Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A

Virtual Meeting

Thursday, July 16, 2020

Afternoon Meeting

Issue No. 10

ISSN 2563-3511

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture (continued)

I. Paton

Hon. L. Popham

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

B. Stewart

J. Thornthwaite

S. Thomson

J. Johal

D. Barnett

C. Oakes

M. Stilwell

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2020

The committee met at 1:32 p.m.

[M. Dean in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $77,261,000

(continued) .

The Chair: I’d like to start by recognizing that I’m speaking to you

today from the traditional territory of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people,

now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I’m very honoured

and privileged to do my work here and also to represent them in the

Legislature.

We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates

of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. L. Popham: No, I don’t. I am just looking forward to continuing the

process.

I. Paton: To start off after lunch today, I would just like to read out a

quote from the minister, as a reminder to the minister, as a reminder of

what is applicable to my questioning in the Ministry of Agriculture

budget estimates.

Her colleague the hon. Finance Minister delivered the following

statement into Hansard on Tuesday, June 23: “As I said that day

when those dollars passed, we are accountable for every dollar of that

$5 billion. The members know that. They know they have an opportunity

here, in estimates, during this session to debate those dollars. Each of

the ministers who have individual programs will be

responsible.”

Moving on, I would like to revisit the minister’s comment on the

Premier’s economic recovery task force. She said that numerous

stakeholders have been in touch with her ministry and her staff and

would be sure to convey their concerns to the Premier’s economic

recovery task force. Well, this is simply not good enough. I have a list

of members included on the task force in front of me. We see

representatives from businesses, Indigenous groups, social services and

creative arts, yet no mention of agriculture.

[1:35 p.m.]

What we see on the list of the Premier’s economic recovery task

force is, for instance, the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Chamber

of Commerce, the Surrey Board of Trade, the Federation of Labour, the

First Nations Major Projects Coalition, the Federation of Community

Social Services, SUCCESS and Creative B.C.

Representing over 60,000 farmers in British Columbia is the

British Columbia Agriculture Council. Why in the world wouldn’t the B.C.

Ag Council be representing agriculture on the Premier’s economic

recovery task force?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question.

Many of the concerns and challenges that have been felt through

the pandemic by the agriculture, fish and food processing sector have

been brought to us because my ministry has been hard at work making sure

we’ve made contact with people over the last three months. As I said

earlier, there have been well over 6,000 contacts made in my

ministry.

We are aware of the challenges. This is being passed through the

economic recovery task force. I also have my executive…. My deputy is

also working on a deputy’s committee which is passing that information

through to the Premier’s economic recovery task force.

I. Paton: I’d like to move on now to some housing issues regarding Bill 52.

I must say that in the last year, if I had a dollar for every phone call

and every email I’ve received from farmers, ranchers and rural property

owners throughout this province, I’d be very wealthy. This is a huge

issue.

I want to quote the Minister of Agriculture from CBC radio’s B.C.

Today. “If a family needs an additional home, even three additional

homes, to support their farming operation, they are very welcome to

apply to the Agricultural Land Commission. If the commission sees that

the application is being made within agricultural lands and the

additional residents are there to support the farming operation, they

will approve those applications.” The minister is suggesting that if a

family needs an additional home, even three…. That would be four homes

on a rural property or a farm, which, to me, is unheard of.

My question to the minister is: considering she is suggesting you

could actually have four homes on a farm, how many applications have

been approved through the ALC for such a thing — for even one extra

home, two extra homes, three extra homes? Are there any examples where

two, three or four extra homes have been approved in the last year by

the ALC?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Just so the member understands what’s happened over the last year,

there were 71 applications put forward for non-adhering residential

usage. Fifty-one of those applications were approved, and 20 of them

were refused.

I also, in speaking with the ALC…. It’s not unusual that there are

more than two houses on a farming property to support the farming

family. Although we don’t have the file number, there is one example

that is from the Okanagan with three dwellings being on a farm parcel to

support the family farm.

The member says he thinks it’s unheard of, but I’ve travelled a

lot throughout the province, especially through the Cariboo, and it’s

not unusual, in my view, that there’s more than one family home on a

piece of property.

I. Paton: Well, we must be, certainly, talking to different people, reading

different media outlets.

This is just such a huge issue in B.C. In fact, just the other

day, I had a call from up in Hixon, B.C., with an elderly couple living

in a small older house on a farm. This has to do with insurance, of all

things. Insurance companies are now saying to these folks, who have a

single-wide trailer on the farm as well…. The insurance agencies,

including down here….

An example is going to be my own farm in Delta. Insurance

companies are now saying: “We will not insure the secondary mobile home.

Under the legislation, if that mobile home burns down, it cannot be

rebuilt and replaced, because they’re only allowed one home on that

title property.” So there’s an example.

Even on my own family farm, I have my mother in a house built in

1905, and I live in my grandfather’s house, which was built in the

1930s. If one of those two houses were to burn down, we’re being told

that we cannot rebuild the second house because my mother is not

considered farm help.

Could you answer that for me, please?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. It’s good to clarify what can and what

can’t happen. So I appreciate the opportunity to do that.

If there was a residence that was affected by fire on a farm, if

it was a mobile home or a dwelling…. First off, all existing structures

are grandfathered. If one of those were to succumb to a fire, it would

actually just be a process of applying to build another residence to

replace it. That would go through the ALC.

As far as the insurance question, the rule hasn’t changed. It’s

just who administers the rule that has changed. It used to fall under

local government, but it was exactly the same rule. They would have the

ability to choose whether or not a building would be rebuilt, if it was

necessary for the farm operation. It used to fall under local

governments’ responsibility, and now it falls under the ALC

responsibility. The rule hasn’t changed.

I. Paton: To the minister: you’ve just said it’s not an issue; it’s not a

problem. How can this information get out to the B.C. bureau of

insurance, so that this gets out to insurance companies all through the

rural parts of B.C., which are suggesting to farm owners that they will

not insure secondary dwellings on farms?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I certainly can’t speak for the insurance companies, but

what I can tell you is that the rule hasn’t changed.

I. Paton: I have so many articles. It’s endless. I think the minister would

get the same agricultural newspapers and magazines and articles in local

newspapers. It’s absolutely endless. So many of them focus on Bill 52

and the issues of rural property owners trying to succeed with a

secondary home.

I’ve said for years, when I’ve made comments or speeches, that

I’ve travelled this province, and if the next generation of farmers

coming along are to succeed and buy into the family business as a

successful business, we need to allow family members and farm help to

live on the farm.

An example is Smithers. In Smithers, there are actually 11 dairy

farms up there. Some of them are 25 or 30 kilometres away from downtown

Smithers. A dairy farm is a 24-hour-a-day business. This is a farm that

has cows calving in the middle of the night, cows that are sick with

milk fever, horses that are foaling in the middle of the night. How

could you possibly expect family members to commute 25 kilometres and

live in an apartment in downtown Smithers when the father and mother own

an 800-acre dairy farm with one home on it?

There’s a housing crisis in this province. Every Monday night in

council, when I was on council…. It’s a no-brainer. All over this

province, councils, on Monday nights, add density to their

municipalities — two-lot splits, three-lot splits. We’ve got to make

houses narrow. We’ve got to put more houses per square foot on lots. Yet

in B.C., we have farms that are 100 acres, 800 acres, 1,200 acres, and

we’re saying that you can have one house, maybe two. I’m suggesting that

we should have three, maybe four.

If you have family members, sons and daughters, that want to be on

the farm, they deserve to live on the farm if they want to be part of

that farming operation. Even a former NDP Minister of Agriculture, David

Zirnhelt, had this to say:

“Policy needs to reflect the realities of farmers living on the land

and leaving the work in retirement. Attracting and retaining the next

generation in farming is critical to the survival of family farms….

Increasingly, recent generations have higher expectations of lifestyle

if they are going to be on the land. In short, decent housing, decent

income and a supportive, stimulating culture around us is necessary to

attract and retain people in the rural areas….

“Good housing in the rural areas is hard to come by, especially if

landowners are restricted to one home per parcel of land in the

agricultural zones…. Having more, better housing stock will help retain

and attract young families. Older folks like to have others around for

the heavy lifting and for emergencies.”

I have said this all along too. Rural communities and rural

landowners…. It’s also about succession of family members. It’s about

having grandpa and grandma on the farm. It’s about helping out with

child care and families looking after each other.

We have an issue in British Columbia with rural areas, where the

elementary schools are closing down. The community halls are not open

anymore. They’re closing down because there are not enough people living

in the rural areas. That’s why we need farm families to be on these

farms with multiple houses.

Another quote I’d like to bring forward is from the Fraser Valley

News of June 2020, and it’s a quote from the Minister of Agriculture:

“It takes a lot of people to run a large farm. Having parents, in-laws

and siblings on site helps many B.C. farms produce the food we need more

efficiently. Our government will continue to make life better for these

hard-working farming families.”

My question to the minister. After quotes like the one I just read

out, how in the world can we continue on with Bill 52 and the

legislation that is hurting people from putting secondary or third homes

on their family farms?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you to the critic. I couldn’t agree more. That’s why there

is no limit to the amount of applications that you can put forward to

the ALC for homes that can be built that support the family

farm.

[1:55 p.m.]

I. Paton: I’d like to look at some resolutions from UBCM about the same

issue. This isn’t just about farmers, ranchers, rural landowners in B.C.

that have got all of the issues with Bill 52. This comes down to

resolutions at UBCM and from chambers of commerce.

There’s a 31,000-person petition that got presented in the

Legislature last fall. Part of the petition reads: “Give equal

opportunities for all farmers to diversify and sell value-added farm

products independent of alcohol production.”

UBCM resolution B168, September of 2019, reads this: “To reinstate

the previous provisions of the legislation which facilitated the

construction of additional dwellings for farm help, manufactured homes

for immediate family members, accommodation above an existing farm

building or a second single-family dwelling.” It was endorsed

unanimously.

My third resolution is from Kootenay regional district. It was:

“Be it resolved that the province reinstate the previous provisions of

the legislation which facilitated the construction of additional

dwellings for farm help, manufactured homes for immediate family members

and accommodation over existing farm buildings or a second single-family

dwelling.”

When these resolutions are put forward at UBCM…. I find UBCM to be

very serious. The resolutions part of the program is very serious. I’ve

never been part of government yet to deal with resolutions. But have you

dealt with these resolutions that have been put forward at UBCM

regarding the restriction of secondary homes on rural

properties?

Hon. L. Popham: First off, I hope that the member is clear that if a farming

family has the requirement for an additional residence to help support

the family farm, there is a path forward to the ALC with an application.

I hope that the member understands that there’s no limit on the number

of homes a family farm can build if it supports the farming

operation.

I hope that the member is clear on that, and I hope that he is

able to also give that message to our farming families around the

province. I know he travels a lot around the province. Or he used to, as

I used to. It’s really important that people in the province get the

correct information.

Around the resolutions that came forward at UBCM, there has been

an ongoing engagement process with local government with my ministry.

Local government has been providing the input that explores all of those

additional residence options, and those were options that we laid out in

our intentions paper for residential flexibility.

[2:00 p.m.]

I. Paton: I have so many binders of interesting quotes here. I’d like to

read something that was sent to me from the Delta Farmers Institute,

which, of course, I’m quite closely connected to.

