? It is unbelievable.

I actually know the minister to be a person who possesses some

measure of common sense, so I think perhaps she is being…. I want to

give her another chance, because I don’t think she wants to be known as

the minister who came to the Committee of Supply and said: “I want

permission to transfer 111 million taxpayers’ dollars out to two

agencies, but I’m not going to tell you how much I’m giving them.” So

let’s try it again, shall we? How much?

Hon. P. Alexis: This $111 million will support access for British Columbians to an

affordable supply of healthy food, more food that is grown and processed

in British Columbia. It will strengthen the food supply chain across

B.C., including local and regional and Indigenous food systems. It will

increase food-processing capacity in British Columbia.

It will support

the development of new and expanded local food production businesses in

British Columbia, and it will improve the resilience of B.C.’s

agriculture and food sectors by identifying and mitigating and adapting

to these effects of climate change, which have increasingly intensified

in recent years.

[4:35 p.m.]

This will be achieved by programming that will increase Indigenous

food security, food sovereignty and economic development opportunities

and decrease food costs for Indigenous communities and people across the

province.

Programming that will support agricultural producers, industry

associations and Indigenous communities to develop disaster plans,

mitigation strategies and investments in the sector with a focus on food

security and agricultural resilience.

Programming that will support flood mitigation projects for

agricultural producers most impacted by the 2021 floods, with an

emphasis on solutions that provide both flood mitigation and habitat

restoration.

Programming that will address critical gaps in B.C.’s

food-processing sector to increase food production, food security and

economic growth. This means support for B.C.’s diverse value-added

sector and targeting businesses that are working to scale up to increase

productivity, business opportunities and competitiveness.

Programming that will foster innovation and improve productivity

with the goal of reducing the grocery bills of British Columbians. This

means targeting key nodes all along the food chain, from food producers

to food processors to wholesalers and distributors to independent

grocers.

The exact amounts to be allocated to each program will be

determined shortly. It would be irresponsible to read into the record a

specific amount that may change.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I don’t know what troubles me more — the continued unwillingness

of the minister to provide what is basic information that any Committee

of Supply would want to have before them before approving a measure of

this magnitude or the fact that her colleagues, one of them a very

experienced member, see fit to cheer that vagueness.

Look, this is serious. Just so the minister knows, we can read the

press release. It was kind of the minister to reread the propaganda. We

can read that.

The committee exists to find out how the government intends to

achieve that. The committee exists, in deciding whether or not to

support the request for the funding, to determine who is getting the

money and how much.

Look, if the minister is going to say…. “Within the various

envelopes that have been determined, we have agreements. We’ve

negotiated agreements that are intended to achieve these various

objectives.” Okay. That’s an area that the committee can have some

discussion. But that’s not what the minister is saying.

The minister is saying: “I’ve got two groups I’m going to give

$111 million to, and I won’t tell you how much each group is getting.” I

don’t think I’ve ever heard…. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a minister

come before the Committee of Supply and attempt to sell their request on

that basis. However, the minister has said that’s the case. She refuses.

She is either refusing to tell us how much or she doesn’t know. It’s one

or the other.

What it does tell me — and it does tell the opposition, though —

is that the request has not yet been approved by Treasury Board. With

the Finance Minister here in the committee…. I can’t imagine any

Treasury Board or chair of Treasury Board who would grant approval on

that basis. “Here is $111 million, but we don’t know who we’re going to

give it to or how much we’re going to give them.”

Maybe the minister could confirm that. As of today’s date, the

allocation of this amount has not been approved by Treasury

Board.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: Yes, the allocation has been approved by Treasury

Board.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s enlightening. That suggests a level of spending

scrutiny heretofore unknown by Treasury Board. We can speculate about

what the allocation will be, as between the foundation and the trust.

We’re obliged to speculate, because the minister refuses to give us any

additional information. Maybe it’s a 50-50 split. Maybe it’s $55,500,000

to each of them. Let’s assume it’s that, because the minister refuses to

tell us differently.

I can’t imagine, within government, an approval being granted

where the agency, the minister, and the chair of Treasury Board, charged

with giving that approval, wouldn’t know how much money is going to

whom. I mean, to suggest that…. I’m flabbergasted. But that sounds like

it’s the minister’s story to the committee — that she went to the

Treasury Board and got approval for $111 million, and we’ll figure out

how to spend it later. One is forced to draw that conclusion based on

what the minister is prepared to disclose to this committee.

I guess, one last time: is that really the minister’s story? Is

she really refusing to share with this committee or disclose to this

committee the details of the allocation between two external agencies?

