Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one

sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is

subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard

report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not

protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the

debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

DEBATES OF THE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE A BLUES

TUESDay, MARCH 6, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Routley in the chair.

The committee met at 1:39 pm.

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $75,359,000 .

Hon. L. Popham: I just wanted to open our estimates. I'm very happy to see my critic sitting across from me.

[1340]

Let me just say that I'm so grateful to have the opportunity to be the Minister of Agriculture, but I also want to express my appreciation to the official opposition and to my critic for being a part of a process in this province that will end up making agriculture stronger.

I appreciate the work that my critic does. I think it's an important part of our process as government. As I was a critic for eight years, I know how tough it can be sometimes, and you often work on less information than government has. So the purpose of these estimates is to clear up some of the questions, and I'm really looking forward to doing that.

We have had an exciting year. Since September, we've accomplished a lot. One of the things I'm most proud of, of course, is a $29 million lift in the budget for Agriculture. I think we can all be happy about that — no matter what side of the House you're sitting on.

We're going to go through topics that the critic has let us know that he is interested in — as well as some of his colleagues that will be visiting us over the next few hours, maybe four or five hours. I'm looking forward to that.

I just wanted to highlight some of the things that we've done. We've been working on the Canadian agricultural partnership — or CAP, as it's called — which is a $400.5 million five-year investment by federal, provincial and territorial governments.

I had the opportunity to get to know the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, Minister MacAulay, and our relationship has started off on the right foot. We're getting along fine, and I feel like I can approach him on any issues that I need to as far as federal Agriculture goes.

We've done some projects along the way since September, including a $25,000 investment called bee B.C., which is an investment in our B.C. honey producers here in the province. We were able to secure $5 million for a tree fruit competitiveness fund that we announced just a couple weeks ago. We also supported B.C. Young Fishermen's Gathering with $10,000. It's a conference that brought together young fishers from around the province to talk about the future and their careers in fishing here in the province.

We've also put $25,000 into a Metro Vancouver land-matching project. We work with the Young Agrarians and our ministry to find land in the ALR that's farmable, and we put new entrants and young farmers on that land. I'm looking forward to growing that program over the next year.

Of course, we've also invested in our ministry sector support positions — our agrologists, our specialists, field service officers. We've put in an industrial specialist in organics, which is something that I'm very happy about. As a critic, I was very concerned that we didn't have one in the province. We have a First Nations agrologist. We've also have started a feasibility study for seed resiliency hubs — so a seed extension officer, for lack of a better term. That's Dan Jason from Salt Spring Seeds who's working on that.

We've also been working on our business risk management programs. We obviously needed some support with the forest fires and how they affected our agricultural sector, and so we had a $20 million agri-recovery initiative that was a partnership between the federal government and our government. We also recognized the need to have some more flexibility with the needs of our ranchers and farmers as they tried to recover, so we have an enhanced agri-stability program that we put forward, which is provincial money.

Those are a few of the highlights. We've done a lot more, and I look forward to the questions from the opposition.

I. Paton: Thank you for that introduction. I enjoyed being with you on Friday night at the chicken conference in Vancouver. It was very well attended.

Interjection.

I. Paton: No, we had beef that night. Can you believe it? We had steak at a chicken conference.

Anyways, my name is Ian Paton. I'm proud to be the B.C. Liberal critic for Agriculture.

[1345]

I am from a third-generation farm in Delta, right on Boundary Bay. I'm very proud that my grandfather, when I was born on the farm…. I'm still living on the farm that I was born on in 1956. My grandfather was a dairy farmer, and my father was a dairy farmer with him. I've followed in their footsteps, after a stint at UBC.

We're a very agriculture-based area in the Fraser Valley. However, in Delta, we have faced challenges for many, many years, many decades of different governments. When I was a kid growing up, there was no George Massey Tunnel. At one time, there was no Highway 17 that went out to the ferry. There was no ferry terminal. There was no Highway 99 that went to the U.S. border. And there were no huge hydro lines that were going over to Vancouver Island.

During the '60s and the '70s, we suddenly faced Delta farmland being completely carved up by transportation infrastructure. We had Roberts Bank that got built to export coal out of B.C. Well, the railway tracks went right through our farms in Delta. As I said, Highway 17 got put in to go to the B.C. Ferries in Tsawwassen, and Delta farms all got carved up. Huge hydro towers wanted to get power over to Vancouver Island and to the Gulf Islands, and those hydro towers all got placed on Delta farmland.

The list is endless, of transportation infrastructure impediments to Delta farmland, but we've managed to survive. We've come through, over all these years, and we've managed to outdo all other municipalities in Metro Vancouver with keeping our farm size big.

One thing I'm proud of with our government in Delta is that we never got caught up in the early '70s, before the beginning of the ALR, with carving up a lot of our farm properties into two-acre hobby farms and five-acre hobby farms. For the most part, we've kept a lot of our farms rather big. Excuse me for speaking in acres, but a lot of our farms are 25 acres or more.

One of the things about our farmers in Delta is that we have a huge production of vegetables in Delta. We have a huge cranberry operation in Delta and across the river in Richmond as well. We have many, many farms that have been converted over the years from dairy farms.

When I was dairy farming back in the mid-'80s, there were 35 dairy farms in Delta and Richmond, and now we're down to nine dairy farms left in Delta. Unfortunately — well, I shouldn't say "unfortunately," but that land that was pastureland has been converted now to mostly blueberries. We have a great blueberry population in Delta.

As we get started here, I want to thank the minister. I want to thank her staff for being here today. I think things are in relatively good shape in this province. As I said the other night, I think the minister is very keen and very aware of what's going on and is keen to do a good job as the Minister of Agriculture.

I will start here today by saying there are many different things that we'll be discussing here in the next four to five hours, everything from health issues in the ministry, with avian flu and mad cow, to the employer health tax. We're going to talk about the Agricultural Land Commission, minimum wage, mega-homes, the farm tax rate, the farm tax exemption, and things such as that.

Investing in other sectors. I also have information that's been passed on to me from the B.C. Agricultural Council. They've asked me to ask a few questions as well.

As I read from the budget, the new agrifoods sector support — this new allocation of over $29 million over three years for the Ministry of Agriculture — will help to expand the sector by supporting a variety of initiatives that are part of Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. Included are investments to assist beginning farmers with start-up loans, support the fruit and nut industry, revitalize the agricultural land reserve, enhance the Buy B.C. strategy and support the development of a food innovation centre at UBC to help small-scale processors enhance their potential for commercialization.

I would think my first question would be if we could just do a bit of a brief overview of the paragraph I just stated. Perhaps the minister could bring me up to date on the money that has been put in towards Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. and then, also, assisting beginning farmers with start-up. This is something that I'd be very interested to know about — if there are funds available for them — and also about the food innovation centre at UBC.

[1350]

Hon. L. Popham: First of all, I'm just going to introduce the staff that I have with me today. I'd be afraid to be here without them at this point. On my left is Wes Shoemaker, who's my deputy minister, and on my right, I have Wes Boyd, who's an assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer, corporate service, for the natural resource sector.

Behind me I have James Mack, who's my assistant deputy minister. His division is agriculture and science and policy. I also have Joan Easton, who is my acting assistant deputy, business development division.

Off to the side we have Kim Grout, who's the chief executive officer for the Agricultural Land Commission, and Kirsten Pederson, executive director of the Farm Industry Review Board. I appreciate my staff so much, and we've had a great eight months of getting to know each other. I appreciate them being here today.

To get to your question…. You're exactly right. The $29 million is allocated over our three pillars of Grow, Feed and Buy B.C. I can break that down a bit for you. Once I'm finished doing that, if you need more details, I can go a little bit deeper, but we'll just do the overview for now.

Grow B.C. is basically policies and programs that support the land base and farmers on that land base. What we've identified as priorities are incentives for land availability. This is, as the member alluded to, access for new and young farmers getting onto the land. This is going to include land-matching pilots with the Young Agrarians. We also have started to explore alternative models for farming tenures, such as shared-ownership models, land trusts, co-op models, looking at expanding incubator farms.

We know — the member is absolutely aware — that the cost of farmland is extremely high and a massive barrier for young people getting onto the land and new farmers getting onto the land. I always like to say "young" and "new," because there are a lot of people that are middle aged that are interested now in farming, and so we want to make sure that we're also giving them the opportunity to start even if it's at mid-life.

That's part of getting people onto the land base. Once they're there, of course, they need support. Farmers need support. We try to do that through our ministry, and we've tried to enhance that in this first round. As far as the fruit and nut industry, we have replant and renewal support for perennial fruit and nut crops.

I've been very excited to work with the hazelnut growers out in the valley and around the province. It's part of an industry that has struggled due to a serious blight that's killed off a lot of the nut orchards. We've tried to develop a revitalization plan with them which includes a plan for ripping out the old diseased trees and looking at ways to incent them to plant new acres.

I really love the nut industry, and I think…. It used to be quite successful, but unfortunately, because of the disease threats, it's really dwindled, and we've lost the processing that goes along with it. We want to make sure that we're looking at that and incenting that, so that's part of Grow B.C.

[1355]

Of course, a huge part of Grow B.C. is revitalizing the agricultural land reserve. Currently there's a committee that's travelling around the province and taking input on how people who live in B.C. and farm in B.C. want to see the agricultural land reserve made stronger.

We're taking input until the end of April. There are some face-to-face meetings. Then we have an on-line system that's 24-7 till the end of April. We're receiving a ton of input, and people are quite excited about this opportunity.

We also have been working with the federal government on what is called the FECTAP program, which is the federal clean technology fund. We've been working to try to put projects out there that might garner federal support. A lot of this is around the federal fisheries and aquaculture clean technology adoption program.

When you think of what a FECTAP project might be, it could be taking a look at a facility that's growing mussel seed in order to support our shellfish industry. If they need to modernize that or bring new equipment into their facility, that's the sort of project we could look to the federal government for some matching of funds there.

That's Grow B.C. We are also looking at different proposals, supporting different communities with business proposals.

For example, Prince George is looking at creating a co-op slaughterhouse for that area. I'm very interested in that. I've been working with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. My staff has been engaged in this project, taking a look at the feasibility of having a slaughterhouse in that area and how much cattle would be needed to support that. We are definitely not there yet, but it's a very interesting proposal, and we're supporting them as they go along.

Meat production in the province is something that is of keen interest to me. I know, from speaking with groups all around the province, that it's of keen interest to many regions in the province who think that their meat production could be increased — more community-based slaughter.

That's something that I'm excited to work on. I know that the official opposition, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, is also very interested in meat production. I'm glad to see that member here.

Of course, one of the things that we're very keen about is Feed B.C. Feed B.C. is a procurement policy, which is to encourage more processing in the province with a secured market within our hospitals and institutions — so hospitals and long-term care.

We'd like to move the amount of food that's grown and processed specifically for institutions up to about 30 percent. This is a huge endeavour. Currently, if that policy were in place, we would not be able to provide that food at the 30-percent range. How do you do that? Well, one of the ways is to make sure that we have the processing facilities operating in the province.