“Farm operations need flexibility for residential housing and

additional housing, particularly with the widespread challenges of

housing affordability and worker shortages. For instance, livestock

needs on-site supervision. In some cases, it is a travel distance issue

to obtain local staff. For many operations, having accommodation is

essential for competitiveness and can encourage diversity for existing

farmers and new entrants.”

I would like, at this point, to bring another example up. In my

travels, I was in Fort St. John. I’ve just had such a great opportunity

to check out all parts of British Columbia and all the different farming

operations. I met with a lovely older couple up in Fort St. John. We

sat, and we had coffee in their kitchen. They specifically asked me to

come over because on the edge of their huge canola and wheat farm was a

bit of a knoll, with mostly all trees and bush, but a clearing on that

knoll.

They really wanted their son and daughter-in-law and their

children to be able to take possession of that knoll and build a house

to live on the farm with their elderly mom and dad. But because they

were turned down by the ALC to subdivide off about five acres on that

knoll to build their own house…. Banks, we must understand, do not hand

out mortgages to people that don’t have their name on the title of a

piece of property. That’s another huge issue in this

province.

What would you say to this family — a great, hard-working family

with a huge history in the Peace country of farming — that their son and

daughter-in-law and grandchildren cannot separate off this five acres to

build a house in Fort St. John?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, first off, any of the regulations around subdividing on the

ALR have not changed. Those regulations exist as they did under the

member’s government. There’s been no change there. I do know that there

are financial mechanisms available to build more than one home on the

same title, and that’s demonstrated, by example, all around the

province, as the member has stated as well.

[2:05 p.m.]

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. We certainly must be getting different

reactions from people all over the province. I am constantly getting

calls and trying to get back to people who, disappointedly, time after

time, are being turned down for applications for things like I just

spoke of.

Here’s another situation over on Vancouver Island from a friend.

Meghan writes: “There are no promises. Our lives are on hold, waiting

for the minister to correct the housing constraints that the minister

has put on us, which have ultimately had a negative impact on our

abilities to farm and been exacerbated throughout this

pandemic.”

Now, this young lady and her parents on the farm wanted to move a

single-wide trailer on to a rural property on Vancouver Island. They

actually wanted to place the trailer on an old site of a tennis court,

so they would not even be putting it on any sort of black soil. But of

course, again, they were turned down by the ALC.

Is there any reason why that should happen?

Hon. L. Popham: First off, it’s really important to have correct information. So I

would just like to correct the member. He said that nobody is having any

applications approved through the ALC. In fact, that’s not true. There

were 71 applications. Fifty-one were approved, and 20 weren’t. That’s a

72 percent approval rating. The vast majority of applications are being

approved, first off.

Then the good news is that there’s a path forward for farming

families. The example that the member brought up…. The good news is if

an additional residence needs to be put in place to support the family

farm for farming purposes, then there is an application process that’s

available for that family.

I. Paton: I just want to quickly read into the record…. I mean, I’ve got so

many letters here of people that have been turned down.

The McDonald family in Salmon Arm, with a small property, have

been turned down for a second home. They’re retired over by Adams Lake.

They want to move over to the property in Salmon Arm with their daughter

and son-in-law.

The Watt family of Loon Lake and Clinton turned down. Mr. Corson

turned down. Mindy Parmar turned down. The list is absolutely endless.

So I’m very confused by these answers.

[2:10 p.m.]

I’d like to move on to value-added. Also hitting the media and the

newspapers like everything else has with Bill 52 and Bill 15 in the last

couple years are the Abbotsford Gleaners. What a wonderful group. I’ve

been there with an MLA from Abbotsford. We both know them very well.

What a great group of faith-based volunteers. Of course, all they wanted

to do was to expand their operation to put in a bit of a bigger

lunchroom and some washrooms. That was turned down by the

ALC.

Talk about “out of sight, out of mind.” They had this great old

house, probably built in the late ’70s, and they turned it into a

recovery centre for women in Abbotsford. They’ve been told by the ALC to

close down the women’s recovery centre on this piece of property. So the

Gleaners were shut down. They’ve been told to move off, on the same

property, this wonderful faith-based house for women who need help with

recovery.

Then there’s the Hop Fest in Chilliwack. Maan Farms were under

scrutiny in Abbotsford. The Glow event was cancelled in Langley. Peteys

Pumpkin Patch made all the television stations for closing down his

Halloween pumpkin patch.

The Rusted Rake on Vancouver Island, of course, hit all the media.

A great little venue. People would go there for lunch with products that

were grown on the farm, whether it was poultry, pork, vegetables or

soups and sandwiches.

Bird’s Eye Cove farm, up in Nanoose Bay, was shut down because

they were having pizza nights on Friday nights, with products grown on

their own farm, up around Maple Bay.

My question. Can you explain to me…? All these wonderful events

have been shut down. Is there any progress? Have any of them been given

the right to go ahead in the upcoming fall season?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I know the member knows this, but I’ll just remind him that the

agritourism rules haven’t changed under our government. In fact, they

were changed under the previous government.

I. Paton: That’s it?

Hon. L. Popham: Is that a question?

I. Paton: I’d like to further read out a quote from the B.C. Cattlemen’s

Association regarding value-added enterprises on farms in British

Columbia. I quote from the November 20, 2019, B.C. Cattlemen’s

Association submission on supporting B.C. farmers and ranchers. It goes

on to say:

“This at a time when ranching families need the ministry and the

province to stand up for agriculture, not regulate farm families out of

business….

“The B.C. Cattlemen’s Association has established the following

founding principles for this engagement….

“Bona fide operations must be allowed to diversify income, through a

variety of means, as long as the productive capacity of the land is not

diminished.”

I’ll go on to read a quote that comes from the petition that was

handed in. “The government should give equal opportunities to all

farmers to diversify and sell value-added farm products independent of

alcohol production.” Then it goes on to say….

An

article came out just in the last couple of days. It’s so

shocking for people in British Columbia to see that the Rusted Rake, an

example of a great little eatery using farm products from their farm on

Vancouver Island, was shut down. I don’t know what the status is right

now of the Rusted Rake.

There’s a little farm operation and eatery on Bowen Island called

Orbaek. You may have read this article. Orbaek is being allowed to

function, on agricultural land in the agricultural land reserve, on

Bowen Island. It’s considered a food lounge. Apparently they can stay,

whereas other similar operations continuing in areas of B.C. are being

shut down.

Now, what is the difference between an eatery and a food lounge

that is being allowed to stay on Bowen Island?

Hon. L. Popham: I know the member knows this. It would be, I think, important if

the member doesn’t know this. We could have a conversation to talk about

it. The Rusted Rake didn’t have local government approval for running

its restaurant.

I guess my question is back to the critic. Does he know

this?

I. Paton: My answer to that question is…. It’s not really about the Rusted

Rake. It’s about dozens upon dozens of farming operations in B.C. that

are basically doing the same thing. They’re non-compliant.

I could name so many in my community of Delta on Westham Island.

I’m in fear that the ALC is one day going to drive out there and go:

“Wow, you can’t do this. You’re selling more than 50 percent of the

product that you grew on your farm. Maybe you’re parking too many cars

on the field as a parking lot.”

I mean, there are just so many successful operations taking place

that are good for agriculture. I don’t know what the issue is with the

Rusted Rake and why it has been shut down.

I’d like to move on now. I want to go back….

The Chair: Excuse me, Member. The minister indicated she wanted to

speak.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’m still curious. Does the member know why the Rusted Rake wasn’t

allowed to proceed? It was because it didn’t have local government

approval at the time. Does the member know that?

[2:20 p.m.]

I. Paton: I don’t actually know that. I just know that I’ve been hoarded

with hundreds of emails and phone calls about…. I’ve even been to

meetings at the Rusted Rake with so many community members in that area

upset that the Rusted Rake is sitting there closed right now, where it

was so popular for the locals to come in and have coffee and lunch at

the Rusted Rake and make use of products from the farm that they were

farming.

Hon. L. Popham: I’m wondering if the member would like to have a

briefing.

I’m also wondering. Does the member believe that local government

should be ignored?

I. Paton: I don’t think the questions are being actually thrown at me. So

I’d like to move on.

We’re talking about support for the family farm, and the minister

brought that up on several occasions regarding secondary homes. Could

she tell me exactly what the term “supporting the family farm” would

refer to? Does this refer to supporting seniors living on the farms, or

does it mean supporting through child care or for farm workers? I’d just

like to know her definition of “supporting the family farm.”

Hon. L. Popham: It’s a great question. Anybody who’s been involved in farming….

The member has told us many times how involved he’s been in farming. I

have been involved in farming.

We know there are many, many activities that support a farm. If a

family is farming a piece of ALR land, and they need support with

whatever activities in order to be successful at running that farm…. It

could include just about anything that a family would need to run a

business.

But let’s be clear. These activities would support a family

farming operation. Sometimes that means child care. Sometimes that means

having your aged parents live closer to you. Sometimes that means having

accommodation for people helping out with the farming

activities.

There’s such a number of activities that support family farms. I

can say that that’s why they’re the heart of communities so often,

because they include so many people in the operations. I’ve visited many

farms where the entire family is…. It’s all hands on deck. So I would

say that that would be a great definition of what supports a family

farm.

I. Paton: I’ll get back, once again, to one of my favourite groups — and I

brought this up already — the Abbotsford Gleaners Society and the

women’s shelter. Could I just get an explanation of where that stands

right now, if they’re back in business, or are they still being forced

off the property?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The women’s shelter were told that they had two years to relocate.

They put in an application for reconsideration, and that application is

in process.

I. Paton: I just want to quickly move on. I’ve got so many things to chat

about. I just wanted to give you not so much a question but an

update.

I have two families in

the Kootenays — I’ll call them Tim and, another family, Corey — around

Canal Flats and Nakusp. They’re very, very concerned, as a local farmers

association, with recreational trails for ATV, motorbikes and whatnot

going through ALR land.

I’m just wondering if…. They’re desperately looking for answers,

and they’re desperately saying that motorized ATVs, etc., are not only a

fire hazard but they’re a hazard to livestock, taking down fences and

not closing gates and things like that.

These are two issues in the Kootenays. Recreational trails are

being built and put forward for ATVs, etc. So I’d appreciate it if the

ALC could possibly look into that.

My other question, getting back to the housing quickly before we

move forward. The intentions paper came out. Now, you’ve told me all day

long now that secondary homes are no problem, even third homes, etc. So

why, then, would there be another NDP consultation? We need to study

this some more. Why was there an intentions paper that came out where

people weren’t told to put in their opinion on this particular issue?

And the intentions paper still hasn’t been finished and hasn’t been

brought forward.

Can you tell me a bit about the intentions paper, why it’s needed

if you’re telling me that people can, no problem, apply for second and

third homes?

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, Member. Thank you.

Hon. L. Popham: I also hope that the member understands that there’s a path

forward for people who own ALR land who are farmers. So you can apply to

have an additional residence. You can apply to have two additional

residences, as long as that residence supports the requirements to run

the farm successfully. There’s an agricultural lens that is used when

decisions are made on the agricultural land reserve by the Agricultural

Land Commission.

We also have people in the province that own agricultural land

reserve land that aren’t farming. The intentions paper was specifically

to address concerns and needs that people may have who aren’t

farming.