By the way, let’s just make that point as well. When these funds are

transferred, they leave the government. Bye-bye.

The minister hasn’t presented any evidence of performance

agreements. She hasn’t presented any material or even hinted that they

exist. What she has done is read a press release that says: “We really

hope we can accomplish some of these things. We’re going to spend a

whole bunch of taxpayers’ money doing it by giving it to some outside

agencies that are well-intentioned and we think will do some good work.”

Well, that’s a level of accountability and scrutiny.

What baffles me is that this minister would never, ever have

proceeded on that basis as the mayor of her community. She never would

have proceeded on that basis. But I don’t know what happens when people

come over here to Victoria. I used to call it Juan de Fuca fever. I

guess now it’s Salish Sea fever. Something happens when they come

across, and, suddenly, the rules of common sense that heretofore would

have guided them seem to disappear.

I’m going to give the minister one more opportunity, to be fair.

Then I have one specific question. Then my colleague is going to

continue with some additional questioning.

To be clear, the minister’s story — and she appears to be sticking

to it, unless something happens in the next response — is that she wants

this committee to approve an additional expenditure of $111 million that

she says is going to go to two agencies, but she either can’t or won’t

tell us which agency is getting how much. Beyond some very vague

references to some things that she hopes those agencies will do, there

are no further details to be had.

[4:45 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: We are in the process of developing the performance measures and

accountability for each of the programs and for our delivery partners.

We’re negotiating these as we deliberate in the chamber today, so we

cannot disclose the final numbers as the work isn’t over.

Just as a reminder, Member, these are known and trusted entities

that we’re talking about here.

M. de Jong: Well, a couple of things. The minister describes programs as if

these are programs the government will be delivering and therefore have

some measure of ongoing control over. But she presumably will confirm

for the committee that once these funds have been transferred to the two

agencies…. And I hope the minister will agree that she hasn’t heard me

disparage the agencies themselves in any way whatsoever.

Our job is to protect the public interest and the public tax

dollars to have a good idea, a sense of what the moneys are going to be

spent on. But she will confirm, I suspect, for the committee that once

the funds have been transferred, the government maintains no ongoing

control over how those funds are expended and no ability to retrieve

them. Is that correct?

[4:55 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. P. Alexis: I appreciate the member’s interest in the issue. Any agreements

that are entered into with our trusted partners will be reviewed by

legal services and pass the scrutiny of the comptroller general. So yes,

these funds will be off government books this fiscal year.

For the record, all the agreements will have very clear

objectives, deliverables and reporting requirements.

M. de Jong: Will any of these funds transfer to the B.C. Agriculture in the

Classroom agency to support their B.C. school fruit and vegetable and

milk program?

Hon. P. Alexis: No, none of these supplemental estimates will be going towards the

B.C. agriculture in the schools classroom program.

M. de Jong: Well, I’m a bit surprised by that answer, because I thought what

the minister was going to say was “not directly” but potentially via one

of the two agencies that she’s transferring the money to, but it sounds

like she has stipulated that none of these funds can be used to assist

in the work of the B.C. ag in the classroom program. Is that

correct?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: To be clear, we are not transferring any funds directly to the

B.C. agriculture in the classroom program. Rather, we will be counting

on the two partners that we talked about earlier to administer the

funds.

M. de Jong: Right. So bottom line, the minister has no idea. The minister has

no idea whether there will be a flow-through to this agency.

That’s where the committee is left. The minister and the

government have come to parliament via the Committee of Supply seeking

spending authority — in this case, in the amount of $111 million. We

don’t know the programs. We don’t know the deliverables. We don’t know

the accountabilities. And, rather remarkably, we don’t even know the

amounts.

[5:05 p.m.]

And the minister really expects members of the committee to

support that request under those circumstances? She wouldn’t expect that

in any other capacity. She won’t receive that support from this member,

and, I expect, the members of the opposition.

Finally, I’ll say this before sending it back to others. My

criticism is not meant to be personal in any way, shape or form. I’ve

known the minister. She’s a new minister, and, I think, attempting as

best she can to perform her duties. But whoever sent her to this

committee to defend this supplementary estimate request in the absence

of even basic information that she could share with the members of the

committee should be ashamed of themselves, because they do a disservice

to this minister and, by extension, this committee and the people of

B.C., whose money we are, after all, dealing with.

The people are entitled to basic information about how their money

is being spent and who is getting it and how much. The minister has been

unable to share any of that information.