We're one of the only provinces that hasn't had a food innovation centre. A lot of provinces have these innovation centres. They are basically R-and-D stations for people to bring ideas around food processing into the centre and have the equipment available, the science available, and supports, as far as trying to market the product, available so we can move these out of this incubator — out into the community and within the country and overseas.

One of the things that's happened because we haven't had a food innovation centre is that we've really missed out on a lot of R-and-D money from outside of our province. People in our province go to other provinces and spend that money, but we've missed out on other countries coming and accessing our facilities. We've been working with UBC. Some of the money that's been secured in our budget right now is specifically for equipment that would live inside the UBC Innovation Centre.

[1400]

Then, of course, we have money allocated to Buy B.C., and this is super exciting. We have people from all around the province who remember Buy B.C. as one of the most successful marketing programs that agriculture has ever seen. So we're bringing it back with a vengeance. We've modernized it. We have more funds that are going to go towards domestic marketing, and of course, we're going to continue on our path of marketing our products internationally.

That's the overview of where the money was allocated. We can definitely break that down more if the member would like.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that overview of my comments about the budget overview.

I'd like to start by looking at the uplift of $7.4 million for this upcoming budget for Agriculture. Roughly, a $2.5 million uplift for agriculture science and policy, $5.3 million for business development and executive and support services. Can you briefly tell us…? The voted appropriations accounted for a $2.5 million increase to agriculture science and policy. What sorts of things can we see generated with this $2.5 million increase to agriculture science and policy?

[1405]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. One thing that I think is really great about estimates is that it's also a process for the minister to go through to be able to explain something that I might have thought I understood, but it's better to get clarification. As I explain it to the critic, it's a learning experience for me too.

The critic was asking about the $2.5 million and how it's allocated. There are three areas. Actually, there are four, but three main areas. The first is revitalizing the ALR, and that's in Grow B.C. There's the FACTAP program, which is the federal clean technology fund. The other

part is the procurement and supply chain, which is part of Feed B.C. The additional amount is for wages and benefits of the employees working in these areas.

I. Paton: While we're on the topic — hopefully, quickly — of agricultural science…. Within this realm of appropriation, we talk about safety, public health, animal safety. Could we talk briefly about some very tragic instances we had in Canada with mad cow and avian flu? Are we prepared for that? Could you give me an update, for the benefit of our producers in those categories, of how we're seeking protection for this not happening again, and if it were to happen, are we prepared for it and ready to deal with it?

[1410]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. That's obviously a very important question.

I think the member asked whether we were prepared. I can say that I believe that we are prepared. The reason why is because we are proactively making sure that we're prepared all the time. The funding for our preparation is part of the core budget, and that remains the same.

Some of the things that we're obviously doing…. At our Animal Health Centre, we have a world-class lab that's a level 3 lab recognized by the world. We work with other labs around any communicable diseases that are coming into our province or any threats coming into our province, so we have surveillance and early detection programs.

We also have a program called FADES, which is looking at foreign animal diseases and the threats to our animal populations here. Those are programs that we are continually working on.

I know the member will be aware of Dr. Jane Pritchard, who runs our Animal Health Centre. She's a fabulous doctor. We both saw her at the Poultry Conference. The work that she does is outstanding.

Those are emergencies that can happen in a situation, mostly, that you would see in supply management. We also have disasters that can happen, like we saw over the summer around the forest fires and animals being affected that way.

I think we're prepared. You know, it's always a worry that something's going to happen, like mad cow or avian flu. We're as prepared as we can be.

I. Paton: I'll just go one step further with voted appropriations for business development. There's an uplift of $5.3 million in the upcoming budget. In there, we have areas that are very special to me — youth development, fairs and international marketing.

What I'm asking is: do we have money set aside for 4-H? So 4-H is something that I grew up with. I'm still very involved with the 4-H movement. To me, that is encouraging our young people in the province to get actively involved with agriculture and possibly wanting to get into farming as a business.

Is there money that could be specially set aside for the 4-H movement and also for agricultural fairs? We have many agricultural fairs. Some of them are starting to fade a bit, and they need some financial input to keep our agricultural fairs in good shape.

My third question under business development would be international marketing. What sort of money out of this uplift are we spending with our international marketing of our fabulous B.C. products?

[1415]

Hon. L. Popham: I completely agree with the critic that 4-H is important. I believe the same thing. Actually, last year one of the first things I did as minister was to deliver a cheque for $80,000 to 4-H. We did it at the Saanich Fair last year, and so I look forward to continuing to work with 4-H and supporting them.

As far as fairs and exhibitions go, there has been some work done in the past but not for a while, as far as direct support. This year we've given $25,000 as direct support, but we are really excited about the work that we're going to be able to do with fairs right across the province and our Buy B.C. program. We're looking at different ways to support them and encourage the excitement around the province for people who are attending, even looking at having prizes for #buybc from a fair. We're working with them. They're very excited to be working with us on that.

Now, as far as looking at the $29 million and any direct lift for international marketing, the $29 million, of course, is on top of what was already existing. We already have, in our core budget, built-in money for international marketing. That remains the same. We will continue to go out there and tell the world about what we do best in agriculture and processing.

The lift that you'll see would be focused on our domestic marketing. I feel very strongly that we could do a lot more within our province to tell our own good folks of British Columbia about our products here and the different regions that they come from, so that's where the lift will go.

I. Paton: I suppose we're — just quick — suddenly on our exports. I'm just wondering…. Our MLA from Kelowna is going to talk about this later with the export industry, but do you have any plans in the next six months to do a bit of a travel initiative overseas to promote any of our B.C. products?

[1420]

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you very much for the question. Just to let the member know the work that we're doing on the international front…. We do attend two trade shows internationally. Qingdao in China has the Chinese Fisheries and Seafood Expo. Then we also attend the seafood expo in Brussels, which is a very well-known expo. Our staff are out internationally at around 28 different trade shows on top of that.

As far as the planning and having specifics on a trade mission, the trade missions are organized through the Premier's office. But of course, we're always exploring where we would go that would be most effective. I don't have a specific place in mind at the moment.

I. Paton: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

Another question. Three program announcements have been made. They are all accounted for under the $5.325 million increase to business development. They are tree fruit competitiveness, tree fruit replant program and land matching. Are they all accounted for under the $5.3 million boost?

[1425]

Hon. L. Popham: Great questions. The tree fruit competitiveness fund is actually outside of that funding. It's in the current year's funding. This was an initiative that would include research, marketing, modernizing of any infrastructure that the fruit tree industry uses. This was a commitment that the Premier made before the last election. It's specifically around those items that I've mentioned, but if there's a need for a top-up on the replant side, that can also be drawn from this competitiveness fund.

The replant program and the land matching are the only two items that I've mentioned that will be coming out of the new budget.

I. Paton: One more budget question, and then I think we'll move on to a bit about carbon tax.

There's $40,000 allocated for informational advertising in the supplements. Was this for print ads for the wine issues that we had — print ads in the newspapers about the wine war?

Hon. L. Popham: No, that did not include any advertising for wine.

I. Paton: I'd like to turn now to carbon tax issues. As we know, agriculture and farming is an intensive industry for the use of diesel fuel to run tractors, to run generators. Carbon tax being raised by our current government is going to certainly have an effect on agriculture and farming in British Columbia in many different ways — not just heating our buildings, heating our greenhouses, but everyday examples of farming and ranching.

There are going to be deliveries by trucks — trucks that deliver shavings to the farm, trucks that deliver supplies and equipment to the farms, milk trucks that come every two days to the farms for deliveries, your AI specialist, your veterinarian. All these different things are going to see the increase in fuel prices, which is going to affect the outcome of profitability on farms.

Prices of carbon are to be raised, from what I can see, to $50 a tonne. It's no longer revenue-neutral.

One of the first questions I have is…. Let's speak about the greenhouse industry. In Delta, we have several greenhouses. I'll get into marijuana later, but they are growing peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes. They're doing a fantastic business. They produce a beautiful crop. They are entitled to an 80 percent rebate on their carbon tax that has been charged to them.

[1430]

What they are wondering is two questions: are farmers going to be still entitled to the rebate exemptions on diesel and gasoline on the farms, and will the 80 percent rebate still be followed through with our greenhouse operators?

Then the second part of that question. We intensively heat our chicken barns for baby chicks that are grown up as broilers, laying hens, and for mushroom farms. Will the chicken industry and the turkey industry — the poultry industry, in general — be entitled to the 80 percent rebate on carbon tax, as well as mushroom farms?

[1435]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. Two parts to this question around the gas tax. Eligible farmers that qualify for exemptions on marked fuels still qualify. That's continuing.

As far as the greenhouse carbon tax relief grant that the member mentioned, the current program dollars still continue. Going forward after this year, that's something that I would suggest the member canvass the Finance Minister on. But I can tell the member that the Finance Minister is looking at an approach that specifically looks at emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors. I would direct the member in that direction.

I just wanted to add that, as far as the greenhouse growers go, the Premier of the province is so proud of the greenhouse growers. It's one industry that he has taken a keen eye to. He has toured the greenhouses in this member's riding and was so impressed. As we look at a new approach for these emissions-intensive trade-exposed businesses, I think that the Premier will be looking at ways to support.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that answer. One thing I don't think we quite clarified was: I really believe that we have…. We were together just the other night at a poultry conference, which is a huge part of our agricultural base in British Columbia and which puts out such an exceptional product. They talk about the costs of heating the barns for poultry and for mushrooms.

Again, my question: will you discuss, in the future, the rebate program for carbon tax on poultry and mushrooms and other agricultural buildings that make a great deal of use of heating?

Hon. L. Popham: I appreciate what the member is saying. As an Agriculture Minister, I'll always be advocating on behalf of agriculture, but this is a discussion that I would have to bring to the Finance Minister.

I. Paton: I would just like to wrap up. We're certainly not happy with the increase of $5 a tonne on carbon in our agricultural industry.

I have a friend that owns Westcoast Vegetables in Delta, Ron, and his brother Ray. Ron has sent me some figures that are quite astounding. We'll talk later, but when you add up — with an agricultural business — the carbon tax increase, the employer health tax and minimum wage, it's quite astounding.

Ray has sent me a little comment, and I'd like to read it out. "We have seen slight decreases, year after year, in our prices due to increased competition from Mexico and California. We have also seen the costs of our packaging, corrugate and greenhouse supplies increasing due to exchange rates, resin costs, etc. Unfortunately, we are unable to pass on these cost increases to our customers. It is no wonder that vegetable greenhouses are switching to marijuana."

So just a little ending to my carbon tax is…. The people in the greenhouse industry are certainly concerned about the narrow margins that they have right now, competing with Mexico and the United States. An increase to the carbon tax is just one more nail in the coffin.

I'd like to move on now to the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. First of all, I would like to make a few comments. My father, by the same name, was chair of the Agricultural Land Commission back in the late '80s and early '90s. Our family has been very involved over the years with land use issues and are certainly big proponents of protecting and preserving farmland in British Columbia — especially in my areas of Delta.