I. Paton: When will the intentions paper be released?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: It’s unfortunate that the member doesn’t know that the intentions

paper was released. I’d be happy to send him a copy. That was released

on January 27. We then asked for comments to come back to us.

Initially, we said that we would accept comments until April 17, but

because of the current situation with the pandemic, we actually extended

this engagement process with local government, just to reflect our

current situation.

I can absolutely send the member a copy of the intentions

paper.

I. Paton: Thank you. I stand corrected. I did know that. What I was

referring to, I guess, was the comment period that has come up. It’s

been extended throughout this summer now.

The other thing that I just wanted to bring up is how there’s a

lot of backtracking that seems to happen quite often, saying: “Okay,

we’re going to reconsider possible secondary homes on farms.” That’s a

direct quote.

Then there are the gravel driveways that the ministry had to back

down on, going: “Yeah, that wasn’t such a good idea. A lot of farms and

ranches have extremely long driveways that need to put down a lot of

gravel every year.” So that got backed down.

Then there was the satellite issue. I’d sure like to find out if

we still have satellites — if that issue has been backed down on or if

we still have MDA Systems looking at satellites, working on behalf of

the Agricultural Land Commission to check on farms throughout B.C. for

evil-doers.

Hon. L. Popham: I can confirm that there is no bid or contract underway to use

satellites in the Ministry of Agriculture. But I will say that we do use

Google Earth, and the Agricultural Land Commission uses Google Earth,

which is a satellite system. So I hope that helps the member.

[2:35 p.m.]

Then, as far as the comment about fill or gravel on driveways,

we’re always interested in how to make changes to support farming in the

province. We know that there was rampant fill dumping on farmland, and

that was rampant under the member’s government. But we made sure that

we’ve put into place regulations that can stop fill dumping that damages

farmland. As far as making sure that farmers have the ability to use

gravel on their driveways when they need to, in a way that works for

them, was also something that was very well supported.

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

On the topic of fill dumping, actually, when I was on the city of

Delta, we solved that problem so easily by our own local bylaws

enforcement people, who took a keen interest in watching out for illegal

fill dumping on farmland. That could be done all over the province with

bylaws at a municipal level.

It’s a great part of the bill to make sure that we don’t have

illegal dumping on our farmland in British Columbia. But based on the

Agricultural Land Commission and the number of enforcement officers, how

will the enforcement officers…? I’m assuming that there are five or six

or seven, maybe, for the entire province. How will five or six or seven

of them keep track and keep watch over illegal dumping on farmland in

the entire province of B.C.?

Hon. L. Popham: First off, I’d like to say that Delta does an amazing job around

fill dumping and has for a number of years. The Agricultural Land

Commission appreciates that so much. It hasn’t been the case with all

local governments around the province. So with the legislation, that was

changed. It just allows the Agricultural Land Commission to have better

partnerships with local government.

They are complaint-driven. The ALC is complaint-driven. So it’s

really important for them to have these good working relationships with

local government. I really do think that the change will allow us to see

less harm done to farmland, and I think the member and I would agree

that that’s a good idea.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister. We certainly agree with that. There was

nothing that I hated more than seeing trucks on a dark Sunday night

going down farm roads and dumping their fill material

illegally.

Speaking of fines and different things, I want to move on to

trespass. On the day of October 28, 2019, my colleague from Chilliwack

put forward a private member’s bill to strengthen the Trespass Act,

because it’s become a huge issue for farmers and ranchers in this

province and processing companies for poultry and beef and pork, etc. A

huge issue.

That evening the minister stood on a podium at the Hotel Grand

Pacific with her colleagues the Attorney General and the Solicitor

General and made a statement on how they were going to really back the

farmers. They had a great audience. It was a lot of fanfare. Lots of

farmers there to hear this speech.

Last October the minister stood in front of ranchers and farmers

with her colleagues and committed to take action on animal activism.

FOIs have confirmed that neither colleague has taken any action, and all

the Ministry of Agriculture has done is tell farmers and ranchers that

they need to ensure that fences are up and call the police.

What that means is it’s the farmers and ranchers’ responsibility

to deal with trespassers who violate biosecurity measures and scare

their families, and they are left abandoned by this ministry. In Ontario

and Alberta, they’ve gone to bat. They’ve got the legislation put in. In

Alberta, the fines are $10,000, $25,000 and $200,000 if you want to

protest as a corporation.

My question to the minister. Will the minister commit today to

take action like our neighbours in Alberta have done to stop animal

activists from compromising B.C.’s food supply?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. It’s a very, very important

issue.

Yes, the member is right. Last October I was able to make a

statement with Minister Eby and Minister Farnworth around our views on

how this situation needed to be handled and that we were very concerned

about the livelihoods of farmers and the mental health of farmers

because of what had happened over the year. We saw some very difficult

trespassing situations, one specifically around hogs that the family is

still struggling to come to terms with.

We are very much interested in making sure that we can protect the

farmers and their families in the way that they need to be protected.

The member is not correct. We actually have taken steps, and they’ve

been important steps.

Last October we convened the first meeting, and this involved

farming stakeholders, association groups, law enforcement, and

cross-ministry, and we talked about the direction that we needed to go.

Our next meeting was scheduled to happen in March, but it was cancelled

because of COVID. It was rescheduled, and coincidentally, it just

happened yesterday. Again, we had farmers represented. We had the

associations represented. We had law enforcement representation, and we

had cross-ministry.

What was put forward was a paper on best practices which was given

to the stakeholder group. The request was that they review it, give

feedback and come back in three weeks to give their feedback. Basically,

this was an action plan on what needed to happen, but we didn’t feel

comfortable moving forward on it without input from all of the

stakeholder groups.

[2:45 p.m.]

One of the things that became very clear was that there was an

interest in increasing penalties for trespassing, but there was also a

really big interest in making sure there was an education component. The

B.C. police chiefs association was also very interested in examining

their own purview to see what they could do and if there were any gaps

in how they were responding.

I think everybody appreciates having a round table. Being able to

put forward the views of agriculture to law enforcement is very helpful.

It helps to educate everybody to make sure that we’re going to be moving

forward in the right way. But I have to say that it’s very disconcerting

when families feel like they have to hide in their homes because of the

activities that are happening from trespassers outside their

door.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that response. I certainly hope this

can move quickly to move in line with Alberta and Ontario, to get some

firm legislation and a firm act to bring penalties against people that

trespass on private farm owners.

I want to quickly jump ahead to a private member’s bill, which I

presented on the exact same day as my colleague in Chilliwack presented

his on the Trespass Act. One of the most important pieces of farmland in

British Columbia — of course, I’m a little bit biased — is Brunswick

Point in Delta. We have kicked this around for so many years, and I

cannot seem to get answers.

A quote from the Delta Farmers Institute: “We have been fortunate,

for over a century, that the 600 acres of Brunswick Point, with its

fertile soil and proximity to the ocean, has produced high-quality

vegetable crops, while providing habitat and feed for millions of

migratory birds. The community needs to know that this farmland will

remain as a public heritage asset in its natural environment and feed

our population.” It is an integral component of Delta’s 22,000 acres of

agricultural lands.

I go on to quote the mayor of Delta, who sent a letter to the hon.

Premier John Horgan on May 8 of 2020: “The intent of Bill 221 is to

require that the Brunswick Point properties are kept as Crown land and

leased to either the original farm families or other local farmers for a

minimum lease term of 20 years. Despite the current restrictions on land

use, Delta is concerned that the Brunswick Point lands could be sold to

speculators with no interest in farming and with plans for future

non-agricultural development.”

We all know that there was a wonderful treaty signed with TFN.

There’s a lot of economic development happening out at TFN. They are

being very successful. They have a huge shopping mall. They have

hundreds of new homes going up on what was agricultural land. There are

massive warehouses going up — Amazon, etc. — on what was agricultural

land, but to their benefit, they have a treaty.

The Brunswick Point land is still owned by the Crown, and it sits

right next to, basically, all the economic development where we’re

seeing the Amazon warehouses, etc. It is so important to me and to the

people of Delta that the government move forward to give us some kind of

assurance that the Brunswick Point lands will remain in perpetuity for

agriculture and for wildlife habitat.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The province does not intend to remove Brunswick Point farmlands

from the agricultural land reserve. Farming is a priority use of land in

the ALR, as he knows, and the Brunswick Point lands are actively being

used for agricultural purposes right now. The province will continue to

work with all stakeholders in Delta to ensure that Crown lands are

managed for the benefit of all British Columbians.

M. de Jong: Thanks to my colleague for letting me slot in.

Earlier in the exchange with the minister, my colleague from Delta

was pursuing a line of questioning around secondary houses and a couple

of aspects, one in particular that has arisen, that the minister touched

on briefly. I just wanted to explore further.

The minister and my colleague talked about circumstances where a

secondary home is destroyed. They talked about catastrophic events like

fire, but I suppose that today it could be flooding, or it could be

wind. I thought the minister was a little bit unclear in her answer. I

just want to establish some clarity.

It strikes me that in a situation where a home that sits on a farm

today is destroyed by catastrophic events, there is no automatic right

to rebuild that home. Is that statement correct?

[2:55 p.m.]

Excuse me, Madam Chair. I’m not sure. On my screen, the minister

is no longer present in the committee. Is she requiring a

recess?

The Chair: Member, the minister is consulting with staff, and when she’s

ready to answer, she’ll return to her seat. So we’re not in

recess.

M. de Jong: My understanding is that the guidelines around that were that the

minister could certainly consult with staff but would do so on

screen.

The Chair: Minister, I’ve been advised by the Clerks that it’s a

requirement that the minister stay on screen, even when consulting

with staff. Thank you.

Hon. L. Popham: There is no automatic approval that would make it so you wouldn’t

have to go through the commission, no.

M. de Jong: Sorry, I didn’t understand the answer. I’ll ask the question

again, which I thought was fairly clear. For a family residing in a home

lawfully located on a farm that is a primary or secondary home…. Let’s

talk about a secondary home, for the moment. Were that home to be

destroyed through some catastrophic event, there is no automatic right

to rebuild that home. Is that a correct statement?

Hon. L. Popham: I think it would be…. I think the member would understand this.

There are a lot of different situations that can arise. When the

building was originally built, who approved it? Was it local government?

Was it the Agricultural Land Commission? Have regulations changed? I

think it would be, probably, most correct to say that there would have

to be a discussion with the commission.

M. de Jong: Well, I’m going to try once more, because the minister seems

reluctant to acknowledge what obviously flows from her statement. She

speaks of the need for an application. I understand that. It flows,

therefore, that in the circumstances I have described — where a family

has lost their home through catastrophic events — there is no automatic

right to rebuild. There is an application process involved in seeking

the right to rebuild. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Popham: What I actually said was that there would be a discussion that

would be needed with the commission, and at that point, there would be a

determination of whether or not an application needed to be

done.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think that would be, probably, similar to the way that local

government would handle a house or a building outside the agricultural

land reserve. If a house has been there for many, many years, I don’t

think it would be an automatic approval to build it in exactly the same

way that it was originally built, if there had been a change in building

codes, etc. So you would have a discussion with local government in the

same way.

M. de Jong: Well, to be fair, I think the minister is comparing apples and

oranges. A conversation about the building code and what a new

replacement home, for one burned down or washed away in a flood, would

look like is a very different thing than a conversation about whether or

not you can actually build a home. Does the minister agree?

