Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 6, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 54

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

B.C. apples at agricultural fair in Toronto

Hon. L. Popham

Introductions by Members

Statements

Tsunami awareness

J. Rice

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M208 — Endangered Species Act, 2017

A. Weaver

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

WestShore Chamber of Commerce business award recipients

M. Dean

Overdose deaths and legacy of Christopher Seguin

T. Stone

Indigenous veterans

B. Ma

Community response to wildfires in Cariboo-Chilcotin area

D. Barnett

Apprenticeship

R. Chouhan

Rotary clubs in Peace River area and campaign to eliminate

polio

D. Davies

Oral Questions

MSP changes and task force

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

M. Bernier

Oil and Gas Commission and oversight of industry

activities

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Mungall

Massey Tunnel replacement project

I. Paton

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Johal

J. Sturdy

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources

T. Shypitka

Hon. M. Mungall

D. Barnett

J. Rustad

M. Bernier

E. Ross

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

M. Bernier

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (continued)

E. Ross

Hon. M. Mungall

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy

(continued)

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

J. Rustad

N. Letnick

J. Tegart

D. Barnett

C. Oakes

S. Bond

J. Thornthwaite

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2017

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce a former

Minister of Agriculture as well as a former Minister of Health, the creator

of Buy B.C. in this province, the former MLA of Nelson-Creston and now a

constituent of Kootenay West.

When he retired, he said: “I am going to be your most annoying

constituent.” I think he’s far too busy being a farmer. In fact, he isn’t

sitting on the floor as other former members of the House do because I don’t

think he has put a suit and tie on since he retired. I’d like you all to

help me welcome Corky Evans to the Legislature today.

Hon. S. Fraser: I know that all of us in this place know what this job entails and how

much time it takes away from home, away from loved ones, away from family.

We could not possibly do this job without the tolerance, understanding and

love of our loved ones.

[1:35 p.m.]

The fact is that we miss significant dates — birthdays, anniversaries,

Tuesdays — and regular life where people have such things. It’s been

recommended that we never, ever, ever forget to acknowledge that, especially

when your loved one is in the audience. Strategically speaking, that’s not

wise.

Would the House please join me in making the love of my life, Dolores

Fraser, welcome.

P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure that I have five people from my great

riding to introduce today, all with different ways that they contribute back

to our great riding and our great city of Kamloops. We have Rick and Donna

Windjack here. Rick does a lot of great work with the PIT Stop Program in

Kamloops, which provides hot meals to a great many of the less fortunate in

our community every week.

We have Coun. Dieter Dudy here with his wife, Deb Kellog. She puts up

with Dieter and his elected life, just like the rest of us.

We have no stranger to the House, a former Health Minister, a former

Environment Minister. Literally, I would not be standing here today if he

had decided not to join the private sector. Terry Lake is here as

well.

Hon. M. Mark: Yesterday kicked off Apprenticeship Recognition Week. Today I had the

privilege to issue a proclamation to a dynamic group of people in our

community — people that are building, fixing, creating throughout our

province.

I have an amazing group of delegates that are here joining us in this

House — Shelley Gray from the Industry Training Authority; Kyle Preston from

the Industry Training Authority; a young, dynamic, up-and-coming

professional cook apprentice, Conor Roos, with the youth work in trades

program, part of the greater Victoria school district; apprentice Skyray

Biem-Proulx, who is apprenticing in the construction electrician program

through the youth work in trades program in the greater Vancouver school

district; Don Cameron, also part of the greater Victoria school district and

a part of the South Island Partnership dual-credit transition program;

Lindsay Johnson of the greater Victoria school district; and Nicola

Priestley from Camosun College.

Would the House please join me in welcoming these dynamic leaders and

celebrate this week’s Apprenticeship Recognition Week.

M. Stilwell: Today it brings me great pleasure, on behalf of myself and the member

for Surrey South, to introduce Valerie Richmond, our former chief of staff.

She’s here in the building with us today. It’s been several weeks since

she’s had the pleasure of being here. She looks renewed, with renewed

energy, and ten years younger now that she’s in retirement. We welcome her

here to the House today.