[1440]

In my opinion, the Agricultural Land Commission and the land reserve are in good shape. We've seen increases in hectares of land into the ALR over the years, rather than decreases. Certainly, the government that I represent upped the budget for the Agricultural Land Commission to $4.5 million several years ago, and that remains today.

I would like the Minister of Agriculture to briefly stand up and just explain why we need to revitalize…. In her mandate letter, it says we need to revitalize the ALR and the ALC in this province. I certainly don't need to see that, but I would love her explanation, to start off, as to why she feels this is a big part of her mandate — to revitalize our ALC and ALR.

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I welcome this question. I can tell you that — as I imagined what it would be like to be the Minister of Agriculture for this province — one of the things that I wanted to ensure was addressed was what, I thought, was a continual erosion of the agricultural land reserve over the last 16 years.

I appreciate that the former government gave a lift in the Agricultural Land Commission budget when they did, but that was after years of cutting the Agricultural Land Commission to the point where they weren't able to fulfil their mandate, in my view. As I look at what we have left of the agricultural land reserve, I think we all understand that there have been exclusions in very prime areas of agricultural soil and inclusions where the soil may not have been considered as good.

The point of the revitalization project is to make sure that the agricultural land reserve is stronger than ever and resilient to the forces of erosion that we may not have been able to foresee from the past few years. We see development pressures increasing. We see our population in agricultural areas increasing, the housing pressures. We see alternative-use pressures happening.

We only have 5 percent of agriculturally productive land. This land was based on soil classifications from 1 through 7, where the productivity of that soil was rated. As far as our class 1 to 3, 4 soils, those are the best soils that we have for certain crops. Then, of course, we can use the 4 to 7 for other crops. We only have 5 percent of our province that is capable of food production. This 5 percent is precious, precious land. So if there's one thing that I ensure in my term as Agriculture Minister, I'll be proud to walk away knowing that I've made the agricultural land reserve stronger than it's ever been.

I. Paton: I guess my comments would start with…. Again, I'm not really sure what is wrong with the agricultural land commission right now. I see a change, a few years ago, where we set up regional panels, and we set up zone 1 and zone 2 in the ALR.

First of all, regional panels certainly make sense to me when you think of the ability of panels throughout the province to make decisions without having to bring an executive panel together to make decisions in Burnaby, which will certainly slow down the process. I've heard from many applicants that that was one of the things that slowed down the process over the years.

Individual panels certainly make sense. For instance, I've farmed my whole life in the Fraser Valley, and I feel I know agriculture in the Fraser Valley fairly well. But if I was a land commissioner on the west coast panel, why would I be making decisions on land use issues or applications in Fort St. John or Dawson Creek, in the Creston or Cranbrook area or things like that?

[1445]

It only makes sense to me that the panels are a good idea and that we have people from those particular regions that are making decisions on applications for those particular regions.

Then we move on to zone 1 and zone 2. I firmly believe that zone 2 is areas of this province that are hampered from full production of agriculture and farming 12 months of the year. I've always said that farming in Mexico, California and Arizona…. These are places where you could probably farm 12 months of the year, but when you're farming north of the 49th parallel in British Columbia, you're probably sitting in the kitchen looking out the window at the snow and the rain for six months of the year, perhaps seven months of the year.

I've always wondered why there would be an issue with the Minister of Agriculture with farmers in zone 2 being able to do value-added, thinking outside the box, to keep their farms going. Farming is tight, and if you're sitting looking at the rain and the snow for six months of the year, why shouldn't you be able to have value-added items on your farm, such as welding? If you are good at welding and fabricating, why couldn't you set up a little welding shop on your farm? If you're good at bodywork, why couldn't you do some body shop work on your farm? There are different things that need to be a part of zone 2, and I quite believe in that.

My question is to the minister. If she could just explain to me why she is against…. It's been written several times that the minister has openly said that she is not really in favour of the division of zone 1 and 2. I'd like to know why, and I would like to know why the minister is also wanting to disband the panel system of the agricultural land commissioners.

[1450]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the questions.

First off, I think I'd just like to clarify something on the zone 1 and the zone 2 situation. The member implied that in zone 2, there were non-farm uses that you could do in zone 2 which you couldn't do in zone 1. I just wanted to correct the member. You could do those anyway in zone 1 or zone 2. You could be operating a welding shop in your barn, so that's sort of a moot issue.

Now, why am I doing this, and how do my own personal biases play into it? Well, they don't. What I've done is create an independent committee to go travel the province and receive input face to face and on line with regards to what people think the agricultural land reserve's future looks like.

They are working with three objectives, and I'll read them out to the member: (1) is to preserve the productive capability of the land in the ALR; (2) to encourage farming of land in the ALR for uses related to agriculture and food production; and (3) to strengthen the administration and governance of the ALR and ALC to both increase public confidence and to ensure that land use regulation and land use decisions are preserving agricultural land and encouraging farming and ranching in the ALR.

I think that those are very important objectives. We're in a different time than we have been, because we see other jurisdictions that are having threats to their own food security — regions that we have depended on to bring food into our province. So to protect this land and encourage farming really is addressing our food security concerns as a province and making sure that the 5 percent of food-growing lands that we have left in the province are protected and also under productivity.

It's very important to go through this exercise. We're not necessarily revisiting the past. We're looking to the future. Back in the 1970s, when Dave Barrett's government put this agricultural land reserve into place, it was controversial at the time. But 90 percent of British Columbians believe in the integrity of the agricultural land reserve. They believe that we need to be addressing food security. I believe that with all my heart, so this is not an exercise based on my bias. It's an exercise based on the future of British Columbia's food security.

Now, people are interested in what we're doing. I can tell you that on our website, which is open till the end of April, there have been over 5,600 site visits to our website. We've had 747 people fill out the survey. The committee has been out, and they've visited Richmond, Nanaimo, Abbotsford, Fort St. John, Kelowna and Kamloops at this point, I believe. We are also receiving emails and written letters, so people are engaged in this process. They are excited about it.

I know that the member, also, is passionate about agriculture and the future of agriculture. I would say that this is not a process to be afraid of or to think negatively about. This is for all of us so we all have food-producing lands in the future.

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

I guess I was a bit shocked. We know that the government, at the moment, likes to do reviews and report back. When I saw that there was going to be a review of the ALR, I was quite shocked that there was a committee put together.

[1455]

When I did some research with the committee, I saw that there was no representation of vegetable farmers in the province, in the Fraser Valley. There was no representation from the beef cattle industry in the Chilcotin, no representation from the tree fruit industry, from the grape-growing industry. And regions were totally left out. The Cariboo-Chilcotin was left out. The Similkameen Valley was left out. The Kootenays were left out.

I just don't understand this committee that was put together. I look at the committee, and if you're going to have a committee that's going to do a review of our ALR and our land commission, I would think it would be people that were farmers — that own land, that actually got up in the morning and farmed for a living — that would be on this committee. However, I see a committee that doesn't resemble that, really, much at all.

I'm asking the minister: how was this committee chosen? Again, a review by this government. There's going to be a committee travelling around this province — staying in hotels, airfare, meals. What will this committee cost to do this review — I will say, respectfully, a redundant review — of the ALR and ALC?

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair.

[1500]

First off, I guess I will address the member's question about how the committee was appointed. I appointed the committee, and I made sure that I chose representatives that were passionate about agriculture, were passionate about the agricultural land reserve and were able to commit to the workload that was being undertaken.

This small committee has been able to engage with all sectors and all regions. Nobody has been left out of this process. Any stakeholder that wanted to give input — absolutely open for that input. Not one person in B.C. has been left out.

Now, I can tell you about some of these members. I can tell you I've received amazing reports of all of them. This committee is doing excellent work.

If the member wants to talk about the budget, we've budgeted about $100,000. We don't know how much it may fall under that but up to $100,000. That's for room rentals and travel expenses. These amazing committee members are volunteering to do this. They are not getting paid to do this, and it is an extensive amount of work.

The chair is Jennifer Dyson. Not only is she a farmer on Vancouver Island but she also was a commissioner on the Agricultural Land Commission. So she understands how the commission works. She's a very well respected member of the agricultural community in this province.

We also have former MLA Vicki Huntington. We know how passionate Ms. Huntington was around agriculture. I believe that she is a valuable person on that committee.

Chief Byron Louis is also extremely passionate about agriculture. I've chatted with him about agriculture in other venues. I really look forward to the input that he's going to be adding.

We have Lenore Newman, who is an academic from the University of the Fraser Valley — also extremely well respected and passionate about making sure that we protect the 5 percent of this precious land that we have.

Now, Chris Kloot is a farmer out in the valley. He's a chicken farmer, but he's also a councillor, so he understands local government. That's an excellent mix.

We have Shaundehl Runka, who was an employee of the Agricultural Land Commission. She understands how things operate, and I also value her input.

Irmi Critcher. She is a large-scale grain farmer up in the Peace, another person who's very well respected in her part of the industry, and I appreciate her input.

We have Arzeena Hamir, who actually happens to be a vegetable farmer. She's a certified organic farmer on Vancouver Island, passionate about the ALR and understands the value of those food-growing lands.

Then, of course, finally, we have Brian Underhill. Anyone who's ever met Brian knows that he is an absolute expert when it comes to the Agricultural Land Commission because he used to work for the commission.

I believe that we have a very balanced committee. One of the things that they share, though, is that they're passionate about agricultural land and making sure we've got it for the future.

I'm going to just maybe tack on…. The member made note that he thought this process was redundant, that it had already been done. Let me tell the member how it's different. The previous government created legislation, passed a bill and then consulted with the public. We're consulting with the public and stakeholders, and then if there are legislative changes, we'll do that.

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

Once again, I appreciate the word "passionate." There are lots of people on your committee that are passionate about agriculture. I just don't see too many that are actually landowners that have made their living as farmers that would be helping to make decisions on the revitalization — if it needs to be revitalized, the ALR in B.C.

I'd like to just quickly put forward a quote that the minister made in the Salmon Arm Observe r on August 10 of 2017. "I believe the agricultural land reserve should be one zone, and instead of regional panels, there should be just one provincial panel."

These sort of comments would leave me to wonder how this could be a review that's done that will come forward in a way that will be open to everyone, when the minister has already made several comments that she is not in favour of zone 1 and 2 and is not in favour of the panel system.

Could you please just answer that question of how we can be open and resilient about the review that's going to take place?

[1505]

Hon. L. Popham: I think the member has made my point for me. I do have my own bias, but that's not how this government operates. That is how the previous government operated.

Instead of using my bias to change legislation, I've actually given the task of consultation to an independent committee who will come back with their recommendations. They are very well-respected people in the agricultural world. I don't know why the member doesn't have respect for these people in the agricultural world, but we certainly do. As they travel around the province, the people and stakeholders that have engaged with these committee members have given me positive feedback. So I guess I'll just reiterate that we believe in consulting first and changing legislation later.