Hon. L. Popham: Let’s be quite clear. The rules haven’t changed. It’s just that

who’s making the decision has changed. Originally, if local government

would have approved that dwelling if it was an additional dwelling, they

would have put it through the lens of agriculture. That was the

requirement for local government. Now the Agricultural Land Commission

makes that decision, and they would make that decision through the lens

of agriculture as well.

M. de Jong: I’ll ask this. My question will likely be disturbed by one of the

150-car trains hauling bitumen that rolls through my farm with greater

regularity than it once did. That is a matter for another discussion

with another minister, but I apologize in advance for the background

noise that will interrupt this conversation.

Look, the minister now wants to suggest that nothing has changed.

I am going to take issue with that. But maybe it is more helpful for me

to explore, for a moment, the nature of the conversation that the

minister has referred to.

To take this from the abstract to the real, I’m looking out of my

window to a farm just down the road from me, where this is now a

reality. The minister has said that on the morning after a family rakes

through the burning embers of what used to be their house, rather than

begin to plan for its replacement and reconstruction, they need to go

have a conversation with a provincial body called the Agricultural Land

Commission to, presumably, seek permission — the minister can tell the

committee more about that — to replace the home that they may have been

living in for decades.

Tell us about that discussion. Tell us, today, what guides that

discussion. While she’s doing so, perhaps she can comment on the measure

of uncertainty that has been created for those families. I’ve couched

this question in the context of a secondary home, but, of course, the

same rules apply for the primary residence, because when the primary

residence burns down, the secondary residence becomes the primary

residence.

[3:05 p.m.]

Perhaps the minister can tell us a little bit more about the

conversation that will determine whether or not a family gets to

continue to live, to rebuild, after a catastrophic event and live in a

home that may have been home for decades.

Hon. L. Popham: First off, to clarify for the member, if the primary residence

burns down, the secondary residence doesn’t become the primary

residence. The commission doesn’t follow that. It’s really around the

order of placement, and the commission isn’t interested in arguing the

semantics. The secondary is the secondary.

If a house burns down, there is a general discussion that happens

with the commission. There really needs to be a discussion around why

that permit was issued. Was it for the purpose of farming, and is there

farming taking place? Are the people inhabiting it a part of the farming

operation? If so, then you can rebuild that home. If everything has

changed, there’s no farming happening and it’s a secondary home on a

piece of ALR that’s not for farming, then an application process would

need to be followed.

M. de Jong: So to say it another way, the commission could say no.

Hon. L. Popham: If there’s no farming taking place, an application process would

have to be followed. And, yes, there could be a negative

result.

M. de Jong: Would it be more accurate for the minister to say, “If the ALC

deemed there wasn’t sufficient farming activity taking place…”? Wouldn’t

that be a more accurate statement? It would be a subjective test to be

considered by the ALC. Correct?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: It’s a decision that the ALC makes with the information that’s

provided to them.

M. de Jong: I’m not trying to be argumentative. I am, however, seeking a

reasonable level of clarity from the minister that she seems reluctant

to offer.

There is a discussion. We have established this. A family lives in

a secondary dwelling, maybe for decades. That home is destroyed. The

minister, though she refuses to say the words, acknowledges that there

is no automatic right to rebuild. The family must have a conversation

with the ALC. She acknowledges the ALC could say: “No, you can’t

rebuild.”

I have made the proposition that they will have, in their own

mind, some criteria. The minister says: “If there’s agricultural

activity taking place.” Families could have a garden. My guess is that

the ALC wouldn’t determine that to be sufficient agricultural

activity.

I have suggested to the minister that the ALC would subjectively

decide on the basis of whether they determined there to be sufficient

agricultural activity. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Popham: I hope the member understands this. Nothing has changed except for

the decision-maker. Local government would have gone through the same

process, looking at it through the lens of agriculture, just as the

Agricultural Land Commission would be using the lens of agriculture. So

there has been nothing that’s been changed other than the body making

the decision. And those rules were in place under the member’s

government.

M. de Jong: You know, it’s really — and I say this respectfully — an

astounding statement for the minister to make considering the fact that

the body now making the decision is bound by a strict statutory mandate.

If the minister doesn’t consider that a relevant change, then I think

we’re all in trouble. I think that the minister is reluctant, and

perhaps understandably so, to acknowledge the uncertainty that this has

created for families.

Time doesn’t permit me to pursue, and I don’t think I’ll give the

minister a chance. Does she not see the complications that this creates

for families, even in this day and age, securing insurance on that

secondary residence? My colleague mentioned that, and the minister

glossed over it. She’s says nothing’s changed.

The decision-maker is now a body statutorily charged with a

mandate and has made it clear what its views on agricultural land and

multiple dwellings on agricultural land is, though, to my knowledge, has

not published a set of criteria that they would apply to determining the

answer to the question we’ve been asking. If I’m wrong, I hope the

minister will say so, and say: “No. Actually, here’s the specific

criteria that the ALC would apply in determining whether or not a family

that had just lost their home to fire can rebuild that home.”

[3:15 p.m.]

I mean, imagine the circumstances. But if I’m wrong, now is the

time for the minister to say: “Actually, here is the criteria. Families

know today what the test would be.” So I’ll, on this topic, leave it at

that for the minister. If there’s a set of criteria, point me to

it.

Hon. L. Popham: First off, around the criteria, the commission does have a part of

their website that is called “What the commission considers.” So I think

that could help the member when looking at what the criteria are. It’s

what comes into consideration.

Also, just going back to 2002, Bill 21 — maybe the member was

sitting, then, in government — on rules and use and subdivision of

agricultural land reserve: “a local government, or an authority, or

board or another agency established by it or a person or an agency that

enters into an agreement under the Local Services Act may not” — so

local government — “permit non-farm use of agricultural land or permit a

building to be erected on the land except for farm use, or approve more

than one residence on a parcel of land unless the additional residences

are necessary for farm use.”

For the member’s interest, there was no criteria or definition of

“farm use” for local government to use. So I think that we have

decisions on record, applications on record. So the member can go back

and look at records from the Agricultural Land Commission of approvals

or denials. We have what the commission considers as a guideline, and we

have, basically, the same rule in place but a different decision-maker —

but maybe making it more clear what farming is.

I. Paton: Thank you to my colleague from Abbotsford West. Perhaps we could

further this conversation tomorrow morning if we have time.

At this time, I believe I’d like to turn over 30 minutes of

questioning to the members of the Third Party.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the member for Delta South for that. We’re always

having to juggle our schedules and try to keep to things.

I have one area of questions that I just very quickly want to

touch base with the minister on, and then I’ll hand it over to my

colleague from Saanich North and the Islands. We have a community in the

Cowichan Valley. Kingburne is the name of this community. They’ve

created a community association, largely due to impacts that the

residents of this community have experienced as a result of quarrying

activity on ALR land on a property in their region.

[3:20 p.m.]

There was an approval in 2004 by the Agricultural Land Commission

for extraction of rock for an irrigation pond on a property. But after

13 years of extraction, this landowner, GT Farms, was required to apply

for a mines permit.

Now the same property owner has begun another extraction. It has a

permit from the Agricultural Land Commission and is also being

considered as agricultural use, agricultural activity. Yet the residents

are very concerned that the same pattern is repeating, and that after

10, 12 or 14 years, then it will finally be turned over to the Ministry

of Mines to oversee and regulate what is, essentially, mining activity —

extraction and quarrying.

My first question is kind of an umbrella question, and that, for

the minister, is: what criteria must be met for excavation on ALR land

to be classified as non-farm use? At what point does extraction and

quarrying become non-farm use?

Hon. L. Popham: It’s really nice to see you, Member. I haven’t seen your face for

a while.

Okay, good question. In the past, with that prior example that the

member brought up, there was a title of non-farm use for ag, which was a

really vague title, and there was a lot of vagueness around what you

could or couldn’t do and for the length of time.

We’ve substantially changed that. We don’t have anything called

non-farm use for ag as far as soil goes. It’s now called soil or fill

use. What triggers an application is an extraction of 500 cubic metres

per year — more than that. If you want to do more than that, you have to

put in an application to the commission. At that point, the commission

will deem whether or not it it’s needed for agricultural

uses.

[3:25 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Nice to see the minister as well.

Just quickly, does the minister have any idea how many…? In this

case, extraction is happening and trucks are being filled and they’re

driving away. How many truckloads would 500 cubic metres a year amount

to?

Hon. L. Popham: There are about seven cubic metres in a truckload. So it would be

70 truckloads, approximately.

S. Furstenau: I know that my colleague also has a lot of questions, so I’m going

to just kind of try to wrap this all into one thing. This is that for

the residents of this community, what they’ve experienced is an enormous

amount of what has essentially amounted to mining activity.

The roads in this area are incredibly narrow. There is increased

truck traffic. There have been incidents where mining material has gone

up in the sky and landed in neighbouring properties. There are

definitely worries about impacts to groundwater. What they are

experiencing, now that they’re in round two of this, where another

permit has been granted by the ALC, is that…. This is a quote from the

letter they got from the ALC: “The ALC is not mandated to consider

issues relating to traffic, groundwater, noise, terrain hazards in their

review of activities on the ALR.”

What these people are experiencing is mining activity happening in

their neighbourhood without the oversight of the mining ministry and

with the ALC saying: “We don’t do oversight on those activities because

it’s not in our realm.”

This will be my last question, I guess, for the minister. This is

a bit more of a philosophical question. Does she recognize that these

impacts are happening in communities when what is essentially extraction

is happening without the oversight and regulation that one would expect

from the Ministry of Mines and that that is having impacts on these

rural communities, and does she see the need for either the ALC to be

able to regulate or for a recognition that all extraction activities

should have oversight from the Ministry of Mines?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks so much to the member for bringing this forward. I

definitely think that my staff would be able to get in touch with the

ministry responsible for mines and have a discussion. And it would be

important for me that we follow up with a meeting with you.

A. Olsen: Good day to the member for Saanich South, the Minister of

Agriculture. It’s nice to unite Saanich here in these budget estimates.

I guess the bitumen that is steaming through or railing through the

member for Abbotsford West’s riding will be floating through our ridings

very soon.

[3:30 p.m.]

Anyhow, I would just like to start my questioning of the minister

around food security. I know that this is an issue that we both hold

very highly in our work. We’ve talked about this quite a bit, Minister.

With COVID-19 and the pandemic-related issues and disruptions in access,

availability and safety of our food, it’s become an issue for many of

our constituents across the province.

A couple of questions I’ll start off with here first. How do the

minister and the ministry define food security? And to what level has

the ministry been tracking disruptions of the food supply with respect

to the most recent impacts due to COVID-19?

Hon. L. Popham: It’s absolutely good to see my colleague from the other end of the

peninsula.

How does the ministry define food security? As the member knows,

and in discussions that we’ve had, that’s not a completely simple

question to answer. It’s a complex term, and it’s used by many people

for many different reasons.

The ministry considers Agriculture’s role as working towards food

supply security and helping B.C. producers and processors to grow and

process more food, making more food available to our British Columbian

consumers. We’re working with our colleagues across ministries because,

as the member also knows, it’s not just a Ministry of Agriculture

matter.