I. Paton: Thank you to my colleague for those insightful questions and

seeking answers that we have not had a satisfactory reply to.

Moving forward, we all know that every year, we have Ag Day at the

Legislature. Every year we are inundated with requests, especially

through what agriculture has been through in the last two or three years

with the heat dome, with the flooding, with the mudslides, with the

scorch virus that’s hit our blueberry crops, with having to dump milk

because of transportation issues getting to processing

plants.

Every year the groups come over here asking for help from the

Ministry of Agriculture — the main group being, of course, the B.C. Ag

Council and also the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, all the different

farmers institutes in this province, people from Ag in the

Classroom.

My question to the minister and her staff: with what we witness

every year at Ag Day at the Legislature, and the requests made by all

these different groups, were these groups contacted and requested to

initiate and put forth their opinions on how money could be spent of

this $111 million that’s been added to the budget?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: These programs are directly informed by the conversations we’ve

had and continue to have with industry, including the B.C. Food and

Beverage association and the B.C. Agriculture Council, which of course,

as you know, includes the B.C. Cattlemen and the B.C. Dairy Association,

which I have had conversations with.

[5:15 p.m.]

Of note, I’m almost at about 50 different meetings with producers

and associations, and I have heard loud and clear their need for

support.

I. Paton: This is interesting, because in this announcement, we use terms….

You know, I’m kind of old school. I’m well into my 60s, and I don’t

understand “woke” and different things. But “food security” and “food

supply chain” and “regional food systems” and “expanded local food

production businesses” — these are different, catchy terms that have

been used in this press release.

But as the minister said, and as I tried to explain, we have

farmers in this province that are financially suffering from the

mudslides on Highway 8 between Merritt and Spences Bridge. We have

farmers that still haven’t been compensated for damage to their homes

since the flooding in Abbotsford. We have farmers that have wiped out

their entire blueberry crops.

The list goes on and on. We have farmers that have the grape

industry, that have plants frozen out there waiting to hear if there’s a

replant program for their grapes, for their vines. We have farmers

waiting to find out if there’s a replant program for the tree fruit

industry for apples.

I’m thinking of $111 million, which is more than double the budget

that was put forward for ’22-23. Rather than these catchy terms that

I’ve been reading out, my question to the minister: why wouldn’t

consideration be put into financial benefits to all these things that I

just listed off rather than this program that we can’t get any answers

for, to IAF?

I know IAF is a great program. I’ve been familiar with it for

years. They monitor programs. But my question is: why wouldn’t the

consideration of all the issues that we have in agriculture in this

province in the last two or three years be a priority, versus what this

money is supposedly going to be spent for?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: The $111 million we are discussing today is about food security.

The issues that the member has identified are issues we do deal with in

our base budget, and I look forward to discussing those in our main

estimate debates.

I. Paton: In the press release, we talk about it: “This includes direct food

support to underserved people and communities through trusted community

partners such as Food Banks B.C. and the United Way.”

Through the trust and also through IAF, could you explain where

Food Banks B.C. and the United Way come in? It’s a big part of the press

release. How will IAF be providing service to the food banks of B.C.,

and what dollar figure would be going towards Food Banks B.C. and the

United Way?

Hon. P. Alexis: Those two programs, or the food bank that was mentioned, are

actually through Social Development and Poverty Reduction. It’s not

coming from Agriculture. The $111 million we’re talking about today are

not going to the food banks. That’s a separate ministry.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that answer. We will see on that

tomorrow with the other ministry that has $49 million added to their

budget.

Can the minister confirm that the Ministry of Finance approached

the ministry to identify candidates for the use of the surplus? In other

words, did the Ministry of Finance go to the Ministry of Agriculture and

say: “Look, here are several different ideas we have for groups involved

in agriculture in the province of B.C. that desperately could use some

extra money right now?”

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: As I said earlier, it was in December that the Premier asked me to

identify ways I could advance and accelerate my mandate

deliverables.

I. Paton: Let’s assume, then, that the Ministry of Agriculture staff —

because the minister only came on board in about December — must have

put their heads together and decided: “Okay, we need a large amount of

money to go towards some programs that will be run outside of

government.” We haven’t been able to find out if there’s accountability

for what these programs are going to do.

I guess the other question is: how did staff reach out to decide

that this is what $111 million will be spent on? How did they arrive to

exactly $111 million? It sounds like $100 million might have been an

even number, but $111 million is kind of a very specific number. It

sounds like it’s being divided by two agencies, IAF and the trust. That

is my question.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: Food security is top of mind for British Columbia, and that’s why

it appeared in my mandate letter.