Hon. J. Sims: It gives me delight.... I hope all of you will join me in welcoming to

this House Mr. Balbir Bains and his beautiful wife. They run a business in

Surrey and employ a great number of workers and contribute to our economy.

But what’s exciting is that he’s brought visitors with him from two other

continents. Joining us today are his sister Kamalesh Kaur; his two nieces

Parveen and Nisha, from Italy; and his good friends from India, Mr. Makesh

Bagga and Mrs. Suman Bagga. Please help me welcome them to this

House.

S. Bond: It’s a real pleasure today to introduce four people that are in the

Legislature. I want to begin by introducing Judy Lowrie and her husband,

John Tomchik. Judy has worked in the building for the past five years as our

parliamentary education office tour desk receptionist. I know she does an

exceptional job.

[1:40 p.m.]

Today she’s very, very pleased to be able to bring to the House her

parents. I’m very excited about that because the Lowries are past long-time

residents of Prince George. They now live in Victoria, but they have an

incredible record in Prince George. Wayne Lowrie was the owner of Wayne

mobile homes in Prince George. He sold mobile homes and coordinated their

deliveries to remote locations throughout the central Interior, the northern

parts of B.C., Alberta and Nunavut.

He was honoured with the first Pioneer Award as the longest,

continuously active new home dealer in central and northern B.C. After 46

years, Wayne sold his business so a new generation could continue to provide

quality homes made in B.C. for B.C. families.

Wayne is accompanied, also, by his wife, Dianna Lowrie. She was

inducted into the Prince George Sports Hall of Fame in 1997, in the category

of builder of the sport of figure skating. As a 25-year member of the Prince

George Figure Skating Club, she held many positions at the provincial and

national levels. She also judged or refereed 13 Canadian championships. She

earned master training status, and now she’s not spending as much time in

the world of ice sports. She’s honing her skills as a competitive

golfer.

Please make welcome Judy, her husband, Wayne and Dianna. It’s a real

pleasure to have you all in the House this afternoon.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to introduce two people in the House today: Kavie

Toor, who is known by his mom as “Lovey-Dovey,” senior director of

facilities, recreation and sport partnership; also Robin D’Abreo, who

happens to be the head coach of the women's field hockey team at UBC. He’s

been a tireless advocate for women in sport and was my teammate in the 2000

Olympics. I welcome him to the House today. I hope the House can join

me.

Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to welcome today Professor Richard Clucas and students from

Portland State University who are here on an information day. I had the

opportunity to speak to them this morning. You know, it’s like the worst

speaker first, and then it moves across the list. This afternoon the member

for Peace River South will be speaking to them, the member for

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and, of course, the closer, the Minister of

Advanced Education. I wish everyone to wish our guests welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: It looks like it’s MLA return-to-work week. I see there are a number

of them in the House. There’s one that…. She’s here with her husband. Neil

Edmondson is here. I just want to say that I’m pleased to see that Diane

Thorne is here. She’s my favourite MLA from Newfoundland. Would the House

please welcome Diane and Neil.

Statements

B.C. APPLES AT

AGRICULTURAL FAIR IN

TORONTO

Hon. L. Popham: I just have a quick announcement to make today. Back in Toronto,

Ontario this past week was held the Royal Agricultural Fair, and B.C. won

top prize for three apple varieties: the Salish apple, the Ambrosia apple

and the Aurora Golden Gala apple. Would this House please tell the apple

growers of B.C. how proud we are of them as we head into Agriculture

Week.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: I’ve always had a sad, sinking suspicion that the reason I keep

getting re-elected for Nanaimo is that my constituents don’t really like me,

because they so rarely come and visit me. In continuance of that tradition,

I had to bring my cousin here, my favourite cousin, to visit me all the way

from the riding of the Minister of Agriculture — my cousin Danny Foster.

Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Glumac: Joining us today in the member’s gallery this afternoon are members

from the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, otherwise known as PNWER. PNWER

is made up of over 100 political and business leaders from the western

Canadian provinces and territories and northwestern states. The annual PNWER

conference is going on right now in Victoria. There’s going to be a

reception tonight in the rotunda. Everyone is welcome to join at 6 p. m.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Dr. Polia Mohar. She’s an

environmental toxicologist and a constituent, originally from Iqaluit,

Nunavut, who’s visiting the Legislature today. Would the House please make

her feel very welcome.