The disruptions. We’ve seen consumers be very alarmed when they’ve

gone to the grocery stores over the pandemic months, and they’ve seen

some of the products that they purchase not being there. The shelves

were bare. So what we saw from that was a reaction by consumers to

over-buy products. In fact, we didn’t have a supply issue. We actually

had an overpurchasing issue, or an overenthusiastic consumer purchasing

issue.

That being said, we’ve been tracking and supporting the movement

of B.C. food to consumers and markets throughout this entire disruption,

and we’ve been working to identify possible pressures on B.C.’s food

supply chains.

We’ve made sure that we’ve done that to ensure continued B.C. food

safety and supply. But as the member knows from our conversation, the

labour has probably stood out to be one of the biggest factors in our

food security here in the province over the last few months and

continuing over the summer.

We have taken many measures to ensure…. It’s not just our primary

producers who have been in contact with us, relaying any of the concerns

that they have. We’ve been in contact with our food processors and our

fishers. Over the last few months, we’ve made well over 6,000 contacts

with the entire sector in British Columbia. That includes consumer

groups and retail outlets as well.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister, for that response.

I guess, as COVID-19 hit us, in the spring of 2020…. We’re going

to be working through the summer, through the late summer–early fall

harvest.

[3:35 p.m.]

Recognizing that a second wave could come, could very well extend

and is likely to extend, into the late fall and winter, there have been

a number of people that have raised issues with me about the concern

that what we see right now might not be the biggest issue, that what is

coming might be even a bigger issue.

Does the minister and the ministry have any sense of the stability

and security of our food supply heading into the later months of this

year and early 2021?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. We are keeping an eye on any

complications that are arising because of the pandemic.

As I have mentioned, labour is a big issue. Our cherry growers

have seen sort of a double whammy this year. They’ve had enormous

challenges because of weather, and on top of that, we’ve had some labour

shortages. There are issues like that that continue to come

up.

With agriculture, though, every year we do see some kind of

challenge. Because we have such a remarkable and strong supply

management system in British Columbia — for things that consumers rely

on like eggs and milk, turkey, a lot of our meat products — we do see

that that system is solid.

It had a bit of a challenge adjusting to the change in demand and

supply, but that got sorted out. We do have that as a very strong part

of the food system in British Columbia, but we also know that there has

been a lot of great success this year in growing vegetables that need

more moisture, because we’ve had such a wet summer so far.

I think we’re on track to making sure that we’re growing what we

need, but as the member also knows, we only provide between 40 and 45

percent of what we need here in British Columbia. A lot of the role of

this ministry over the last three years has been to figure out not only

how to increase domestic sales but how to produce more food in

general.

We consider the domestic market part of a very strong foundation

in our food security goals. Previously there has been more of a focus

put on the international market. But we can see that when something like

a health disruption happens, like COVID-19, those markets crash

immediately. So we do see growers that have lost those international

markets.

It’s been our argument that those markets are great when they can

happen, but we need to make sure that our domestic markets are

increased. That’s really what we’ve been doing with our Grow B.C., Feed

B.C. and Buy B.C. platform.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister. I think Ryan Vantreight was the one

that always reminded me of the rule of toos: “Too hot, too cold, too

wet, too dry. It’s always too something.”

To the last comment the minister just made, with respect to what

we supply, I think 40 percent was the number that you quoted — meaning

that a majority of the food that we consume comes from somewhere else. I

think that that is to the point of a lot of the constituents that I

have. All of our constituents, from across the province, have raised the

concern about the reliance on food imports and that a continued supply

must continue to flow.

What role does your ministry play in the import side? I recognize

and hold up the work that you’re doing to try to increase the amount of

domestic supply. What role does your ministry play in terms of the food

imports?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: That’s a really good question.

Actually, the provincial ministry doesn’t really have a role on

the imports. That’s more of a federal government jurisdiction. When it

comes to labelling of products, etc., it falls under the federal

minister’s role, but we do sit at a table, right now about every two

weeks, at the minister’s level, all ministers from across Canada and the

federal minister, including the territories. Then my deputies also sit

on federal-provincial-territorial deputy committees. I guess that’s

where we would have input or hear of any breaking news that way, but as

a ministry ourselves, provincially, we don’t have a role on

imports.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that response. It highlights, I

think, the importance of the work to increase the percentage of domestic

supply for British Columbians. I think it probably highlights, also, the

sense of urgency that our constituents have when it comes to ensuring

that a local food supply is available to them.

Just shifting gears a little bit here, talking about the work that

the ministry did with respect to the Food Security Task Force report

that was released earlier this year. I’ve had the benefit of having an

initial, very high-level conversation with the minister on that. I just

want to ask a few questions here in budget estimates.

Does the minister, or the ministry, believe that increasing

agricultural technology…? Actually, let me ask this question. In the new

agricultural technology and land secretariat that I think was

recommendation No. 4, to create a new agritech area, the minister has

created a deputy minister’s role.

Can the minister please provide some more information around who

else is involved in the secretariat? What’s the plan for the

secretariat? Why is it that the decision was made to use agricultural

land rather than industrial or commercial land as part of the

recommendation that your ministry is currently investigating?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I think the first part of the question

was: who is involved in the secretariat? In addition to Deputy Minister

Shoemaker, the secretariat is made up of a small team of public servants

who have been reassigned on a priority basis. The secretariat is working

closely with my ministry, of course, and other ministries to ensure a

cross-government collaboration.

The idea behind the secretariat is to investigate any of the

challenges or barriers in growing the agritech sector in British

Columbia. There’s a lot of agritech that’s already being used here in

B.C. in many different parts of the sector, and there’s a lot of

interest globally in agritech. To be clear, the recommendations that

were put forward were just something for us to investigate and think

about. The secretariat is looking at all types of land, including

industrial land, to support opportunities to grow the agritech

sector.

One interesting thing that happened over the last week…. I’m not

sure if the member saw it in the news. There is a proposal out in

Abbotsford for a quite large agritech park to be built, and that is not

in the agricultural land reserve. So we see ideas like this coming up.

We also know that in other regions of British Columbia, there may be

industrial land that is available but has had a change in

direction.

There are a lot of things that we’re looking at. We’re trying to

map out what agritech is already here, maybe what’s needed and what sort

of supports need to be in place to attract companies to British

Columbia. But it’s all in the investigation stage, and I have confidence

that Deputy Minister Wes Shoemaker will come back with a lot of good

information.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that response.

To the Member for Delta South, I’ve got one last…. Well, I’ve got

several questions, but I’ve got one last question that I will ask on the

record.

Before that, I will just ask that the minister…. We’ve presented

the questions that we had to your ministry. There’s a series of

questions that you’ll see there around the concerns that have been

raised to us, and I’m certain that they’ve been raised to your ministry.

In fact, I think I’ve just been carbon-copied on the emails that you’ve

received directly to your ministry with respect to the interaction

between this new agritech zone, the ALR, the ALC and all of those

aspects.

Perhaps we can either have a meeting outside of this or a written

response just to how the ministry intends on dealing with those — I’d

say conflicts, but I don’t know that it necessarily has to been seen as

a conflict — interactions that are going to happen if agritech is going

to happen on ALR land, noting, of course, that there are a lot of

brownfield sites around the province, and there are a lot of other

opportunities where those opportunities can be played out.

I’d also just note that there was a proposal that came to us in

the B.C. Green caucus a number of months ago with respect to

closed-containment fish farms on land — on a brownfield site — that

would technically, I think, fit within this agritech

umbrella.

I’m just trying to throw together as many of my questions into one

statement as possible. But I’ll just end with this, Minister, and thank

our colleagues in the official opposition for giving us this opportunity

here today.

You did mention that there were a handful of other recommendations

that were made by the Food Security Task Force. They included an

agritech incubator, an accelerator program, an agritech institute and

then, as well, aligning the agricultural activities with the United

Nations’ sustainable development goals. I’d just love to get your

feedback or your response to those other recommendations and the work

that’s potentially underway to investigate those opportunities as

well.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks to the member for the questions. I appreciate the questions

in writing. We will commit to responding in writing, and then absolutely

interested in having a briefing after that on any aspect of any parts of

the estimates process that we’ve gone through, but specifically on the

Food Security Task Force, if that’s what the member is interested

in.

I just wanted to say that there have been no decisions made to

create a new land use zone, specifically not on the ALR. It’s a possible

option to create a land use zone, but it’s not the only option. That’s

what Deputy Minister Shoemaker has been tasked to investigate. There

will be a close collaboration with the Agricultural Land Commission and

the secretariat. I hope that reassures the member that that lens of

agriculture will be used in decision-making, and it aligns with our core

values to protect farmland and to bring it into production.

I think I’ve answered most of the member’s question. If not, we

can respond more in writing on that as well. But you can expect to have

our response in writing by next week.

M. de Jong: We were talking earlier, discussing the role of the Agricultural

Land Commission with respect to determining whether the owners of

farmland could build a family home on that farmland. What I want to ask

the minister about now is whether or not she sees a role for the ALC in

determining where that home is built on the farmland owned by the

family, if there is a role. And if she believes there is a role, what is

that role?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I’m not sure I understood completely what the question was

pertaining to, but I can say that the ALC supports the principles of the

minister’s bylaw standards around siting. We’ll often look to clustering

as part of a proper planning process, not so that it doesn’t affect the

productivity of the farmland.

The Chair: Members, we will now take a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: We are currently considering the budget estimates of the

Ministry of Agriculture.

M. de Jong: I’m going to put the question so we can…. Time is always an issue

here. It strikes me that we have arrived at a point where the

Agricultural Land Commission now determines, in some cases at least,

whether a farm family can build a home. They now have the authority to

determine the size, dimensions, of that home. And increasingly it

appears that the ALC has reserved to itself the authority to determine

where on the farm the home will be built.

I am concerned by the degree to which the rights of that farm

family, as owners of that private property, are being stripped away and

vested in the Agricultural Land Commission. Does the minister share any

of those concerns?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I think, as the member well knows — or I think he knows — the

mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is to protect agricultural

land and to give priority to the size, integrity and continuity. I

believe the agricultural land reserve, as a land-use tool, has really

allowed us, as a province, to maintain the very important food-growing

lands that we need.

I think we’ve seen it demonstrated over the last few months, with

COVID-19, that those lands are even more important than ever. The issue

of food security is top of mind for British Columbians, and they want to

feel comforted that there will be the ability for British Columbia to

grow as much food as it possibly can to remain resilient and to

increasingly become more self-sufficient.

M. de Jong: I will take it from that answer — I hope, fairly — that the

minister does not share the concerns that I have attempted to

articulate.

Just two more things that I wanted to canvass quickly with the

minister if I could. My colleague from Delta spoke to a particular

decision that was very troubling for people here. In the context of

talking about that, I actually want to ask the minister about a decision

from the ALC that I was pleased to see and solicit her view on that

decision. It relates to the work camp application, I believe, outside of

Vanderhoof, relating to the construction of a pipeline that the

government now is enthusiastic about seeing built.

The initial decision from the ALC was to deny the permit required

to allow construction of that camp on agricultural land. A review

application was launched, and the ALC subsequently reversed its decision

and approved that application. Is the minister aware, and is she

supportive? And if she is supportive, explain the basis for her support

of that review and decision.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Just so the member is clear on the decision process by the ALC,

the initial decision was negative, but it turns out that the

consultation documents that were required were not submitted with that

initial application. The second application, or the appeal process,

allowed for those consultation documents to be provided. That is a

substantial reason why it was approved. Having those documents not in

place the first time showed a negative result for the

applicant.