We also know what industry needs, because of the extensive

consultation that we’ve embarked on. Based on that, we developed

proposals that I believe will have the greatest impact. These programs

are designed to help the producers and the processors, because we know

how hard it has been to make ends meet. Basically, we need to make food

more affordable for British Columbians.

[5:35 p.m.]

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I know there is some

experience at the panel with the IAF, and it looks like we don’t have an

answer for this 50 percent of the $111 million that will be going to IAF

to run programs.

I’m wondering what exact programs, now that this money is being

allocated to IAF to run these programs, and how many are going to be

allocated and run out of IAF from this $111 million?

Hon. P. Alexis: We expect that the Indigenous food affordability and food security

fund will be administered by the New Relationship Trust, and the balance

of the programs will be administered by the IAF.

I. Paton: Sorry, I just missed the first part of that. Could you please

repeat that?

Hon. P. Alexis: My pleasure. We expect that the Indigenous food affordability and

food security fund will be administered by the New Relationship

Trust.

Do you want me to repeat the rest? Are we okay? Okay.

[5:40 p.m.]

I. Paton: Once again, it looks like we’ve got two entities, the trust and

the IAF. Once again, we’ll ask. Is there a dollar figure for the $111

million split between those two entities? Can we ask again what those

figures would be for each entity?

Hon. P. Alexis: This question has already been canvassed by the member for

Abbotsford West. As I explained, we are in the process of negotiating

agreements with our partners, and the specific funding announcements

will be available once those agreements are finalized.

I. Paton: Thank you for that answer.

How do we know, then, that the figure is exactly $111 million if

we’re still negotiating on how that money is going to be

used?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: The $111 million is our total allocation. Specific program amounts

are still being negotiated. As soon as the agreements are finalized, we

will be in a position to share the dollar values.

M. Bernier: I appreciate my colleague the shadow minister for just allowing me

a moment here.

I’m curious, then, if the minister can elaborate a little bit.

We’ve heard through the last hour or two in the House here, especially

from the member for Abbotsford West, that we’re expected to believe that

this minister knows that $111 million is the right number, supposedly,

applied for this — I’m going to put words in the minister’s mouth right

now — but we’re still in negotiations.

We have to ask the question, because the minister is trying to get

the House to support this, but we have nothing and no information to be

able to do that. I’ll put this in a couple of different ways.

The minister said that Treasury Board supported this initiative.

The question that I will have, then, is: did the minister herself

actually go to Treasury Board? I’ve sat on the board. I understand how

the process works.

Did the minister actually, personally, go to Treasury Board and

apply and ask for $111 million, and if she did, what explanation did she

give to Treasury Board that $111 million is the right number that she

needed? I’d be very, very surprised, knowing how Treasury Board works,

that they would have said, “Yes, absolutely; here’s $111 million,” with

no information.

Obviously, information had to be shared. How did the minister and

the ministry come up with $111 million being the right number to apply

for from treasury, even though we don’t know, because the minister’s not

telling us, how that money will be spent?

How did they determine that $111 million is the right number,

especially since the minister has repeatedly said that they don’t know

what they’re going to get because they’re still in

negotiations?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: The $111 million was made available by Treasury Board to the

ministry. To suggest that we don’t know what the dollars are for is

inaccurate. I’ve been clear about objectives, programs and partners that

will be administering the funds, so to suggest that there hasn’t been

transparency is not something that I agree with.

M. Bernier: That’s an interesting answer from the minister. If you listen to

that again, she was presented the money or given the money by Treasury

Board. My question was: did the minister herself do some form of

analysis? Did she research where she felt the best place was to spend

money and what was needed? Then did she go to Treasury Board and

advocate for $111 million specifically for these

organizations?

I mean, I’ll call a spade a spade. What it sounds like here is

that the Premier said: “You are going to get $111 million of year-end

funding. Figure out where you’re going to put it.” I haven’t heard

anything to the contrary to that from this minister. That in itself puts

all of the challenges that we have when we look at these supplemental

estimates through almost every minister that’s been coming in here….

It’s the: “Trust us, but we’re not going to give you any information.”

This one here is more troubling than a lot of the other ones that I’ve

heard through the course of this week.

I’ll give the minister another chance. Maybe she can clarify.

Maybe I misunderstood what she meant when she said that treasury gave

her $111 million. Did the minister do her analysis and do her work,

which is usually required of a minister? Did she go to Treasury Board

and say: “Here’s my work; here’s my documentation. I need $111 million

for these organizations, because here are the parameters”?