D. Ashton: I, too, would like to recognize, on behalf, also, of the member for

Port Moody–Coquitlam, the members from PNWER here. PNWER is composed of

Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. You know, in a turbulent time like

we’re seeing in the world today, it’s an organization like this that can

make a huge difference.

[1:45 p.m.]

I personally would like to welcome Sen. Arnie Roblan, the president of

PNWER, and Rep. Mike Cuffe from Montana, the vice-president. Sen. Arnie

Roblan is from Oregon. Minister Larry Doke, from Saskatchewan, is a

vice-president. MLA Graham Sucha, from Alberta, is a vice-president

also.

Also with them are two distinguished former MLAs from British

Columbia, Ed Conroy and Barry Penner. I would be remiss in not stating the

fact of having Matt Morrison, the CEO, and Brandon Hardenbrook here, plus

the other staff. These individuals make a huge difference and will make a

big difference as this tumultuous world continues to turn.

Statements

TSUNAMI AWARENESS

J. Rice: Well, a tsunami is a guest I wouldn’t want to invite to the House.

I did want to quickly mention that yesterday was World Tsunami Awareness

Day. Although they are rare, tsunamis have claimed more lives than any

other natural hazard. I want to encourage all members of the House and

all coastal British Columbians to check out the PreparedB.C. resources

on the B.C. government website to have more info about how to prepare

for tsunamis and other natural hazards.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to join with the member for Kamloops–North Thompson in

welcoming the former Minister of Health. The comments that I think every

member who has seen him sitting there has made.... I will just share that he

looks very, very relaxed, certainly far more than he did when he came into

this House every day with briefing binders bulging with answers to potential

questions.

I will say I miss the opportunity to ask him questions but not very

much. I appreciate the commitment he made to me in our short chat in the

hallway that he won’t heckle me in this House if I do happen to be asked a

question.

I. Paton: In South Delta, over the years, you may all understand that schools

create academies. There are academies for opera. Schools have academies for

lacrosse and academies for ice hockey. Well, two years ago, with the help of

the Delta school district and myself, we created an agricultural academy at

an empty elementary school in Tsawwassen.

I would like to say that Mr. Graham Harkley, the teacher who runs this

agriculture academy, is here today in the building with the high school kids

from the South Delta agriculture academy from school district 37. They’re

getting a tour right now, as we speak. I hope you’ll make them all feel

welcome.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’d like to introduce the House to two amazing Kootenay volunteers,

Rita and Brian Churchill. They are involved with many organizations in the

Kootenays. Rita is also an amazing quilter. If you’re so fortunate to get

one of her quilts, you will treasure it forever.

I also want to make a special mention to Corky Evans, who’s up there.

Ten years ago I was up there, he was down here on this floor, and he

introduced me. He said that one of these days, I would likely be an MLA and

maybe even a minister. Here we are, Corky, in government, and I’m a

minister. Thank you very much.

J. Brar: I would like to welcome a friend of mine. He’s somewhere up in the

gallery. I can’t see him, but his name is Justin Schmid. He works with CUPE

B.C. as a legislative coordinator, and he’s here to watch question period

today. He’s also a member of my executive. He has done a great job during

the last campaign, and he continues to work to make sure that B.C. families

are being served better. I would like to ask the House to please make him

feel welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M208 — ENDANGERED

SPECIES ACT,

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Endangered Species Act,

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Endangered Species Act, 2017, of

which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced

and read a first time now.

As the 23rd conference of parties to the United Nations framework

convention on climate change meets in Bonn, Germany, I’m reminded that

the world is in the midst of the sixth great global extinction event and

that this time humans are the driving force. British Columbia is the

most biodiverse province in Canada, but it is also home to more at-risk

species than any other province. Half of British Columbia’s assessed

species are deemed at risk.

[1:50 p.m.]