I. Paton: Just a comment to the minister. I'm certainly not saying that I don't appreciate the people that are on your panel that you have selected. They are passionate people about agriculture. We'll leave it at that. I simply said that I don't feel they have the farming background that I would like to see on a panel that's going to review our agricultural land reserve in B.C.

At this time, I'd like to turn a few questions over to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, since we're on the topic of the agricultural land reserve and land commission. And I have a few members just down the way that have a few other questions as well.

D. Barnett: Minister, the Agricultural Land Commission is something that was put there, as we know, in the '70s. Some of my ranching community happened to be landowners in the '70s when the Agricultural Land Commission came about. They learned about it actually at a B.C. cattlemen's meeting one day, and to this day some of them are still angry over how it was done.

Now, when you talk about ALR land, basically the Cariboo-Chilcotin has massive land in the agricultural land reserve. Much of it has no water. It can't be used. There's no grass. It shouldn't be in the agricultural land reserve at all. We all believe in the ALR, but good land.

A lot of your land here on Vancouver Island and on the Lower Mainland has greenhouses on it that shouldn't be on good soil. Greenhouses should be somewhere where the soil is not good. These are some of the issues that we in our region say: why? If you're going to fix the agricultural land in any way, we really believe you need to fix it where the land is good land. The 1 to 4 land, 5 land that has good agriculture components in it should be in the ALR.

My concern is that there is nobody from my region on the Agricultural Land Commission going around. There's nobody talking to us. You have to make an appointment. Many in my community don't go on line. They don't even have high-speed Internet.

Every time there is a commission made, it is a duty of government to ensure that these rural people who are in this component of agricultural land that has no water, has no use, are heard. So how are you going to get out there to these people when there is no representation whatsoever from these regions?

[1510]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I understand the member's concerns. The committee is trying to get to as many places as they can. But as I mentioned earlier, they are volunteer, and they're trying to get their work done by the end of April.

I want to note and give the member credit. The member did raise that there wasn't a meeting in the Cariboo, and so we are trying to tack that on before the end of April.

I. Paton: I would like to now turn it over to the member for Kootenay East to ask a few questions, also on land commission items.

T. Shypitka: We're hearing about this independent committee that's travelling around the province and providing some information or some feedback from the different regions of the province. I think that's excellent.

However, I would just like to question the criteria on how you get invited to these forums, to these committee meetings, I guess. I have got a local government that hasn't been invited. I've got several other stakeholders that have not been invited. I would like to see fair representation throughout the board, so I would just like to ask the minister what the criteria is.

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I'm not sure if the member knows or not, but the committee will be in Cranbrook tomorrow. They have a full day ahead of them. The regional district of East Kootenay has an appointment with them. I'm not sure if that's the group the member….

Interjection.

Hon. L. Popham: No? Okay.

That local government, the Kootenay Livestock Association and a lot of other livestock associations will be meeting with them there in Cranbrook.

Invitations were sent out to all local government. They tried to fit in as many local government appointments as they could. Given that their

schedule is tight and limited, they have made opportunities for local government to weigh in by writing or by filling out the survey. I believe they're also meeting with UBCM, which represents local government.

T. Shypitka: Well, I've talked to the CAO and also the secretary to the mayor of the city of Cranbrook, and they've verified with me today that there was never an invite sent out to them at all. I would want maybe the minister to check back on that, because that's really disturbing to myself.

[1515]

These are people who may not be directly affected by ALR and ALC decisions but certainly indirectly, because it's a rural riding, and some of these decisions are right on the borders of our municipality. That's troubling to me, so if the minister could look into that. It's going to be too late now, probably, because it is tomorrow, but maybe we could send out an invite in the morning. That'd be great.

I would like to get some clarification, if I could, on zone 1 and zone 2. I heard the minister say earlier that non-farm-use applications are the same through zone 1 and zone 2, and there was no real difference there. Could I get maybe some clarification on what the material differences are between zone 1 and zone 2 on non-farm-use applications?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I just wanted to go back to the previous question. We did find out that the mayor of Cranbrook was emailed on February 9, but we didn't hear back. We're working currently with the city of Cranbrook to make sure that there's some time. But there was an invitation sent on the 9th of February.

The difference between zone 1 and zone 2 and the non-farm-use applications. The thing about zone 1 and zone 2 is what it's mostly created is a lot of confusion. I'm sitting on the government side of the House in an NDP government explaining zone 1 and zone 2 to the Liberal side of the House who put zone 1 and zone 2 in place.

[1520]

It's very unclear to most people, and it's really created a lot more work for the Agricultural Land Commission. The applications for non-farm use are exactly the same in zone 1 and zone 2. They're exactly the same. The thing about zone 2 is that there's a part of the legislation called

section 6, and decisions have to be made in order of priority. Agriculture is at the top, but you have to consider other things as well — so social, economic.

Basically, the application process is the same. The cost and the amount of work to the Agricultural Land Commission have increased because of zone 2.

T. Shypitka: You led right into my next question: the cost on administrating the two zones. Obviously, there's an increased cost. Can the minister tell me how much that cost is?

Hon. L. Popham: To the member, thanks for the question. That's a great question. It's something really…. I think it's been on people's radar. How has this played out?

What I can tell the member is that processing applications in zone 2 has ended up being a lot more work. It's an administrative burden, and the outcomes are generally the same. It's taking more resources from the Agricultural Land Commission.

There hasn't been time to quantify that, but I have confirmed with the CEO, who is here with us, Kim Grout, that zone 2 is creating an administrative burden. The processes are much slower, with the same outcomes. I've also had that conversation with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, and he has also confirmed that burden.

T. Shypitka: Thank you for the answer, and thanks for notifying the city of Cranbrook. I got some mixup there. They said they weren't notified. So we'll see.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Yeah, who knows. Technology, eh?

So yeah, there seems to be some confusion over zone 1 and zone 2 — like you said. The people in my riding are confused. They would like to get some reassurance that the sustainability of the land that they farm, that they ranch can be sustainable through other non-farm-use issues.

We don't have zone 1, zone 2, zone 3 lands, typically, in Kootenay. We used to. We have zones 4, 5, 6s, 7s as well. In order to sustain this land and to make it viable for the ranchers, they need these flexible options to sustain their properties.

I guess my final question to the minister is: can she give me some reassurance that this ministry will do what they can to offer the tools to these rural ridings — provide them the tools — to enable them to sustain their properties and to make ranching viable in B.C.?

[1525]

You said 5 percent of the land mass is available for farming. That's a disturbing fact. We need our rural ridings to produce, to contribute to food security throughout the province. The only way we can do that in such a limited growing season is to have these extra tools in place, these non-farm-use tools in place.

I guess the question to the minister once again is: will she do what she can to ensure that these ridings are looked after?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks again for the question.

I understand what the member is saying. I would like to say that I can't predict the outcome of the recommendations that are going to come forward from the independent committee. What I can say is that I am absolutely in the same camp with the member about making agriculture stronger.

I think we've proven that our government believes in agriculture and believes in rural B.C., with the type of lift that we've seen with the Agriculture budget. It's a historical lift. We've not seen anything like that before in the Agriculture Ministry. The increase of $29 million means that we are going to be strengthening agriculture throughout the entire province.

I'm really excited about the opportunities it's going to bring for rural B.C., and I'm looking forward to working with the member on those ideas.

T. Shypitka: Sorry, Chair. I lied. One more question — just some clarification on my question on clarification.

Zone 1 and zone 2, once again. Sorry, just going back to that again. You said that the applications for zone 1 were the same as zone 2. I'm just wondering if there was a curveball there. Can the minister say that the same applications for zone 2 are the same for zone 1?

You know what I mean? So if zone 1 was limited to non-farm-use usage applications, then it would certainly apply to zone 2, but not necessarily if there were amped-up non-farm-use applications. Zone 2 would not necessarily be the same usage for zone 1. Do you understand what I…? I'm just being a little paranoid here, maybe.

[1530]

Hon. L. Popham: Okay, it is confusing. I will agree.

This is as simple as I can make it for the member. The application process and criteria are the same, but the decision-making criteria is different in zone 2. So in zone 2, you must consider other things, the priority being agriculture. It slows the process down in zone 2, but the non-farm-use application is the same in both zone 1 and zone 2. I don't know if that answered the question.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. I do want to move forward with some fellow members here with questions, but I would like to just take a few moments to cover something that applies to my own riding.

We have an application before the Agricultural Land Commission from a piece of property in Delta known as MK Delta Lands. Being on Delta city council…. We have been through so much over three years. I know the file almost forwards and backwards with the history of this piece of property in the northern part of Delta, on the very northern edge of Burns Bog.

This went before Delta. We had so many stakeholder meetings with different committees in Delta. We've reviewed this time and time again. It went before Delta. It went before a public hearing. Delta mayor and council unanimously passed third reading of the MK Delta Lands proposal. It was then supported by our Delta ag advisory committee, supported by the Delta Farmers Institute.

Then it went forward to the Agricultural Land Commission, to the west coast panel. The west coast panel unanimously supported the application to remove the MK Delta Lands from the ALR. MK Delta Lands — one of the things that really jumped out at us is that they were going to mitigate this removal, with more land going back into the ALR along the edges of Burns Bog. Also, $6 million was going to be put forward towards improving ditching and irrigation water for the rest of farmers in the west part of Delta, specifically Westham Island, where we need to get fresh water. The $6 million was a wonderful gift as part of this presentation.

It went before the Agricultural Land Commission. The west coast panel approved this project, and then, for whatever reason, it has now been taken forward to the executive committee for reconsideration.

Did the minister agree with the initial approval of the ALC — yes or no? Has the minister had any contact with the Burns Bog Conservation Society since being sworn in?

[1535]

Hon. L. Popham: So that the member understands, it's the chair's prerogative to pull back an application when the chair sees fit. The chair oversight was actually a power that was given to the chair in 2011 under the previous government, so that's what the previous government set up.

Now, as far as the details on this application, I don't know. I haven't looked into it. I may have been copied on emails from Burns Bog or interested parties, but I would never use that in any way to interfere with an application.

I. Paton: One more question about this. There was a meeting with the minister on September 1 with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. Was the MK Delta Lands application a topic of conversation in that discussion on September 1?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. That meeting would have been my first meeting with the Agricultural Land Commission after being sworn in as minister, and it was really an orientation for me. I don't recall everything that we talked about, but I can tell you that I've just confirmed with the CEO whether or not applications were discussed in that meeting, and she confirms that we did not talk about applications.

I. Paton: Thank you for the answer. One more, final, question about MK Delta Lands: has the minister ever forwarded correspondence from a third party to Mr. Frank Leonard regarding the MK Delta Lands?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, if there were any emails directed towards me or the ministry with regards to an application or the Agricultural Land Commission, it's normal practice for us just to redirect them back to the commission.

I. Paton: Thank you for answering those questions about MK Delta Lands.

[1540]

At this time, I'd like to turn questioning over to the member for Abbotsford-Mission.