The minister has been careful with her words in saying that they

don’t know how much money is going to each group yet. They’re in

negotiations. But I just want to clarify this for the House, which will

help us in determining how this process is going.

Again, did the minister do the work and ask for $111 million

specifically, or was she told, which were her words that I heard just

now, by Treasury Board: “This is how much you get. Figure out how to

spend it”?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: Of course, I went to Treasury Board with a number of requests

based on an analysis and recommendations from staff, and Treasury Board

allocated $111 million through supplemental estimates.

I. Paton: My next question would be…. We’ve narrowed it down that there’s

$111 million that’s going to go out to two agencies, the New

Relationship Trust and IAF. My question is: what other stakeholders were

consulted before the money was marked or issued? For instance, B.C. Ag

Council, B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, the SFU centre for agricultural

research and innovation, the B.C. Tree Fruits association, Small-Scale

Meat Producers Association…. There are so many associations.

My question: what other stakeholders were consulted or asked about

the use of this money before it was decided to be used just for the two

entities, the New Relationship Trust and the IAF?

[6:00 p.m. - 6:05 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: We chose the two partners because they had the ability and the

history to deliver and administer the funds. The groups that you

mentioned, among others, are the intended recipients for many of these

programs.

I have to say. I’ve learned so much in the past couple of months,

and I’m really looking forward to these associations benefiting from the

programs that are under development.

Madam Chair, can we just take a little health break,

please?

The Chair: We’ll call, maybe, a three-minute break.

Hon. P. Alexis: Sure. Three minutes is fine. Thank you.

The Chair: We’ll be in recess for three minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:06 p.m. to 6:12 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order.

I. Paton: We don’t have a lot of time, but I know we’ll have a bit of time

tomorrow afternoon, from what I’m told, which I’m looking forward

to.

Apparently, perhaps half — I’m not sure; we can’t get a figure out

of anyone — of the $111 million…. How will it be divided up? But correct

me if I’m wrong. The New Relationship Trust does not appear to have an

Indigenous agricultural food or related programs, so who will be tasked

with how they will spend their portion of the $111 million?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: The Indigenous Advisory Council will work in collaboration with

the New Relationship Trust.

In returning to the earlier line of questioning, I appreciate the

interest and do want to be transparent. With the caveat that these

amounts can change, we expect the new relationships trust will receive

approximately $30 million. The balance of the $111 million will go to

the IAF for the other programs.

I. Paton: We got an answer that we asked for about two hours ago. So thank

you to the minister. We’re hoping those are accurate figures. I think

we’ll probably write those down.

I hope we have time for a few more today. When we talk of

blockbuster spending, boy, here’s another one. Now I’m trying to do my

math with a budget of $107 million for the ’22-23 fiscal year and then a

supplementary of $111 million. Now this morning is an announcement for

the exact same things — food security of $200 million.

Can the minister explain to me these three figures and where the

announcement this morning comes in with $200 more million that are to be

spent towards food security in B.C.?

Hon. P. Alexis: Funding of the $200 million that was announced this morning

includes funding of the $111 million for agriculture and food, which

we’re debating right now; funding that will be the subject of debate

with the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction; and other

funding sources that will be directed to food security that will be the

subject of our main estimates debate with either myself or the Minister

of Finance.

[6:20 p.m.]

I. Paton: If I do my math, the $111 million is part of the $200 million. But

$49 million goes to poverty reduction. So are we asking for a

supplemental of another 30-something-million dollars over and above the

$111 million?

Hon. P. Alexis: This is not a supplementary item. It’s part of the contingencies —

that remainder that you’re referring to.

I. Paton: I appreciate that answer. Earlier on in the afternoon, we asked on

many occasions, through my colleague from Abbotsford West, for a

breakdown of the $111 million. I’m kind of looking for some

transparency. We were told that they couldn’t provide that answer two

hours ago because of negotiations that were still taking place. But now

we’re told that there is a split up, and we were given a figure for the

amount that’s going to the trust.

To the minister: could you explain why we’re able to get a figure

now of how the $111 million is being divvied up, as to two hours ago,

there was no answer to that?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: I was reluctant to read into the record precise amounts given that

we’re still negotiating with our partners. However, in the interests of

transparency, and with a caution…. These numbers may shift.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND

AND RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); A. Walker in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply,

Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the

supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource

Stewardship.

I recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 38(S): ministry operations, $100,000,000.