How I feel about the application process and the approval. This is

an approval for a temporary non-farm use. This camp is a temporary

situation. It was assured to the commission that the land would be put

into production post-camp. The mitigation and oversight by a

professional agrologist, who is there daily, makes me feel quite

confident that we’ve got a very sound process.

M. de Jong: The minister presumably would agree that we are talking about

something that is not an agricultural activity but that involves other

societal benefits — benefits, in this case, that the government is

supportive of and I am supportive of. For that reason, I believe the ALC

came to an appropriate and reasonable decision.

The minister, though, will understand that for those observing

that decision, where a work camp to house workers over an extended

period of time for the construction of a pipeline would be approved, and

a women’s shelter that has been located on a property for decades would

be evicted…. Does she see an inconsistency there that might cause people

to be concerned and puzzled?

Hon. L. Popham: This doesn’t, in my view, pertain to the current budget

discussion. I will say that the women’s shelter is under a

reconsideration, so I won’t comment on that.

M. de Jong: It is very much, I can assure the minister, part of the

consideration, going forward, of the organization and the women who have

been taken care of and found sanctuary at the women’s shelter in

Abbotsford. I’ll let the statements and, in this case, non-response

speak for itself.

The last area I wanted to touch upon, the minister and my

colleague from Delta have already canvassed in a general way, but I will

be more specific. It was a year ago that, a few blocks from where I am

sitting now, a group decided to descend upon and invade the family home

and farm of a neighbour. They terrorized them, frightened them. They

came onto the property all in the name of a cause that they presumably

feel very strongly about.

A year has passed. My colleague has chronicled the bold statements

that the minister made when confronted by a crowd shortly thereafter.

Nothing has happened.

[4:20 p.m.]

Does the minister deem it acceptable that fully a year after a

family of farmers was terrorized in the way that this family was, there

would be no decision yet on whether or not to prosecute the perpetrators

of that crime?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, the member is absolutely wrong to say nothing has been done.

This issue has already been canvassed.

M. de Jong: Well, I’m all ears. I’m asking about an investigation, an action

that took place, an invasion, a trespass chronicled on television no

less. If I am incorrect, if steps have been taken with respect to that

investigation to confront and deal with the perpetrators of that crime,

then I’m all ears. Now is the time.

The minister purports to stand up and speak in defence of farm

families. Well, here’s her chance. Because nothing has happened. No

decision. Has the minister pursued this matter? If so, what has she done

with respect to the farm invasion that took place on Harris Road one

year ago?

Hon. L. Popham: The member knows very well that this is an RCMP matter. So I have

no opportunity to insert myself into that process.

M. de Jong: What was the minister doing when she made that speech at the hotel

that my colleague was referring to? She didn’t seem to have any

difficulty at all inserting herself into the story when it was

convenient to do so. Again I ask, what steps has she taken to seek a

timely decision, a decision, that would send a signal to farm families

that their interests are being protected by the law?

Hon. L. Popham: I’ve already canvassed this and explained what the ministry is

doing. The member can go back into Hansard and read

that.

M. de Jong: I don’t actually have to do that. I made a note. I was listening

when she made her comment, and she can add to this if I misstate this.

In reply to the question from my colleague yesterday, there was a

meeting.

Now, if the sound went blank on the screen and I missed

something…. But in reply to the question from my colleague who

specifically referenced both the issue and the incident that gave rise

to the minister’s comments in front of the farmers, when it was

convenient to do so, she said to them that she had a meeting, and

apparently, the meeting was yesterday.

Now, if she’s taken other action to address this issue on behalf

of farm families who are concerned, they’re all ears, and I’m all ears.

Now is the time to say it.

Hon. L. Popham: The microphone or the sound on the member’s computer must have cut

out, because he did miss quite a number of things that we’re doing. So I

suggest that he go back and look in Hansard .

M. de Jong: Well, I’m going to be persistent, because I was listening very

closely. With respect to the incident that took place on Harris Road,

where self-described activists descended upon and invaded the home of a

farm family, I haven’t heard the minister say anything. If she wants to

correct me, I’m, again, all ears.

[4:25 p.m.]

Has she made submissions to her colleague, the Attorney General,

to ensure that he knows the importance she attaches to this? It strikes

me that that would be a reasonable thing to do. Has she done that? If

she has, now would be the time to say so. Is she satisfied — and she

hasn’t answered this question — that it would take over a year to secure

a decision from the prosecution service about whether or not to

prosecute this matter? Is she satisfied with that?

Hon. L. Popham: The member knows — or maybe he doesn’t know — that all of the

individuals on site at that incident were processed by the Abbotsford

police, and that information was brought forward to Crown counsel. I

have no ability to influence the speed of decision-making. The member, I

would think, would know that. Other than waiting for that outcome, the

ministry has undertaken a process to try to move forward on making sure

that that sort of incident doesn’t happen again.

I went through the steps we’ve taken with the critic, and the

member can refer to Hansard . But he’s tried to imply that

yesterday was the only meeting that we’ve had. He’s missed a lot. He

might want to update himself when the Blues come

out.

M. de Jong: Well, look, I hope this isn’t news to the minister. Farm families

are looking for a signal from her as minister and the government in

general — a strong signal — that it denounces those who, in support of

whatever cause they may happen to hold dear, believe that the law and

the rules don’t apply to them. There has been a noticeable reluctance on

the part of the minister and the government to make that clear, and it

is noticeable to those in the agricultural sector.

I would have thought this exchange would have elicited from the

Minister of Agriculture a strong restatement of condemnation for the

people who purport to engage in this activity. The fact that the

minister has neglected to take advantage of this opportunity to deliver

that strong condemnation speaks volumes.

I did not ask the minister to influence the prosecutorial

decision-making exercise. I asked if she was satisfied, as a minister of

the Crown, that it would take this long for a decision to be made and

whether she shared my concern about the signal that was sending to farm

families. She chooses to ignore those questions. She chooses to avoid

answering them, and her avoidance, again, speaks volumes and says much

to farm families.

[4:30 p.m.]

With that, obviously, the minister has an opportunity to respond

to my comments, but I will cede the floor to others, I’m

sure.

The Chair: Does the minister wish to respond? I can’t tell if you’re

consulting or not.

Hon. L. Popham: No, I think I’ve said everything I’d like to say.

B. Stewart: It’s great to be here in Agriculture estimates, with the diversity

of problems that exist in that particular sector.

Today I want to talk a bit, Minister, about the agricultural

exports. I do want to question you a little bit on some of the

investments that you’ve made in that ministry in the past few

years.

I guess, from an overall trade perspective, agriculture has had a

pretty good run in the last little while, considering that some other

things have been beaten down fairly severely. Last year the agricultural

exports…. I don’t have the end of the year number, but it was up over 11

percent. I’m sure that that was in part to the staff that were working

in those markets for the Ministry of Agriculture.

No doubt the numbers…. Although they’re staggeringly down for many

commodities, and products that we sell in export markets…. I again see

that the products for the first four months are up almost 5 percent.

That certainly bodes well for agricultural producers that are shipping

products that are not just commodities but specialty products,

high-value specialty products that pay for good jobs here in British

Columbia.

Well, first off, I just wanted to ask you…. Is that…? In 2019 — I

just would like to confirm — how many dedicated staff that were being

supported by your ministry were in the export markets, and which markets

were they in?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I know I can always count on a trade question from that member.

It’s really nice to see you.

This question probably is better suited for the Jobs, Economic

Development and Competitiveness Ministry. We have an MOU with them, so

they manage that.

I can tell the member that the trade and investment

representatives…. There are three. We do have South Korea and Hong Kong.

But there are also people that are working when we attend trade shows as

a province, as the member will know. In 2019-2020, 18 international

trade shows were being delivered in priority markets.

There’s been, obviously, a major complication with us attending

trade shows. I myself was headed with staff to Boston this spring and,

of course, because of COVID that got cancelled. It’s never been

rescheduled as of yet. So we will have to see how the pandemic affects

our representation at shows around the world, but we still remain with

our three TIRs in place.

B. Stewart: The minister mentioned three trade representatives: South Korea,

Hong Kong — and the third market?

Hon. L. Popham: I stand corrected. We have only two, not three: China and Hong

Kong. But through the consolidation process, those representatives will

be handled through Jobs, Economic Development and

Competitiveness.

B. Stewart: In the past, these staff were paid for, I believe, from the

Ministry of Agriculture’s budget. That’s now going to be reallocated to

Jobs. That’s what I think you just said.

I guess my follow-on is that I know that there’s a great team

within Agriculture that supported these trade shows, like the 18 you

mentioned. I guess I have a couple of questions on that.

One, is the budget being reallocated? I’m assuming this is coming

out of the business development budget to support agrifood, industry

growth, agrifood business development, etc. I’m just wondering if those

funds are moving over to Jobs.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. It’s a good question.

The Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness Ministry will

be running this enhanced, consolidated department for trade reps who

won’t, necessarily, solely represent the interests of agriculture but

more of a whole-government approach. There will be representatives that

will represent the agricultural interests, but they won’t solely be

representing agriculture. They’ll have other tasks as well.

The budget to have those two people in place is going to be

reallocated within our ministry, and that money will be put towards

supporting more international trade show work. One of the things that we

will have to learn how to do differently is virtual trade shows. That’s

the sort of thing that the money will be going to supporting.

B. Stewart: To the minister: there was a comment you made earlier to the

member for Saanich North and the Islands that agritrade is great if the

markets are not closed. Are you hearing…? Or are there markets that I’m

unaware of that are now closed to British Columbia?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I think I chose my words incorrectly. The markets weren’t closed;

they were disrupted. Our growers were seeing some stoppage in purchasing

from international markets. There were barriers as far as delays of

transportation. We saw a significant slowdown in the goods that were

moving internationally.

B. Stewart: Okay, just a last question. I would like to quantify the amount of

resources that are going to be going from the Ministry of Agriculture

into international trade activities. She said, and I know, the staff in

the ministry supported the people that were in the field previously. So

for this reallocation of resources that’s going to be going on to

international trade work, how much is going to be allocated to

that?

I know that you have a strong Buy B.C. program right now. However,

being a front-line agricultural producer for, you know, my lifetime,

virtually, I just know that the small, independent producers are really

an important part to our operations here in the Okanagan Valley. But

more importantly, for many of the commodities — whether it’s farmed

salmon, grains, oils, beef — these international markets are vital. They

don’t want to be seeing the precipitous drop that we’re seeing in other

commodities.

What assurance do you have for those larger producers in

agriculture that are high-value, especially shellfish, seafood and some

of the other products that are very much just British

Columbia–based?

Hon. L. Popham: To answer the question around the budget, our total provincial

budget for interprovincial and international market development is

approximately $560,000 annually. Through the CAP agreement with

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we receive an additional $1.93 million

in federal funding, which expands our total budget to approximately

$2.48 million.

[4:50 p.m.]

This has not changed very much at all. I can say that leading up

to the disruptions that the pandemic caused, we are seeing a steady

incline in our sales internationally. Of course, we’ve been scrambling

through the pandemic to try and regain some of that market, but we

expect that once we have a smooth process, once the issues around the

pandemic, hopefully, move along, we will continue to see our steady

incline.