S. Gibson: It's a pleasure to be here. As many of you will know, Abbotsford is kind of the agricultural heartland for our province, so it's always a privilege and honour to be here and speak on behalf of our farmers and the burgeoning agri-industry that is Abbotsford — and Mission, I might add too.

N. Simons: Blueberries.

S. Gibson: Yeah, we've got a good memory here of blueberries, Abbotsford being kind of the blueberry capital of Canada.

Berry growers in my area face market challenges, as the minister will know. They've talked to me, from time to time, about looking at alternative cultivars. Raspberries are giving way to blueberries. If you look at kind of the history of berries in our province, 50 years ago strawberries were everywhere. In fact, Mission, on the northern side of my riding, was known as the strawberry capital of Canada. Strawberries now are largely grown in California. We have some crop here, but it's diminishing.

Now, then, it's taken over by raspberries. Of course, now blueberries are the boomer in the central valley, particularly in my riding of Abbotsford.

My question to the minister. Growers have mentioned to me they'd like to look at alternative cultivars, ones that will travel better, have a longer shelf life, be able to be shipped to other lands and still be very edible when they reach there. I'm wondering if the minister is contemplating providing any funding to farmers who would like to look at alternative cultivars for their farms.

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I've been to this member's riding so many times I have lost track. You represent a great area, a great agriculture area.

I absolutely understand the need to develop new cultivars as the markets change. The short answer is yes. There are opportunities. We have different pots of funding that we're able to access — federal funding, with our new agreement. There is a science cluster that could be focused on research as we develop new cultivars for certain reasons. So yes.

[1545]

I'd like to let the member know that we're going to be having a round table with the berry growers on our break weeks. We'll be hearing, I'm sure, about this from those growers.

I applaud the members bringing this to estimates. When you look at developing cultivars and the reasons why you want to change.... The member mentioned being able to travel the berries more effectively. I was up in Kelowna with the tree fruit growers. They've got this amazing program there. I think it's called farm to airport. They have these specially designed cardboard boxes where they put apples, or anything that comes from the tree fruit industry up there, for tourists to buy at the airport and take along with them. Of course, they're the fruits and the packaging that travel well.

Well, this member has an airport in his riding. I would say that working on something to be able to move that product out to customers in the airport might be a good idea too. So thank you for bringing that to my attention.

S. Gibson: That's very encouraging. I'm sure the round table will be very well received. I have some folks in my riding who talk to me regularly about their pride in blueberries — and raspberries as well. We have a little bit of cranberries in Abbotsford, but it's very small and probably limited to a rural area that's got a lot of water — as you know, with cranberries.

The other thing, too, is this fund — if it's easily accessible. Sometimes farmers are so busy with their livelihood. If it gets too complicated or the application process is so rigorous, sometimes our farming folks just say: "Well, it's too complicated for me." So my request — and thank you for the encouraging words — is that the application process can be something that can be easily done without a lot of, if I might say, bureaucratic processing. I think that our farmers would be very thankful to you, Minister, and to your folks if that exercise could be made efficient.

Another related question, if I may. What international markets is the minister going to be pursuing on behalf of, particularly although not exclusively, my area? You probably will have a more expansive answer.

Our area, as you know, is looking at new markets, for blueberries in particular. But we have other folks, as well, who grow cold crops, as you know — broccoli, Brussels sprouts and some cauliflower. If there are some markets that you are pursuing, I'd be interested in asking, on behalf of my constituents what international markets you are going to be pursuing, and what kind of travelling you are going to be doing on behalf of our farmers this year

[1550]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I can tell this member that I'm definitely coming back to Abbotsford. Those are my travel plans. As far as international travel, we haven't landed on anything. I think the members might appreciate that things have changed in the Legislature, so we don't have the same freedoms that we used to have to be able to go on these missions during a session. But we are making plans, and I'll be able to update the members on those plans as soon as they're nailed down.

As for our top priorities for international marketing of our products, we are focusing on the U.S., which is our largest trading partner; China; Japan; South Korea; and Hong Kong. We do put a lot of effort into the international marketing side of things. I'd be happy to have my staff brief the member on exactly what we're doing if he would like to make an appointment in my office.

S. Gibson: Thank you for that kind invitation. I'll take you up on that.

I have one other brief question. I've been encouraged to be fairly expeditious here, so I won't speak at length. We have a lot of young farmers in the valley. One of the things that I think we're pretty proud of is we are getting younger people into farming. It's sometimes a challenge. One of the largest dairy farms in the province is in my riding. In fact, as you notice, Minister, when you cross the Mission Bridge, that one on the right, the Ted De Jong farm…. He's got his kids' kids working on the farm.

It's so encouraging to see that, because we lament that…. We know that young people leave and don't want to stay on the farm. They want to become teachers, which we need, or accountants, which we need. But we also lament the fact that young people don't stay on the farm, perhaps, as long as they used to. It's maybe not a part of the heritage.

But we're making good-news stories, as well, in Abbotsford and in Chilliwack, where young farmers are staying on the farm and enjoying it. The third and fourth generations are growing the business and contributing to our economy, to our livelihood.

My question to the minister is: are you doing anything to nurture young farmers? Are you doing anything to encourage them, perhaps as the minister or through the ministry, to say to young farmers, "Here are some incentives for you; here are some motivations that we can offer as government to keep you on the farm, to grow that farm," so that young farmers can assume the farm when it's time for mom and dad to move into the condo in town? That's my question.

Hon. L. Popham: Getting young people and new farmers onto the land and incenting them to stay on the land is critically important. I don't know for how many years I've heard that nobody wants to farm anymore and that all the farmers are getting old. I don't believe it. Well, farmers might be getting old, but there's a whole new generation of farmers that are interested in food production. Some of them have been raised on farms. And some of them don't come from farms, but they want to get into farming.

[1555]

In the previous budget, there was $1.3 million that was allocated for business management and new entrants. In this new budget, we've secured an additional $500,000 to support additional supports for new and young farmers. The additional $500,000 represents money that can be used for land matching and pilot projects like we've previously supported with the Young Agrarians, making sure that young people who don't own farmland are matched with landowners who aren't currently farming but own farmland. So we are doing a lot of that.

Within the ministry, we have business coaches and courses on succession planning. If the young farmers are looking for advice or any guidance, they are more than welcome to contact our ministry. We've got amazing staff that will work with them. Very flexible, so whatever challenges they want to bring into the ministry, we'll be able to work with them and try and figure things out.

Thank you for speaking about young and new farmers. It's really, really important.

I. Paton: At this time, I'd just like to comment that we have an agriculture industry that has so many facets to it. There are so many questions that I'm sure we're not going to get through tonight. Hopefully, we'll have time tomorrow as well.

At this point, I'd like to move on to the topic of aquaculture, and I'd like to now turn the questioning over to the member for Skeena. After that, it'll be the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

E. Ross: Thank you for taking the questions. My questions are specifically around salmon farms. We all know the value of salmon farms in relation to the markets, as well as to supply salmon to the rest of the world, as well as the jobs for First Nations, non–First Nations and the union of Steelworkers. So I won't ask you to do an overview of that.

What I will ask is a question my colleagues have asked in relation to agriculture as well. Is there any type of promotional tour in your schedule, whether it be in the United States or over in Asia, in relation to salmon farm product in B.C.?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. Yes, we absolutely have allocation for international trade outreach, which includes farmed salmon. I currently don't have any plans that I can speak about — specifically where I'm going to be travelling to add to that promotion. But what I can say is that we have a lot of staff that are out there doing the international trade shows, promoting our products from B.C., and that does include farmed salmon.

E. Ross: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

I guess you know that there's a lot of controversy regarding salmon farms in B.C.

Interjection.

E. Ross: I had to throw that in there.

I'm trying to get right down to the issues. I grew up on the water. I grew up working on it. I grew up fishing salmon. In fact, what led me to this topic was my concern for wild stocks. It was quite surprising to me to know that fish farms were at the top of the list, especially when you consider the scientific reports that actually put that at the bottom of the list and put overfishing and habitat damage at the top of the list — specifically, the Cohen Commission report.

[1600]

Just to get to the point here, to get through all the controversy that happened in the last six months regarding salmon farms and the letter that was written to Marine Harvest, in particular, there was a promise that a report would be made by the Deputy Minister to the Premier and that that would be completed around this time. Is this report completed, and if so, when will it be made public?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I'm not quite sure which report the member was referring to, but there are two reports, so I'll just report out on both reports.

There's the minister's Advisory Council on Finfish Aquaculture, and then we have the review of the animal health lab. Currently, the Advisory Council on Finfish Aquaculture is under review within my ministry, and the animal health lab review is under review with the Deputy Minister to the Premier.

E. Ross: I'm talking about the commitment that was made by the Premier in the House when we were talking about the letter regarding tenure for Marine Harvest. The Premier promised that there'd be a report made by his DM that would be produced in response to some of the controversy surrounding it.

I just thought that the report would be done by now. I'm talking about that specific reference.

Hon. L. Popham: I think that the member is referring to the animal health lab review. That review has been concluded, and it's currently under review with the Deputy Minister to the Premier.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. Currently under review — is there any general timeline on when this report will be made public or at least brought to the attention of the members of the House?

Hon. L. Popham: The animal health lab review was conducted and is in the hands of the Deputy Minister to the Premier. At this point, it is out of my hands. The member would have to canvass the Premier's estimates.

E. Ross: Okay, thank you for that, Minister.

A related topic is UNDRIP. I still haven't quite figured out how UNDRIP will get applied in terms of decision-making from the Crown or, as well, in terms of consultation and accommodation of case law and policies. In terms of UNDRIP, have there been any meetings with the First Nations who support fish farms? If there haven't been any meetings with the First Nations who support fish farms, are there any plans to meet with these First Nations?

[1605]

Hon. L. Popham: On the MAACFA committee, there were members of First Nations who support fish farming as part of the advisory committee. Also, we've received written input and submissions from nations that also support — two, as an example, are Ahousaht and Kitasoo. They've been part of our process, and I appreciate their participation very much.

As far as how we are moving through our tenure renewal process, specifically in the Broughton Archipelago, we are working on a consent-based process, working with First Nations in that regard. I'm not the lead minister; our lead ministry is Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.

E. Ross: I understand it's a cross-jurisdictional issue in terms of the government of B.C. — as well as Canada, for that matter. I understand there are all the different stakeholders and parties involved.

In your letter to Marine Harvest on October 13 of last year, I'm just trying to understand the reference made, to Marine Harvest, to the commitments made under UNDRIP to the First Nations, specifically the First Nations who oppose fish farms.

Is your ministry aware of the amount of time and effort that was made by Marine Harvest in trying to reach out and have a conversation with these First Nations that opposed fish farms?

[1610]

Hon. L. Popham: Yes, we're very much aware of, and in contact with, industry. We understand how industry has reached out to First Nations who are opposed to fish farming in the Broughton Archipelago. There was work that industry was trying to do. First Nations were not interested in having those conversations, and so we've reached a critical impasse.