The Chair: Does the minister have some opening remarks?

Hon. N. Cullen: You know I do. The microphone is in front of me.

It’s my pleasure to speak today about the supplemental item for

estimates from the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource

Stewardship.

I acknowledge that we’re joining, all of us gathered here today,

in fine form, on the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples’

territory, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

Joining me today are deputy minister Lori Halls; James Mack,

assistant deputy minister of the water fisheries and coastal policies

and planning division; and Sonia Martins, our assistant deputy minister

and executive financial officer, corporate services, for the natural

resource ministries more broadly.

I’m here today to outline the ministry’s investment of $100

million to co-develop, with First Nations, a new watershed security

fund. For far too long in British Columbia, we’ve taken B.C.’s abundant

freshwater sources for granted. Unfortunately, today many watersheds in

B.C. are facing challenges that will require new management approaches

to help ensure that they remain sustainable for future

generations.

Failing to act now will leave these precious watersheds vulnerable

to impacts from climate change. British Columbians have experienced

firsthand the sudden and devastating effects of climate change, from

atmospheric rivers to almost annual firestorm events. We know the time

for action is now, and that’s why we’re protecting B.C.’s water and

watersheds as a priority for our government.

[1:40 p.m.]

In the fall of 2020, our government committed to developing a new

watershed security strategy and a watershed security fund. First Nations

were already flagging the health of watersheds as a key priority, and it

is a shared commitment in our Declaration Act action plan.

That’s why we’ve been working together to co-develop, one, a new

First Nations water table as a primary pathway to co-development and,

second, a co-developed policy intentions paper and public engagement

opportunity for new watershed security strategy. I was incredibly

honoured to announce this work here in the Legislature just yesterday

with Chief Lydia Hwitsum, chief of the Cowichan Tribes and co-chair of

the B.C.–First Nations Water Table.

Co-development is a new and growing important process for us as

government. The importance of this work for our relationship with First

Nations is obvious. We also heard from our First Nations partners that

significant resources are needed to do this work. This sentiment was

echoed broadly by British Columbians, local communities, businesses and

environmental groups during our first public engagement on the strategy.

That was concluded last year.

Our investment of $100 million into a watershed security fund will

help maintain healthy watersheds and ensure that good-quality fresh

water is available to support our ecosystems and our economy in

communities throughout British Columbia, now and for future generations.

It’s also important to recognize that the fund is intended to grow with

future contributions from the federal government and philanthropic

community.

We know that healthy watersheds are resilient buffers for climate

change, because they can reduce, and, at times, prevent the impacts and

costs related to floods, droughts and wildfires. We already have living

examples in British Columbia of work that was done in watersheds that

helped mitigate atmospheric river events that we’ve seen just in the

past few years. Water is obviously also integral to First Nations

cultural and spiritual values. We all collectively heard that last night

at the Pacific Salmon Foundation, which had an event that all members

were invited to.

Through the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, we are co-developing a

watershed security strategy that will benefit all of us now and for

future generations to come. We’ve also launched, on March 6 of just this

week, a policy intentions paper and a broad public engagement process so

that we can hear from all British Columbians on how to best provide

watershed security for B.C.

The actions we take will build safer communities and a stronger,

more resilient British Columbia. It is the most significant contribution

the province can make to the collective efforts to protect wild salmon.

It is also a significant contribution to provide safe and secure

drinking water to B.C. communities, as flagged by our Auditor General as

well as B.C.’s provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry.

This strategy is also important for our economy, because healthy

watersheds sustain good jobs and sustainable communities. We have

figures from 2019. One would estimate that these have only grown. The

watersheds sector supported 48,000 jobs in British Columbia, an

estimated contribution to our GDP north of $5 billion.

Healthy watersheds and ecological integrity are central to this

relationship. We look forward to working with First Nations leaders and

elders on the watershed security strategy and fund to ensure

long-lasting measures to protect our watershed health. I look forward to

answering any questions that my colleague may have.

The Chair: Now, Members, as the Committee of Supply examines the

supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource

Stewardship, please remember that the debate must focus on the

additional funding request for the ministry. Consideration of

supplemental estimates does not allow for an expansive look at

ministry operations in the way that the consideration of the main

estimates does.

I would ask the members hold their broad questions for the

upcoming main estimates process and keep their questions to the

minister focused on the supplemental funding request, an overview of

which has been provided on page 1 of the supplemental estimates

book.