S. Thomson: I’ll just say very quickly that I was next on the order to raise

some questions, but the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, who has to move

to her own estimates, just has a couple of short questions. So I had

agreed that I would let her proceed first to get her couple of quick

questions in, and then I’ll follow her.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much to my colleague from Kelowna-Mission for

letting me butt in on him.

I’ve got two quick questions for the minister. The first one, of

course, she’s probably anticipating. In a briefing that I had with staff

on January 30, with regards to the puppy mill bill, has the ministry…?

They had not secured this by January 30, but has something changed? Has

the ministry secured the funding for the registration system for the

SPCA to proactively shut down puppy mills?

Hon. L. Popham: No, unfortunately, we have not.

J. Thornthwaite: I just have one more question, then. The minister probably knows

this, but more than half a million animals have died in barn fires in

Canada since 2015. That’s an average of 100,000 animals burned alive

every year. Apparently, the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire

Codes is revising the fire protection requirements for farm buildings,

but they informed the BC SPCA that there was no “strong interest in

making protection of livestock a code objective.”

Does the minister think that barn fires are a serious enough issue

to ensure the protection of livestock is a code objective?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the interesting question. Thank you for bringing that

forward. The safety of livestock and animals is, of course, important to

me, and I do support the objective of protecting animals in that code

development.

J. Thornthwaite: I just wanted to say thank you for that, and I’ll look forward to

some action from the minister.

I’ll give that up to my colleague. Thank you very much.

S. Thomson: Good afternoon, Minister. I appreciate the opportunity.

Thanks to my colleague from Delta South for allowing a quick

opportunity here for a couple of questions.

This is around one specific issue that relates to the craft

distilling sector. As the minister will know, that sector creates jobs

as part of our tourism sector and economic activity in our communities.

Recently, the government moved to implement a policy change to support

the restaurant sector in terms of wholesale pricing. I’m not arguing

against that decision at all, but I wanted to ask the minister whether

she’s aware of and understood the significant negative impact that that

decision is having on the craft distiller sector.

I met recently with a couple of distilleries here in my riding.

One distillery, for example…. That policy decision has a direct negative

impact of over $78,000 on that operation for just two months, in July

and August, a peak period for them. These are small family-owned

businesses that are also struggling through the impacts of the COVID

pandemic. They have arrangements with small-scale producers providing

the produce for them for the craft distilling processes — a very

significant part of a value-added agricultural sector, one that I would

expect that the minister would be standing up for and advocating

for.

Firstly, can the minister advise or confirm whether she was aware

of the significant negative impact that that decision is having on the

sector?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks very much for the question. It’s always nice to see the

member. We started our careers in politics together. The other way

around but still very meaningful to me.

There are a number of decisions that have been made over the

number of months that we’ve been seeing the pandemic wreak havoc on our

economy. There are some positive effects of these decisions, and there

are negative effects. I think the decision that was made was looking at

the overall impact of industry and the lift it could give to the

restaurant industry, the sector as a whole. There were consultations

that were done, and although people did understand that there would be

some negative effects, a decision was made for the greater

good.

That being said, I believe it’s really important for me to hear

from the distillery sector. I would like to offer my deputies to meet

with the distillers to make sure that we understand the full impacts

that they’re feeling.

S. Thomson: I think they would appreciate that. The minister should be aware

that the sector has reached out and has asked for that engagement and so

far has not heard anything. It’s, in my view, disappointing, when you

have a sector that’s closely linked to the value-added side of the

agriculture industry, that those discussions haven’t already taken

place.

I would think that the minister would be advocating for some

policy adjustment or change that would help offset that negative impact

on the sector. This is a sector that went to bat, in terms of a response

to the COVID pandemic, by pivoting to produce badly needed hand

sanitizer at a critical time and that has really stepped up. Now they’re

in a situation where they’re facing that negative impact.

I would have thought the minister would have been a strong

advocate for some further adjustments that would help offset that very

significant negative impact on the sector. That, to date, hasn’t

happened. I’ll pass those comments along, that the minister is prepared

to engage on that, but I would hope the minister would be out

championing some adjustments there.

[5:05 p.m.]

There was a business technical advisory panel report with

recommendations in there that could have helped to offset some of this.

Those haven’t been dealt with. It has been a long-standing process where

those recommendations haven’t moved forward.

In this time, as they’re facing the same challenges that small

businesses across the province are facing, I would hope that the

minister would be advocating strongly for some adjustments that would

help mitigate that negative impact at this critical time for that

sector.

The Chair: Does the minister wish to respond, or shall I move on to the

next…?

Hon. L. Popham: I can absolutely say that we would welcome a meeting with those

folks. I’m just going through to see if we’ve had contact from them over

the pandemic months. I’ll confirm if we have or not, but I think it is

important for us to meet.

Thank you for bringing that forward.

J. Johal: Good afternoon, Minister.

I just have a few questions on the Food Security Task Force

report. Did the task force consult with the Agricultural Land

Commission, the ALC, when they wrote their reports?

Hon. L. Popham: No, they did not.

J. Johal: Can the minister say why they did not?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I can’t answer the question on why

they did or did not. They didn’t consult with the ALC. It was an

independent committee, and I wasn’t directing them to where they should

consult. Now that the secretariat is within my ministry, there is very

much a process that involves close consultation with the ALC.

J. Johal: I’m just trying to get a sense of the last answer.

This report could have major impacts on agriculture throughout

this province. You brought the issue of food security. Many other

members have as well. Was that in the terms of reference? Did the

minister insist that it be in the terms of reference? I’m trying to

understand why, if this type of report is going to have a significant

impact on agriculture in this province, the ALC wasn’t

consulted.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: As I stated before, this is an independent committee that came

forward with a list of re­commendations. They made their own

decisions on whom they talked to and consulted with. Like any report,

these are recommendations.

We now have a secretariat that will investigate the needs of

agritech around the province, if there are any missing links and if

there is a way that we can encourage more agritech to be operating and

to have its home within our province. Now that the secretariat is

underway and collecting information, there will be a close working

relationship with the Agricultural Land Commission.

J. Johal: Certainly, the minister has talked about food security. The member

from the Green Party, when asking a few questions a couple of hours ago,

was talking about it, and my colleagues. I think it’s all a broad

conversation that we’re all having.

The four recommendations are quite significant. Can the minister

tell us whether or not she’ll be accepting and supporting all four

recommendations? At the end of the day, we’re not talking about 20 or

30; there are just four. Will she be accepting and supporting those four

recommendations?

Hon. L. Popham: As the member knows, the report was written, and it has been

received by government. We’re studying all the recommendations

currently, but there absolutely have been no decisions made. I think

that while we consider the recommendations, it’s very important to know

that decisions will be made through the lens of protecting farmland,

encouraging farmland but also making sure that we adhere to our core

values.

We know that through these last few months the pandemic has made

everyone more aware of food security in British Columbia. There are ways

that agritech can help with the growing of food and with labour around

food production. We’ve even heard, over the last week, that there is a

proposal for an agritech park out in Abbotsford. That’s not on

agricultural land; that’s outside the agricultural land reserve. Really,

there are a lot of opportunities.

When we say agritech, that still has to be defined. There are

many, many types of agritech that are already happening on farms in

urban and rural British Columbia. We know that there is technology

that’s being used to help reduce pesticides in vineyards and also to

measure the humidity so that pesticide applications and fungicide

applications can be less.

[5:15 p.m.]

Agritech is used in dairies right throughout the Fraser Valley.

There are some dairies that are operated by cell phones now. The health

of those dairy cows has improved because they get their health checked

more often. They milk on demand, and they even have enjoyable back

scratchers that they can approach at any time.

Agritech is everywhere. When we think about it as addressing

labour issues, there is an amazing company that has created a robot that

actually moves plants in nurseries. Nursery work is backbreaking. If

this can reduce some of the labour in a nursery around really difficult

jobs, then I think that’s what we can be looking at. We need to know

what the agritech sector’s needs are. We don’t know that yet.

The work that Deputy Shoemaker is taking on is really creating an

inventory, figuring out what the needs are and also what the wants of

British Columbians are. All that work is underway, and I think it’s

quite interesting. The work that he’s coming back with shows that we

probably know less than we do know. It’s important work that needs to be

done before we can move forward.

J. Johal: That doesn’t answer my specific question. You have somebody who’s

looking at it. We have a secretariat. You’ve talked about core values,

back scratchers, robots and technology — a very broad response to the

question that I asked.

We have the four recommendations. You’re looking at them now. When

can we expect an announcement on whether or not you will be accepting

those recommendations or whatever plan you have moving forward based on

this report? When can we get an announcement? When can we expect an

announcement from the secretariat and from your ministry?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question, Member.

There are a lot of complex issues at play — identifying barriers

and challenges to agritech, figuring out what the problems are that we’d

like to solve. It takes a comprehensive engagement. We’re some time away

from making any decisions, but I can tell you that there is a lot of

good information in the report. There are a lot of things that we’re

looking at and that we were looking at previously to the report coming

out.

There’s a

section around food waste. That’s a really important

topic worldwide right now. I am happy to say that through our Food Hub

Network, we have been able to support a company that is creating a

wonderful tomato soup out of food waste. That’s being used within

Vancouver. There’s a lot to figure out. I’d like to be able to have a

date for the member, but I think that’s unlikely for a few

months.

J. Johal: This is my final question before I hand it over back to my

colleague from Delta South.

[5:20 p.m.]

The minister had talked about agritech developments and various

technologies. I think it’s wonderful that some of these developments may

be moving forward, but ultimately, they’re just developments in specific

communities rather than a broad provincewide public policy to really

allow our farmers to make a living and to really introduce many new

farmers to the land as well.

I just want to read one portion of the Food Security Task Force

report and ask the minister if she agrees with this assessment, because

I think it’s core in regards to how we move forward. It’s on page 12.

It’s about ensuring that “there is a place to grow food and support

emerging agritech industries by examining land use….”

It’s action A. It says, under the report, that they wish to

“allocate up to a maximum of 0.25 percent of the province’s agricultural

land reserve, ALR, for a broader category of use essentially categorized

as agricultural-industrial. Factors in siting this land include lower

soil classification, class 4 to 7 only; proximity to existing transport

corridors and services; and potential for clustering agri-industrial

uses near other non-agricultural zones.”

Does she agree with that particular assessment and that particular

recommendation from the committee? That’s my final question.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question.

The member knows that as far as the agricultural land reserve

goes, there are a number of competing interests that would like to see

themselves on that land. I prefer to look at all options. We don’t know

where agritech needs to go, because we don’t understand fully the

requirements of supporting it.

As far as do I support that statement, I don’t know enough about

that statement to say yes or no at this point. The work that Deputy

Shoemaker is doing will bring back those answers so that we can figure

out which direction we want to move on. But I do know that there is a

proposal out in Abbotsford for an agritech park. Quite large, not on

agricultural land. And I think that’s where we would really like to

focus.

I. Paton: Madam Chair, I think, at this time, I will turn the proceedings

over to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the member for Delta South for giving us this

opportunity.

The first topic that I would like to ask a few questions on is

flooding. As you know, we had fires in 2017, we had floods in 2018, and

2019 wasn’t too bad for some, not too good for others. Now, in 2020, we

have massive flooding again, and our ranchers are in dire straits. The

difficulty is…. I’ve had two or three of them in my office who have

applied for assistance. They don’t qualify. The reason they don’t

qualify is AgriStability has so many restrictions on it. People may have

made money in 2018 for the first time in two years. And 2019 — their

income tax statements aren’t ready.