What we committed to was a consent-based process involving First Nations. The process basically began almost as soon as we were sworn in as government. We've had one very good meeting with First Nations who are opposed to fish farming in their area in the Broughton Archipelago. We expect to have another one in a couple of weeks, but we're in the middle of that process.

I think that for many, many years this has been a controversial issue, and it's one that's been ignored. Trying to work our way through it is a difficult process, but we're doing it in a very respectful way with respect to First Nations, but also involving industry along the way. My deputy minister is in constant contact.

E. Ross: It couldn't have been ignored if the company has been trying to reach out for last five, ten years or so. Especially if they kept records of how many times they tried to reach out and tried to resolve the differences. That's a fundamental difference between case law and UNDRIP. Under case law, it's supposed to be a two-way street. You're supposed to respond, even if it's to affirm that you got the correspondence in the first place.

In terms of the company trying to reach out prior to UNDRIP being implemented and then afterwards, when UNDRIP is implemented, and specifically referenced in your letter of October 13…. Which approach will government take if the First Nations here refuse to engage and refuse to listen to some of the offers being put out by either the company or the Crown?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks again for the question. We are committed to a consent-based process, and we're in the middle of that process. I certainly don't want to predict the outcome.

We had our first meeting on January 30 and expect to have the next meeting in the next few weeks. But the process…. I think it's going well. I'm not the lead on this topic, and so you may want to direct further questions to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.

[1615]

E. Ross: To the minister: thank you for that answer.

In terms of getting an answer, in terms of how you address rights and title in B.C., it was well defined in case law. But it's not so well defined in UNDRIP, and that's the point I'm trying to get at. I don't understand the process under UNDRIP. There doesn't seem to be a process, except for consent. The predicted outcome is going to be more of the same — more unlawful activity that puts people's lives in danger or in court. I don't see any other option there.

In relation to what's going on in terms of the jurisdiction, I understand, by reading certain correspondence, that the provincial government and the federal government are also engaging on the overarching topic, which is wild salmon. I understand that the governments are talking about wild salmon in the context of fish farms. But as the member from across the way here also pointed out, wild salmon stocks are in danger as well, in different parts of the province.

Is there any other conversation with the federal government, apart from fish farms, that's talking about the safety and the well-being of wild salmon stocks?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the important question. I think all of us are very concerned about the health of wild salmon and our salmon stocks. I don't think that's in question at all.

[1620]

I think the member's question was if there was anything else that's being done around the health of wild salmon to address wild salmon stocks. I can say yes, there is. Our province is engaged with the federal government on the entire seafood sector, including wild salmon. Some of the things that we're working currently are planning for habitat restoration, habitat protection and wild salmon health.

There are so many things that need to be addressed around the health of our seafood sector, specifically wild salmon. I've had conversations with Minister LeBlanc on this. I know that he is committed to those things as well.

I don't know how more specific the member wants to get. There is so much information. What I can say is that we would be very happy to brief the member on exactly what's going on between provincial and federal governments on salmon health, if he wishes.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. Specifically, it's wild salmon stocks in relation to fish farms, salmon farms. It seems to be the lightening rod, when really, when you look at the scientific reports, the Cohen commission places it at No. 5 as a priority, as opposed to, say, overfishing, bycatch or habitat damage.

That's where I actually got into this issue when I was a chief councillor. I really thought there was a concentrated effort to actually address these issues, the top-priority issues, only to find out that the fish farms became the issue in relation to it. But nothing's really being done at the high level to address the No. 1 effect, including ocean warming and ocean acidification.

In terms of the salmon farms themselves, are there any proposals proposed by the province that actually build additional standards? It's already a well-standardized industry to begin with. Or is there anything else proposed in terms of permitting or environmental assessment, or anything of that nature, to provide extra standards for the fish farm industry, the salmon farm industry?

[1625]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks again for the question. Yes, again, there are things being done. Currently, we sit at the Pacific Salmon Commission to negotiate with the United States, addressing things like bycatch and overfishing — basically, the conservation of some of these fish.

There is work being done outside of the fish farm issue, but I can tell the member that the MAACFA report that we're reviewing right now…. We actually received input from committee members with regards to fish farms and strengthening some of the standards and having different standards. All of that has come to us, and we're currently reviewing that.

E. Ross: To the minister, the only reason I ask is because there's already independent analysis in terms of standards in B.C. The Aquaculture Stewardship Council, which was founded by the World Wide Fund for Nature for sustainable aquaculture…. Marine Harvest gained certification from this organization. Marine Harvest is also certified by the Global Aquaculture Alliance for best aquaculture practices.

There are a lot of standards in place already, and they're meeting these standards. They're already providing a lot of employment and value for the province as well.

In terms of alternatives, I understand that there's a push to go to closed-containment or on-land types of fish farms. Is the Crown really, seriously looking into this? And have they considered the unviability of it in past practices?

Hon. L. Popham: I think the member may have seen our platform commitments, where we state that we are encouraging movement to closed-containment, land-based fish farming where possible. But we of course understand where the technology is right now.

I can tell the member that the federal government, through their FACTAP program — which is the aquaculture and clean tech adaptation program— would be able to support more research in this area, and they're very interested in doing so. I think that we have examples from around the world where people are spending a lot of time, money and energy on figuring this out. We're very interested in that, and what we stated in our platform is our platform.

E. Ross: When we were talking about the unviability, we were actually talking about being close to the points of access to actually get the product to market. Basically, if =companies in B.C. are forced to do this without a subsidy from either level of government, then they're basically being forced to shut down. This has been already shown by the Kuterra initiative as well, and they were proved unviable.

In terms of the information out there right now and the controversies surrounding fish farms, the general public is being swayed by misinformation. Basically, a lot of this is coming from people that don't have professional designations but profess to have these designations. It's really hard for average citizens of B.C. to understand exactly what the truth is in relation to these fish farms.

[1630]

The controversy is enough to promote threats, safety violations and unlawful actions. Is there any way that the Crown is able to consider categorizing the different information coming into government and then getting that information out to the public, in terms of who's saying it and what designation they have that gives them the right to say that as a professional?

Hon. L. Popham: I'll agree with the member that the science is complicated, and the ability for the public to sort through the scientific discussion is difficult. I would completely agree with that.

I can say that the committee members on our MAACFA committee came from varied viewpoints, and all of that information, different

interpretations of science, was brought together. They have created a report based on those differing viewpoints, and that's what we're reviewing right now.

One thing, on a positive light, specific to what you've asked is that the federal government has appointed a chief science adviser to address this exact issue. This is looking at how the science is being communicated to the public. So it is being addressed at the federal level. But it's a great question.

E. Ross: Last question. Wild salmon health is what brought me here; wild salmon population is what brought me here. Secondary to that, I'm always looking for opportunities for First Nations people to get jobs, opportunities, training — as well as non–First Nations in a given area, because First Nations can't fill every job opportunity.

[1635]

Given what's happening up in the north end of Vancouver Island, it's fairly troubling — given the unlawful activity — because nobody that's trying to make a living, trying to put food on the table, trying to support a family should feel threatened. Nobody should be stalked to the point of where they think somebody's going to follow them home and they're going to make it so loud outside that their children can't sleep.

This is not right. When you're talking about a lawful business doing lawful activities under the legislation and regulations of B.C., there shouldn't be unsafe activities being exercised at the same time by people that shouldn't even be there. Not only are they putting their own lives in danger — which has been proven — by falling overboard, but the people who have to rescue them are being put in danger.

I come from a marine background. Some of the biggest dangers you have are people that don't understand how to be on the water and put everybody's lives in danger. And we're not even talking about the standards about bringing fires to these facilities, or propane bottles. All these regulations around safety in B.C. and Canada mean nothing if people that want to break the law intentionally just breach the law whenever they want.

The question to the minister is, is there anything that the Crown is considering to limit or eliminate these unlawful activities that are putting people's lives in danger and threatening families, especially children's well-being and peace of mind?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I hope that the member recognizes that we support peaceful protests. We do not support unlawful activity whatsoever.

I think that this was canvassed in the Public Safety and Solicitor General estimates, and I think that minister made some very strong comments about how we feel about unlawful activity like you're mentioning.

I don't think I need to comment on it any further. It doesn't fall under the Ministry of Agriculture, and I feel confident in the statements that the other minister made.

The Chair: Members, we're just going to take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:38 p.m. to 4:47 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I'd like to call Committee of Supply,

Section A, Ministry of Agriculture estimates back into session, and I recognize the critic from Delta South.

I. Paton: Hon. Chair, at this point, I'd like to turn over the questioning to the member for Saanich North and the Islands and Agriculture critic for the Third Party.

A. Olsen: I've got about 30 pages of questions for the Minister of Agriculture. I recognize we don't have time for that, so I'll do my best to distil these down and just pick the ones that are most important.

To start, I note that there was a question that was brought up about mad cow and avian flu, and the minister talked about the importance of addressing these. I just want to ask some questions about aquaculture-based diseases and whether or not the posture of the ministry is the same — has the same kind of attack mentality that it does on mad cow when we talk about HSMI or PRV.

I'm going to talk a little bit about the research. But just wanting to know what the approach is when it comes to…. When mad cow or avian flu happens, man, the entire Fraser Valley, or wherever it is, shuts down. Everybody stops, and we wash every tire and do everything…. It seems to not be the case when it comes to identified risks, whether it be those two or others, within aquaculture.

Can you talk a little bit about the approach taken by the ministry on aquaculture-based diseases?

[1650]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question — a great question. There are similarities in our approach, for sure. Where the similarities are…. As we understand the risks and the disease and pathogen processes — how they transfer — we approach that the same way. A lot of that has to do with how we handle biosecurity on these farms.

The member mentioned mad cow disease and BSE. There's a difference between those diseases and the other diseases that the member mentioned, HSMI and PRV.

In the eyes of the CFIA, the mad cow and BSE are reportable diseases and the other two are not, which means that if we have a mad cow, BSE, or avian flu, the federal government has a different response. So if those are reported, they have to be reported to CFIA. Then, in that case, it is all hands on deck as far as the response goes. The CFIA has not made HSMI and PRV reportable diseases.

[1655]

A. Olsen: Okay. Well, thank you for the answer.

Just along the lines of agriculture science and policy, how much of our budget is allocated to the research, in aquaculture science, into these two diseases that are so well known? The former member was talking about a lot of unknowns. How much are we, as a government, investing in the research on these? Just an idea. Is this more than last year? Are we increasing spending in this area or decreasing it? Where does it stand? I guess….

[Interruption.]

The Chair: Members are reminded to please turn off your electronic devices. Thank you.

A. Olsen: I'll just leave it at that.

Hon. L. Popham: The member's question was how much do we invest in fish health research in our budget in the Ministry of Agriculture. We don't actually do fish research in our ministry. That falls under the responsibilities of DFO.

What we do in our lab is diagnostic services. Some of the information gathered from diagnostics services can contribute to the research that's being done at DFO, but we do not do any research ourselves. We have requested that DFO increase their budget for fish health research, because we agree that there should be more contributed to that.