L. Doerkson: I will definitely take that advice in a serious way. I want to

preface our conversation today and, certainly, any of my comments and

questions, just with a comment that I believe in this work in a very

sincere way. I think that I can be very supportive, Minister, to all of

the work that I think we’ll discuss this afternoon.

I certainly do have a number of questions. There’s no question

that this is a lot of money. I do want to understand that fully. I also

want to note that in any way that I can, I do want to work across party

lines to make this good for all British Columbians. I just want that to

be clear.

[1:45 p.m.]

It has been suggested, of course, that that kind of work should be

ongoing, through the mandate letters and such. I do appreciate the

briefing that I have had with respect to the marine park information

that we received last week. But certainly, I would love to have more

engagement going forward.

There’s much confusion, I think, on our landscape with respect to

inventories and such. Some of that we’ll talk about today. There are

certainly, in the intentions paper, a number of things I would like to

talk about with measurements and how we collect that information. But I

think there is quite a bit of confusion on our landscape with respect

to, perhaps, whether this is provincial or federal or who we contact

locally. I think that’s a serious point to make.

I’ll certainly ask a number of questions on many different topics.

I will definitely try to stay within the guardrails that we’ve talked

about here today.

I’ll have many questions around partners that may want to access

funding, groups like rural fire departments desperate to build, in

strategic locations, dry hydrants that would help them on the landscape

to fight wildfire. I think, certainly, the opening comments touched on

some of the damage that has been done. There is definitely a need to

understand some of those things better.

Residents of Sheridan Lake, in my own riding, last week…. Now,

this has changed a little bit, but residents have noted that the lake is

actually four feet lower than its high water mark right now. We’ve had

about five feet of snow in the last two weeks, so maybe things will be a

little bit better going forward.

The fact is that this is on the minds of British Columbians.

There’s no question about it, and it is very serious work.

I just want to note that also, with respect to things that are

happening in my riding…. I know that we’ll talk about the province

today. Certainly, even Lac la Hache, which is a big lake, is changing.

The residents there have mentioned that things are changing there. I

don’t know that we have a full understanding.

I really hope that this work or this fund, whatever it may be, and

we’ll find that out this afternoon, will help with respect to those

types of things and, of course, how it might help to derail some of the

damage that’s happening with respect to flooding and wildfires and all

those kinds of things.

I think that there certainly are things that we could do that

would help. We’ll talk, hopefully. I’ll have questions about some of

those types of projects as we go forward this afternoon.

Also, I want to note that I do have a number of colleagues that

will join us throughout the afternoon with questions, although I’m a

little bit alone right now. Certainly, the Green Party will also have a

number of questions.

I guess what we’ll do here, if it pleases the Chair, is get

underway.

The first question I have for the minister is: how was the

decision made to include $100 million for the watershed security fund in

the supplementary estimates?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you to my colleague for the question and also the

introduction. Discussions like this are ultimately always local, right?

Looking at each of our constituencies and knowing that the watersheds

upon which we rely…. It doesn’t matter where we live in the province.

Watersheds and the water feed the life that sustains us. Seeing the

changing environment, the increasing pressure….

I think if I were to comment on the general framing of the

discourse, it’s around the resiliency. How do we build up the resiliency

of watersheds with the changing environment, more intensity of floods

and fires, changing weather patterns that we haven’t seen before? I know

living in the North, where I live, it is consistently distressing to

watch our glaciers recede further and further into the mountains and the

patterns that we have come to expect consistently shifting.

[1:50 p.m.]

The resiliency of the watersheds to be able to absorb that change

is the intent and will be the outcome of this work. Very specifically,

with respect to the setting of priorities, the Minister of Finance sits

down with the Premier, in what is an unusual year with a surplus budget,

to identify key priorities to land in the supplementary estimates, which

is what we’re talking about here today.

There were a number of publicly discussed priorities that the

government went through: supports for health, affordability,

reconciliation, climate change and emergency preparedness and

infrastructure support for communities throughout B.C. One can see very

clearly how a watershed security fund would fall into those priorities.

As to the determination of that, that was between the Minister of

Finance and the Premier, and she would be the best person to ask about

this.

Last I’ll say is that we made this commitment back in 2020 that we

were going to stand a watershed security strategy, recognizing also the

importance of having a fund behind it. A fund that could grow over time

was incredibly important to the partners that we’re going to need to do

the work. Having a strategy without the fund was not seen as credible.

Hence us finding the opportunity through the Minister of Finance’s

decision to fund the $100 million that we’re seeing here

today.