[5:25 p.m.]

Along comes 2020. They got flooded out completely, and they get

rejected because they made too much money in 2019. But this is 2020,

where they may not survive.

When will the minister…? I see in the budget process — I’m on the

Finance Committee — that there’s talk about re-evaluating the amount of

funding that is allowed under the percentage back to a rancher when he

has floods or trouble. But the whole AgriStability, Minister, I believe,

in talking to my ranchers, needs to have some new regulatory regime in

it. It is not helpful to the ranchers.

I’m asking the minister. When will she take a good look at the

AgriStability program and help these ranchers so they are not in dire

straits every second year?

Hon. L. Popham: Great to see the member. I miss seeing all the faces from the

Legislature. Thanks for being here today. Good question.

[5:30 p.m.]

I’m happy to say that we haven’t rejected anybody for

AgriStability in 2020. If the member has a particular case, I think we

should meet, and my staff can address the particular issue that you’re

bringing up. There were payments made in 2019, using AgriRecovery, for

flooding. The 2020 flooding will be addressed with our new, enhanced

AgriStability program. We’ve done extensive outreach to growers and

ranchers. That outreach has resulted in about a 40 percent increase in

participation to these programs. We’ve created a B.C.

initiative.

Although I continue to constantly advocate at the

federal-provincial-territorial table with my provincial colleagues, my

territorial colleagues and the federal minister, we made a decision that

we would have to have a B.C. initiative this year to try and address

some of the issues that we’ve been pushing hard at that larger table and

that weren’t moving fast enough. Out on our own, we actually removed the

reference margin limit, we changed the compensation rates, and we’ve

been able to get money out the door much quicker. We’ve allowed for

interim payments and increased those interim payments from 50 percent up

to 75 percent.

We have, significantly, made changes. That being said, more needs

to be done. There’s an October federal-provincial-territorial meeting,

where AgriStability is one of the topics. Our ministry continues to put

forward what our needs are in British Columbia, and we hope to see more

changes in October, but I can say that we’ve made changes on our own

while we wait for the federal table to move.

D. Barnett: Minister, it all sounds good. But when you’re a rancher and you’re

flooded — not once but twice or three times — and you look at the

criteria…. A lot of them don’t even qualify. Some may be getting the

money out there quicker. It’s certainly not the ones that are in my

office. There need to be changes made.

For example, a lot of our ranchers are mom-and-pop operations. In

a lot of them, one of them has to go to work part-time outside the

ranch. Well, automatically, you don’t qualify for these programs. If you

have a corporation — a lot of people put their businesses in

corporations — you don’t qualify.

These are serious changes that need to be considered, or we will

not have any more mom-and-pop operations. Rest assured. I live with

them, and I know what they’ve been through since 2017.

Minister, I would be more than happy to sit down with yourself,

your secretary or one of your deputy ministers and give some good

old-fashioned Cariboo input as to the needs of these people that are

working out on the land.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I would never say no to some good old-fashioned Cariboo

advice. That’s for sure. We’d look forward to having a chat, MLA

Barnett.

Just so we’re speaking the same language, if you work off your

farm or you have a corporation, that has no bearing on your eligibility

for AgriStability. I think what you might be talking about is disaster

financial assistance. So those would be two different

programs.

We can definitely take the specific examples of the ranchers that

are having those difficulties and just work through our programming to

see what they qualify for and what they don’t qualify for, and then at

least we’ll all be on the same page.

D. Barnett: You are correct. It also is in the disaster program. It is also….

Some of these regulations are in the AgriStability program too, because

I’ve got the papers on my desk. So I would be more than happy to have a

meeting with your staff and sit down and discuss it.

The other issue we have is that with the devastation that has

happened to these ranchers over the past few years, they’re exhausted.

And the paperwork and the hours that they’ve put into this…. It’s great

to keep…. We have lots of people in offices and things, but it sure

would be nice if there were more people on the ground to go out and work

with these people one-on-one, because I can tell you that I am very

concerned.

We talk about food security. I am very concerned about the

ranching industry in my riding and, I know, in some others in the

future, and we certainly cannot afford to lose these ranches. So another

request to the minister is: let’s also talk about getting some help on

the ground for these people, when it comes to all of this paperwork that

they continuously have to fill out.

Hon. L. Popham: Member, I know that you know this, but we do have a staff person

in Williams Lake. We also have a team of people who would be very glad

to walk people through all of their paperwork. In fact, we can offer —

and I think, maybe, it’s a pretty good idea — to have a workshop that we

do through the B.C. Cariboo Cattlemen’s Association. We can actually

have a team of people working on people’s paperwork if that would

help.

[5:40 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I don’t think workshops are going to help,

Minister. We’ve had them before. When a disaster strikes and people are

in dire straits is when they need the help. All the workshops in the

world…. I would suggest that we take a better look at getting help on

the ground as quick as possible when these incidents happen to help

these people out, not a workshop.

I’d like to move on with the next question I have, and it’s around

abattoirs, my favourite topic. We had a great time in the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture. We went out, and it was very

interesting talking to people all across the province, and I thank you

for that opportunity.

My question is around abattoirs. The Ds and Es we spent lots of

time on. There were lots of recommendations, lots of support. How many D

and E licences have been given since this report was filed in September

of 2018 in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Popham: Member, I totally appreciate the work that you did with the

standing committee. That was the first project that the Select Standing

Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food took on, and it’s the first time

it was active in many, many years. Having the committee go out and look

at what the needs are for local slaughter was crucially important to me,

and I think the work that was done by the committee was

excellent.

We’ve been able to take those recommendations…. We’ve implemented

many of them, and we’re still working on that. We made some changes just

a couple weeks ago. The member asked how many D and E licences have been

issued since the report was submitted. Of course, the member must know

that once the report was submitted, anything that we change or move

forward on still takes a bit of a consultation process with local

government, regional districts, etc., because they’re an important part

of the puzzle as well.

Let me tell you that in 2019, there were 23 applications in total.

The Ds and Es in 2018…. There were 28 applications and 11 approved so

far for class E. Class Ds have had 11 applications in the Port Alberni

area, where we’ve added a new area that’s allowed to have them. There

have been…. Okay, just so you know how popular these changes have been,

2019 saw only 23 applications in total. Since this January, we’ve

already had 28 applications. That’s what I’m trying to say.

[5:45 p.m.]

The changes that we’re making are encouraging people to apply, and

I think that the foundation that the committee gave us has allowed us to

move forward, making sure that there is more local meat production in

the province.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. Some of the issues that came up and

recommendations that were made…. Your ministry, along with other

ministries such as Health and other ones, put together, more or less, a

cooperation. Has that been done so that the regulations are easier to be

met?

The second part of that is the inspectors. Who does the inspection

department lie with? Is that still with Health, or has the ministry

cross-referenced together and made that easier for people to

access?

Hon. L. Popham: As far as the inspection goes, currently Health still inspects for

Ds and Es for rural slaughter, and Agriculture inspects for As and Bs.

We are having active conversations right now with people that are

involved in slaughter to make sure, as we move forward, that we’re

getting things right. I think that you’ll be able to see more changes in

the next while.

D. Barnett: How many more inspectors have been hired both for Health, for Ds

and Es, and for the federal inspectors for the As? How many more have

been hired in the last year?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question.

As far as the health authorities that do the rural slaughter

inspections for Ds and Es, we don’t track the number of inspectors that

the health authorities have. As far as the Agriculture Ministry, we are

fully staffed.

In fact, we made an agreement, when the pandemic first began, with

the federal government. If the federal government came up short with

needing inspectors, or we did, we could lend each other inspectors, and

that was to cover off vacancies due to COVID. So if somebody was sick

and in isolation, we could cover the federal government off, or vice

versa.

I think we have a pretty nimble program. I haven’t had a

discussion on whether or not that agreement will continue, but it seems

like it worked really well during this pandemic.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister.

We were short of inspectors last fall. So my question was: how

many inspectors were hired prior to the pandemic? This is before the

pandemic. We were short of meat inspectors for class As. So I would like

to know how many were hired prior to COVID.

Hon. L. Popham: I hope I’ve got this right. If not, I can give it another try,

Member.

We didn’t have any reports of having to deny any inspections due

to not enough resources, so I’d be interested to know more about that

from your perspective. I know that the select standing committee report

recommended a discussion on increasing resources, even in rural British

Columbia, with increasing resources with health authorities. I’m not

sure if that’s what the member’s getting at.

[5:55 p.m.]

We don’t keep track of the health authority inspectors, and as far

as I know, we didn’t have any shortages on our end. I’m wondering if

that was a federal shortage, but the member could maybe give me a bit

more information.

D. Barnett: Yes, it is the federal inspectors that we were short of last year.

This year I know that the ranchers in this region have got to drive a

long ways to the slaughtering. The same problem existed before COVID.

They have to book five, six months ahead of time to get a space for

slaughter. It is a big issue. It was last year, and it was the year

before. It’s basically maybe not getting…. It’s fine in some regions,

but in this region, there is a serious problem.

I have a whole bunch of other questions. I know we’re short of

time. I have colleagues that have other questions. So what I will do is

put them all in writing and send them off to the minister. Hopefully, I

can get some responses later.

Thank you very much, and thank you to the member for Delta

South.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the member for Delta South for providing us this

opportunity.

I share the minister’s passion and enthusiasm for agriculture and

believe that it’s a significantly important piece of economic recovery

for our small businesses in the province.

I have a few specific questions on behalf of Cariboo North

constituents. The first builds on what the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin

had mentioned. We still have significant ranchers that have been

impacted by the 2017-2018 wildfires. Now they have been flooded out

since April. Much of Cariboo North has either been impacted directly by

flooding or on flood watch, and we continue to be in that position. It

continues to rain.

For many of the people from the Nazko area who were impacted by

the Plateau fire complex, the first message or item that I’d like to

raise to the minister is that I’m deeply concerned that they’re not

going to be able to get hay out. I appreciate the minister’s comments of

holding some workshops for the ranchers, but like the member for

Cariboo-Chilcotin, the specific types of paperwork that the ranchers are

required to fill out are in different aspects or different ministries

that a workshop just wouldn’t assist.

The first that I’d like to raise is…. I have several ranchers that

were impacted, like I said, during the Plateau complex fire. Mostly in

the Nazko Valley area, but it extends down through the Narcosli area.

I’m just going to read what was sent to me. In 2017, their B.C.

assessments were challenged. Their land and their ranch was burnt so bad

that there is no soil left. The house and outbuildings were saved from

fire-smarting their property.

In 2018, they were flooded out on their land. In 2019, their

assessment went up by 49 percent, but then they had to go back and

appeal, which they did win. In 2020, their assessment came back, and it

went up 136 percent. So again, they had to appeal.

Is there a way that the minister could work with B.C. Assessment

to support these ranchers so that they don’t have to go year after year

and appeal these assessments on deeply impacted areas for ranchers? Like

the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin said, they have been so devastated by

year after year of fires and now floods. To go through and have to

prove, each year, their impact is very, very problematic.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I really appreciate the member bringing that question forward. I

think probably the best way to