A. Olsen: Moving to inspection, and I do see diagnostics here — inspections of fish, of hatcheries, open-net farms, of the processing plants. What kind of effort, if any, is being done within the ministry around the inspections of these facilities?

[1700]

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. The activities that the member has mentioned were inspections of hatcheries and fish farms. All of that responsibility got transferred to DFO in 2010 with the Hinkson decision.

When the member looks through the blue book and looks at inspections, what that's referring to is inspections of abattoirs and fish-processing plants, and that is under the lens of food safety.

A. Olsen: That falls under the Ministry of Agriculture, in food safety.

In terms of the relationship that the ministry has with…. It was talked about a lot here earlier — the relationship between the aquaculture industry and the wild salmon industry. There was a very definitive change a number of years ago where the government deliberately shifted its focus from wild salmon to more of an aquaculture-based industry focus. It has admitted as much. There are quotes. They say it. "That's what we want. We want an industry-based aquaculture process."

The member who was here asking questions…. We found some common ground on wild salmon. I'm quite excited about that.

Under your direction with the Ministry of Agriculture, how is it that we can shift back from an aquaculture-based focus — almost primarily focused on aquaculture, I'd argue, over the last, let's just say more than decade and a half — going forward? As your agricultural land reserve work is being done for a future approach, how can we have that same kind of approach with wild salmon? And what kind of work is the ministry preparing to do in order to put some real plans in action on this?

[1705]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. Myself and the Premier have repeatedly said that wild salmon is a priority for our government, and we've not deviated from that message. Some of the issues that we're grappling with are complicated because of that.

What we can say is that as far as a change of direction goes, what we need to do is to be able to work with our federal counterparts. They play a huge role. We can see that they are also working in the same direction, which is positive and makes us feel very hopeful. The Fisheries Act will be changed, and there is a huge focus on habitat protection, which is going to be critically important. We're also working with DFO to promote the wild fisheries sector.

Now, the things that we're doing in our ministry…. We haven't had that much time, and it's a massive issue. Some of the things that we've done ourselves is we are supporting making sure that young fishers are educated about the value of going into a wild fisheries economy. We put forward money for the B.C. Young Fishermen's Gathering. It was a great, great conference. It included about 50 young fishers from coastal B.C. communities, including First Nations.

What they learned was probably invaluable for someone who may choose the wild fishery as their way of life. They learned about commercial fishing business practices, seafood marketing and sustainable harvesting. We put $10,000 into that conference. We've heard great feedback from that. We look forward to supporting them again.

We also put $40,000 into the Ecotrust conference, which was a gathering of people who are involved in the wild fisheries.

Those are the steps we've taken so far. We will continue to work, as best we can, with the federal government to make sure the direction remains the same. As I said, the Premier himself has continued to say that it's a priority for our government.

[1710]

The Chair: Members and Ministers, if I might have just a moment, just to remind everybody that while things have been collegial and we're getting into very familiar forms of address of "you" and "will you do this" or "will you do that" and "oh, through the Chair," the correct form of address would be "would the minister" or "will the member," in terms of Standing Order 36.

When things get hot and heated, you will appreciate that I am the only "you" in this room, and otherwise it is "member" and "minister." Thank you.

A. Olsen: I'm so sorry. There's only one other member in the Legislature that shares Saanich with me, and more often than not, we can sit and have lunch together and have a conversation. So it's a bit odd to speak through the hon. Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I completely understand.

A. Olsen: Thank you. I appreciate it. I will learn.

In the past, we've had a ministry of fisheries as one of the foundational industries of our province. Both for the province of British Columbia as well as, before, for Indigenous people, fisheries was a foundational industry. So growing up where I grew up, I have challenges with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That's for sure.

There was a recent

article with respect to quotas, speaking directly to the young fishers' piece. My understanding is that it's becoming more and more difficult for fisher-people to make a profit, due to the way that those quotas are allocated. This is just a question that has come up as the minister was answering the question.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister, will the province of B.C. be advocating for the fisher-people in the province? I think there was a recent report — or it's about to be released; we were briefed on it — with respect to how fisher-people are remunerated for the work and the effort that they're doing in our province?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes, we absolutely advocate for jobs here on the coast and opportunities for our wild fisher-people. I don't know if the member knows, but I sit as the B.C. representative on the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. On that committee, I continue to advocate for our wild fisheries. And at the beginning of the summer, in Saint John, there will be a convening of that committee.

[1715]

A. Olsen: The suggestion of a ministry of fisheries is not to disparage the current minister or, necessarily, to criticize the way that it's established. It just was more to point out the fact that in the past — and in fact, in past NDP governments or in past governments of similar…. I'm not sure how we're supposed to say that.

Anyway, fisheries have played a very, very prominent role, to the point where we've had a minister specifically to relate to the coast and then, as well, to relate to the federal government, which is a big, unruly beast in and of itself. That was the point that I was making.

I just have a couple more areas, two more questions that I'd like to ask, still in the science and policy area of the ministry's budget. In looking at the area for providing and improving public health protection, consumer and retail confidence, education and awareness, surveillance and risk assessment, what kinds of risk assessments has the government run with respect to farm-raised Atlantic salmon and the threat of disease, potentially, at some point, being escalated from where these diseases are seen today by CFIA — I guess it is — to the case of a mad cow or an avian flu?

What kind of risk assessment are we running with respect to the aquaculture industry and the wild salmon industry, since they share a space right now, as it currently is? When we talk about risk assessments and Atlantic salmon, what risks would we be contemplating here with this specific part of the budget, if we were investing anything in it?

[1720]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I think the question was around risk assessment as far as disease goes. The member is most likely looking at the context given to him in the blue book, the line item there.

The context is actually to do with our mandate on the risk assessment. That would consider abattoirs and fish processing. But on the salmon farming side of it, aquaculture and wild salmon, that's the responsibility of DFO. They do the risk assessments on those items. That being said, the MAACFA report, which we are just reviewing now, actually addresses the risks of fish farms. They've put forward their recommendations, and we'll be considering those.

A. Olsen: Finally, there were some questions earlier with respect to fish farming — open net in the ocean or closed pen on land — and some rather general statements made about how one is more expensive than the other and one is sustainable and not.

There's a portion of this budget — in the blue book, anyway — around business development. There's seemingly a move in the industry and in other countries where fish farming exists of moving to on land.

In ensuring that we're looking ahead, again, has the B.C. government made any investment in looking at this, looking at what a process would look like? We knew that the tenures were coming up. I understand that that's a different ministry, which I will be canvassing that minister about. But in terms of the aquaculture industry — which we generate many millions of dollars in revenue from, spread across a number of different authorities — are we doing any business development and taking a look at what that looks like in moving the industry from open ocean to on land?

[1725]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. First off, let me just reiterate our platform commitment, which was to transition open-net farms to land-based fish farming where possible and also to explore incentives for industry to get there.

Within my ministry, absolutely exploring the incentives. Those are discussions that are happening. This is the first year…. Previous to this year, Agriculture has been excluded from accessing some innovation money. But this year, through the FACTAP program with the federal government, we are able to access that. So those are avenues where we can maybe secure some funding to support part of that mandate that we have, our platform. In the past, there have been small investments in the Kuterra land-based fish farm. But at this point, we're starting fresh.

Obviously, because it's in our platform, we're looking at all avenues. That's a commitment that we made, and in my ministry, we're having those discussions now.

R. Sultan: Four quick questions and a short

preamble.

I've been around this place a few years. I hadn't been here too long before, like other British Columbians, I was hit with this rather creative, I thought, campaign to convince us that not only was farm salmon unhealthy to eat; it was destroying the wild salmon in the process. I thought: "Well, that's an interesting campaign." I had previously been attached to the marketing department of the Harvard Business School, and it was what we would call a classical de-marketing campaign — and a pretty good one.

Shortly thereafter a person came to my office and showed me some documentation from the Internal Revenue Service, which seemed credible, that suggested this campaign was largely funded by the Alaskan salmon ranching industry, which is massive by comparison, I think even today, with our fish farming industry.

Knowing how we had taught our students to be aggressive and competitive and to win at any price, it didn't particularly surprise me. This is how Americans conduct their business affairs, by and large: ruthlessly but successfully.

My first question is: does the ministry track the level of Alaskan fish farm industry funding of the anti-B.C.-fish-farm campaign?

Hon. L. Popham: No.

R. Sultan: Second question. Would you be concerned if foreign sources of funding influenced anti-fish-farm campaign activity in British Columbia? Would it concern you?

[1730]

Hon. L. Popham: Primarily, my advice comes from my ministry and my staff, and I continue to meet with British Columbians who care about issues. I think there's been a long history of influences coming in and talking about what should be happening in British Columbia. That doesn't influence me, and I'm not really sure what I would be able to do about it, but I'm curious about it.

R. Sultan: Third question. To drag you over the agonizing subject again of Marine Harvest, I am reminded that you wrote what I would call a firmly cautionary letter to Marine Harvest on October 13. Who advised you to write that letter?

The Chair: I would remind the member to come through the Chair.

R. Sultan: Through the Chair. My apologies.

Hon. L. Popham: That letter was written with other ministers that I was working with and also through my officials.

R. Sultan: Through the Chair, thank you, Minister.

Fourth question. I am told that the email said: "You have a short window of opportunity to get ahead of this. You need to give Marine Harvest a heads-up of your intentions a.s.a.p." Mr. Chair, do you think the minister could tell us if she received that email from Alexandra Morton?

[1735]

Hon. L. Popham: I receive emails from a lot of people in British Columbia, but who I get my advice from are my colleagues and my senior officials.

R. Sultan: No further questions, thank you.

J. Thornthwaite: Now for something completely different, which is commonly known as the puppy mill bill. We know it refers to the legislation that was passed last year and the subsequent working on the regulations to offer better animal welfare for puppy and kitty mills — shut them down — as well as assurances to the public to hold bad breeders accountable.

My question is about the consultations, because I know that the ministry is a bit behind on the consultations. Have consultations with the SPCA as well as responsible breeders occurred to date?

Hon. L. Popham: Before I answer the question, I just wanted to say to the member: thank you so much for the work that you've done in the past on animal welfare and continue to do.

The answer is: we are in that process right now.

J. Thornthwaite: Good news, then. I'm assuming that…. The last time I talked to my contact, with one of the breeders, she had not been contacted. But my information is a week or so old. When you say happening right now, will they have gotten the consultation request now?

Hon. L. Popham: The consultation process started a couple of weeks ago. There is a chance that we've missed someone. If the member wouldn't mind passing us the name so we can get that person on the list, that'd be great.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you. I will.

The next question is about the regulations and the implementation of the regulations. What funding is available for the implementation, registering or licensing and staff enforcement once the regulations have been finalized?

[1740]

Hon. L. Popham: With regards to the funding, the approach has not been agreed upon yet, so we don't know how much it will cost. Once we figure out the approach, we will have an idea how much that's going to cost. At that point, we'll figure out how to secure funding.