L. Doerkson: Well, thank you for that. We might come back to the

glacier-receding comment in a minute. But just so I’m clear, then, this

was not necessarily determined by the ministry. I mean, I can appreciate

that there was some work that was done in 2020, but this is the Finance

Minister, then, coming to this ministry, suggesting: “We have an extra

$100 million. Here it is.” Is that correct?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you for the question. From the very beginning and the work

that has been done through the public consultation — and now my

colleague will have seen the intentions paper that has gone out

publicly, and we’re already seeking engagement back on that — as I said

before, the intent was always to have a strategy and a fund backing it

up.

The Finance Minister sits down with the Premier under the rubrics

that I talked about, those various aspects of things to support across

all of government. The support that we’re seeing today or that we saw on

Monday was an indication of all of government support for a watershed

security fund.

So that decision and process that goes through between the Finance

Minister herself and the Premier is the process that they chose.

Questions directly about how that process works between the two offices

are best directed towards the Minister of Finance.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that. I guess what I’m trying to understand is how

the need for this expenditure was arrived at. I mean, why couldn’t it

have been in another ministry, for instance, or somewhere else? I can

appreciate that there was a surplus, and I can appreciate that the

Finance Ministry has decided to spread this money out. But why not

somewhere else, and why here? How, I guess, was the need for this

one-time expenditure identified?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I think the specific question was: where was the need arrived at

in terms of having a fund? It came out of that direct consultation with

our partners — First Nations, environment groups, local business groups

— that the strategy was very important. The need for a fund was also

identified with respect to: why this ministry? We hold this file. The

Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship holds the file over a

watershed security strategy and a fund. So in terms of dispersing the

fund, it makes perfect sense that this is the ministry that does

it.

Again, to the member’s question about the decision-making process

over the allocations. I can list them again, but I think the member is

probably well familiar with them, in terms of what the government’s

declared intentions were across all of government and the conversation

had between the Minister of Finance and the Premier’s office, with

respect to those priorities and then what got funded through the

surplus. That is what we see here today.

L. Doerkson: I don’t know if that necessarily answers my question. I guess what

I’m trying to…. I can appreciate that there were conversations had with

the Minister of Finance and certainly the Premier of the province. I

guess what I’m trying to understand is: how did this ministry sort of

take priority over other ministries for this money?

I can appreciate that the work that we’re going to talk about this

afternoon is obviously incredible work, and it needs to be done. But I’m

just wondering how this became a priority for the government.

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, when the Minister of Finance has an opportunity — and, of

course, this is not an every day, every year opportunity…. The Minister

of Finance was very clear, with support of the Premier, about the

supports for…. I can go through the list: health, affordability,

reconciliation, climate, emergency preparedness and infrastructure

supports.

We were grateful that this project was chosen. It’s been a little

over two-year commitment from our government — two years, I think it’s

fair to say — with respect to standing both a strategy and a fund to

back it up. Again, that consistent feedback we had through our

consultations said how important this was.

That case was made. The Minister of Finance sits down with the

Premier, with what funds are available, and then makes a decision as to

how to allocate those funds. I believe there are opportunities,

certainly, to direct questions specifically on how things were

prioritized to the person who made those decisions. That’s the Minister

of Finance.

L. Doerkson: Okay. I understand, and I’ll try to get that answer a different

way, perhaps from a different ministry.

Can the minister tell me at what point in time was this need for

this one-time expenditure identified?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, to my colleague, the identification of a need for a fund

was clearly understood from our government through the public

consultations and through our partners. That goes back to 2020 when we

first initiated this idea.

In terms of the…. I think my colleague is asking for the point in

time when the decision was made. That has to be directed towards the

Minister of Finance, because she would have made that decision, again,

most likely in consultation with the Premier’s office. On the

prioritization and the list and the when, she would best be able to

answer those.

L. Doerkson: I can appreciate there were all kinds of things happening in the

Finance Minister’s office. Obviously, the minister must have made a case

for this. I know that work started back in 2020.

At what point in time did your ministry approach the Minister of

Finance to suggest that you would like part of the funding that has been

a bit of a windfall?

Hon. N. Cullen: As I said before, we’ve been very consistent for the last couple

of years about what we heard from the groups that we consulted with,

particularly First Nations, in terms of strategy and a fund. We heard

consistently that a fund was of critical importance. We talked about it

in both of our opening statements, in a way — doing the work.

So that’s been a long-known request from our partners, from our

ministry, and something the Finance Minister and her officials would

have known of, and the Premier’s office, for at least two years. In

terms of the moment in time when they decided to agree to this fund