J. Thornthwaite: Has the decision been made whether or not the SPCA would be the body that would be implementing it?

Hon. L. Popham: Officially, the SPCA has not been identified, but we're basically working under those assumptions. They've been very clear with us that they will not accept that responsibility without funding being in place, and we understand that clearly.

J. Thornthwaite: Moving along. The SPCA, obviously — just a confirmation — will be informed and updated with regards to their feedback. I understand they've given quite a bit of feedback.

The relationship and the consultations going back and forth will be very clear between them, and they will, obviously, be consulted no matter if they are the body that is chosen or not. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Popham: That's correct.

J. Thornthwaite: I think that was it.

I just wanted to confirm that I am looking forward to this finally getting over with, obviously for the benefit of the future animals involved and for the public that is waiting for this dearly, because they want to know that the animals that they are purchasing are raised humanely. Also to shut down breeders that are acting inappropriately and inhumanely for dogs and cats….

I appreciate the opportunity to ask the questions, and certainly keep up the good work, and keep me informed.

Hon. L. Popham: I just wanted to respond to the member.

When I first became an MLA nine years ago, my son was quite young. He's 19 now, so you can do the math. I told him what my job entailed. I said that I would be working in the Legislature, where laws are created, and I said: "What's the one thing that you would want changed in the province of B.C.?" He said: "I want you to stop puppy mills."

As we work towards making sure that doesn't happen anymore, I will be inviting my son down to the Legislature, and I hope the member will join us in celebrating that.

I. Paton: At this point, while we still have Ms. Grout here, I'd like to speak a bit about mega-homes on farmland.

I think the aspirations of the Agriculture Minister are wonderful, about what we're doing with our farmland and seeing farming and young people flourish. But I honestly believe, when I drive around, especially the Fraser Valley just a few weeks ago…. Travelling out to Abbotsford to the trade show, you drive along 0 Avenue and 8th Avenue from the Surrey portion all the way to Abbotsford and Chilliwack. The mega-homes that are being built on some of these small properties — five-acre and ten-acre properties — are completely taking away the opportunity to properly farm some of these properties.

Richmond is a prime example. South of Steveston Highway and west of No. 5 Road, Finn Road — that general area…. I mean, it's absolutely absurd what's going on with mega-homes, and I think the minister knows that. We have homes there of 18,000 square feet. I think there was a home that was going to be built that's almost 40,000 square feet, and it doesn't seem to be stopping.

Richmond council came up with a solution, which was the hokiest thing I've ever heard. "Let's take it down from infinity square feet to 11,000 square feet." Well, to me, that's ridiculously high for a home on farmland.

I'm very proud of the bylaw standard that was brought forward by the B.C. Liberal government in 2011 to provide a bylaw standard to municipalities suggesting that these are the standards we should go by for home size on farms and siting of homes on farms.

[1745]

Delta adopted this bylaw standard, and it's worked very well. We haven't had any push-back that I know of. We wanted to nip in the bud a few mega-homes that were built in Delta. We nipped it to about four or five. We brought in the bylaw standard that says if you have 20 acres or less, you can build a home up to 3,500 square feet. If you have more than 20 acres, you can build a home as big as 5,200 square feet, which is plenty big, I think, for a home anywhere.

The home must be sited within 60 metres of the main road, and it has to be in the corner of the farm. It can't be one of these great, long 200-foot driveways in the middle of your farm property, which just eats up a bunch of valuable farmland.

My question to the minister is: what is your plan to address mega-homes on our ALR land?

Hon. L. Popham: Credit to Delta for adopting the minister's bylaw standard. I think that Delta has been a friend to agriculture in that way, making sure that food-growing lands are protected.

The minister's bylaw standard was brought in, in 2011. It is encouraged, but it's not required to adopt it. Any of the regulations around size and siting don't reside in the ALC. They reside in the Local Government Act, so there's still not any way for the ALC to influence the size and siting aspect.

What I can say is that this is a huge issue. This is a massive issue for the agricultural land reserve, and local government, provincial government…. There's not an effective way to address that right now. What I do know is that, in the Richmond area and in the Lower Mainland, a lot of discussion has been sent through to the agricultural land reserve revitalization committee, because that's an avenue where, obviously, opinions can be collected. I would imagine that the committee will come out with recommendations, because I know that they've been getting a lot of input specifically on this.

[1750]

Even though I know the member may not agree with the committee that's been struck to look at the ALR, there are serious, serious issues that the ALR has to deal with right now, and this is an effective way of getting everything to the table.

I. Paton: Thank you for the answer.

With all due respect, the committee may come forward with suggestions about mega-homes and suggest that they are not a good thing on our agricultural land. However, as you've suggested, I think we both would agree right now, together, that mega-homes are not a good idea. I don't think we really need a committee to tell us that.

What legal avenues do you have through legislation or through the land commission to be able to make a decision without having to get comments from a committee?

Hon. L. Popham: Unfortunately, I can tell the member that I absolutely have no way in my ministry to legally address the issue. I do want to add that there could have been amendments that were made the last time we went through changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and the government of the day failed to do so.

I. Paton: At this time, thank you for the answer. I certainly think it's a problem that we need to get hold of, because it's just going to keep going. If the municipalities don't take charge of this — Aldergrove and Abbotsford and Langley and South Surrey and Richmond — we're just going to keep seeing these mega-homes go up. I certainly think it's something that we need to get together in a non-partisan way and figure out how we can tackle this problem.

At this point, I'd like to turn the questioning over to the member for Chilliwack-Kent.

The Chair: The member for Chilliwack-Kent, as advertised.

L. Throness: I just have a question, first of all, about hazelnuts. When in opposition, the minister championed the hazelnut industry and a replant for hazelnuts. I'm just wondering if there will be any help now, from her government, on hazelnuts.

Hon. L. Popham: I can't tell you how happy I am to answer this question. I do love the hazelnut industry, and it's time to get it started again.

In our fruit tree competitiveness fund, there is room for planting hazelnut orchards. One of the things that we've done over the last while is made sure that we've inventoried the amount of diseased trees out there and have made plans to remove them before new orchards are planted. We've also, through the ministry, been assisting the hazelnut industry with a guidebook on how to establish hazelnuts on your farm.

I look forward to continuing the work with the hazelnut growers. And I would love to see, over the next while, that we get enough acres in the ground to warrant bringing the processing side back too.

L. Throness: Wonderful. I will certainly communicate to the industry about the fruit tree competitiveness fund. That sounds very promising.

[1755]

I have a few questions now about marijuana. The minister has decried the replacement of food production with marijuana production on farmland. Will the government be revisiting the ALC decision that marijuana can be grown on ALR land?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. It's a very interesting question as we face the legalization of recreational cannabis sometime late summer of this year.

I've always talked about how we grow things on the ALR, not necessarily the particular crops that we're growing, but how they're grown. For example, cement-based greenhouses — that has been up for discussion.

The previous government changed regulations to allow medical cannabis to be grown on the ALR. At that point, I'm not sure any of us could have really foreseen what was going to be facing us as the federal government made changes to laws around cannabis.

But I have to say that I've recused myself from all discussions around cannabis policy. My partner is a GP. He prescribes medical cannabis to his patients, which is provided through licensed producers. So I am not privy to the discussions that have happened.

L. Throness: I'm sure the minister would be privy to the terms of reference of the review committee that's looking at the ALR right now. Can she tell me if the government, in its terms of reference, has specifically asked the review committee to address the question of marijuana?

Hon. L. Popham: It's not explicitly in the terms of reference, but I know people are providing input through that committee.

L. Throness: I'm wondering if the Ag Ministry will have a regulatory part to play in the legalization legal regime.

[1800]

Hon. L. Popham: I don't know, and I won't be part of that discussion. If there is any role to play by the Ministry of Agriculture, I'll be recusing myself of that. The lead minister will be from Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.

I. Paton: I'd like to now talk about the farm tax exemption rules. This has been brought forward not only by myself but by people with the B.C. Ag Council. I think we have, possibly, a problem in this province with a farm tax exemption rate of $2,500 to prove that you are a bona fide farmer and that you will receive the farm tax rate in your municipality.

There's been a lot of talk, even within BCAC, that $2,500 is a bit of a joke. You get very wealthy people that come along and purchase farmland at a reasonable price, build a big, fancy house and lease out a bit of their land. All they have to do is get a neighbour to show that they brought in $2,500 worth of farm income to get this tax credit.

The suggestion is that this credit rate should be raised to at least $10,000 to get the little guys — the hobby farmers that come along with lots of money — and the rich people that buy farms, build fancy houses and only have to show $2,500 in farm income. We need people to be able to show $10,000 minimum in farm income. Can you give me an answer to that?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, thanks for asking this question. I think it's an important question to ask, and I'm very interested in it myself.

Back in 2009, there was a report that was done by the previous government. Those recommendations to support what the member has said were in there, but the government of the day failed to act on those recommendations.

The committee, at that point, reported to what is now the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That's where that decision would lie, but also joint responsibility with the Finance Ministry. I can tell the member that as the Minister of Agriculture, I would absolutely advocate on behalf of the agricultural community to make those changes.

[1805]

One thing I do know about the report in 2009 is that there was a suggestion that moving it up to $10,000 all at once most likely would not be considered fair, and so incremental steps would be recommended — from $2,500 up to $5,000, up from $5,000 to $7,500 and then maybe going to $10,000. That's all up for discussion, but it's a discussion that I'm absolutely open to having.

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

I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. I'd like to talk just for a moment about foreign ownership of farmland. I know it's an issue that's been very prevalent in the media, and perhaps I could get an opinion from the minister on foreign ownership of farmland and if her government has any plans for this.

I personally have an opinion on this. I said this, I think, last fall. I hate to repeat myself, but foreign ownership of farmland in British Columbia is certainly nothing new. All through the 1930s and '40s, we had some of the great farm families in British Columbia, who came here from Portugal, in the tree fruit industry. They came from Holland in the nursery industry and the dairy farming industry, and people that came from South Asia are some of the best berry growers we have. I'm not really sure that we need to make an issue of people coming, even, from the United States that want to purchase farmland in B.C. to actively become farmers.

I just think that it's something that we're getting a bit worked up about. I'd just like to know if the minister could give me her opinion on foreign ownership of farmland, and do you have any plans for any sort of a tax on foreign ownership of farmland in B.C.?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. My colleagues have taken on the issue of housing and housing on farmland. The ALC obviously protects our farmland. At this point, we have no policies on foreign ownership of farmland. But what I can tell the member is that it's a hot topic, and there is a lot of input coming through our committee right now.

[1810]

I. Paton: Thank you for that answer, Minister. At this time, I'd like to turn over the questioning to our member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, who has a few more questions about some of our fire issues this past summer.

D. Barnett: To the minister, I'm sure she's about as fed up with the fire situation and questions as we are, but unfortunately, it happened, and we live with it. And we are the ones that are trying to get the help for our constituents.

There are still a lot of issues out there regarding seeding, which hasn't happened, no stabilization.