In addition to identifying, protecting and rehabilitating at-risk

wildlife populations and habitats, this act seeks to introduce proactive

measures that will prevent healthy species from declining in the first

place. This act builds off the Ontario Endangered Species Act; the B.C.

version of their legislation, tabled by the B.C. NDP in 2011; and the

American federal Endangered Species Act.

Under the guidance of lawyers and advocates, who have worked

tirelessly on this issue — in particular, the late Gwen Barlee, whom I

will forever be indebted to for her assistance on this — we were able to

close a number of problematic loopholes and make this act more

proactive, transparent and effective than the aforementioned

acts.

Of note is the addition of a

section that changes how exemptions

are made. Instead of being left to the discretion of the minister, under

this section, if the government or industry want to take actions that

will result in a species going extinct, it is required to go through an

independent, publicly disclosed board review.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I now move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M208, Endangered Species Act, 2017, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WESTSHORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

BUSINESS AWARD

RECIPIENTS

M. Dean: Every year the WestShore Chamber holds a wonderful awards evening,

celebrating the best of the West Shore business community. The WestShore

Chamber of Commerce is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that

exists to promote business and economic growth, advocate on behalf of

local business and participate in enriching the community.

This year the winners of the awards were selected by on-line votes

from the community, and I was really excited to see that so many

businesses from my constituency were finalists. The event itself was a

great opportunity for me to drop in and catch up with many local leaders

and business people from our community.

I chatted with friends and colleagues from all sectors — local

mayors and councillors, school board trustees, executive directors of

non-profits, regional business directors, branch managers of credit

unions, small business owners, staff from a wide range of services. The

list goes on.

From the constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin, there were many

well-deserved awards. Top of the list is Thetis Lake, winning three

awards: Best Free Fun, Best Hiking Trail and Best Place to Walk Your

Dog. It was closely followed by Esquimalt Lagoon, which won two awards:

Best Beach and — get this — Best Place to Take a Selfie.

The Best Place to Take an Out-of-Town Visitor went to Hatley

Castle at Royal Roads University. The best restaurant was My-Chosen Café

in Metchosin. The best IT or tech business went to Seriously Creative.

Other winners were, and you’ll work out what they do in their names: the

Wine Maker, Coast Collective Arts Centre, Elements Casino and Colwood

Dental Group.

I would hope that everybody in the House today will join me in

congratulating everybody involved in making the awards a very successful

event.

OVERDOSE DEATHS AND

LEGACY OF CHRISTOPHER

SEGUIN

T. Stone: We continue to find our province in the midst of one of the worst

health care emergencies in our history — an overdose crisis claiming the

lives of four British Columbians every day. This is despite a

coordinated health-focused approach to this medical issue, including the

declaration of a provincial health emergency, numerous harm reduction

and recovery measures, education, awareness and enforcement. We must

continue to do more.

This is a crisis indiscriminate in its impact, affecting people of

all backgrounds in communities large and small. Nine out of ten deaths

occur indoors, including more than half in private residences, and 80

percent who die are males between the ages of 25 and 55 — regrettably,

many using alone. In fact, many have suggested that we have an epidemic

among young, high-performing males. They may be athletes, students or

professionals. They are certainly our sons, brothers, dads and

friends.

[1:55 p.m.]

On September 22, Kamloops lost a community builder, and I lost a

great friend. Christopher Seguin, 39, passed away due to an accidental

overdose. Christopher was a man of compassion, a massive heart and an

even larger smile. He was dedicated to giving of himself to make life

better for others. Through his many contributions to the Kamloops

community, he delivered on his promise to never give up and always give

what you can. As a community change-maker, he was awarded the B.C.

Community Achievement Award in 2015.

Now, while we choose to remember Christopher for who he was — a

husband, father, brother, son, champion for causes, selfless volunteer

and accomplished vice-president of Thompson Rivers University — we must

also try to extract from our loss of Christopher some good that may be

of benefit to others. I hope it’s this. Let’s end the stigma associated

with drug use. Let’s shine a light on the dangers of using alone. Let’s

wrap every support possible around our loved ones in supporting them to

make the best choices possible. In Christopher’s death, let’s save

lives.

INDIGENOUS VETERANS

B. Ma: Below my poppy is a pin I wear to remember a group of veterans and

fallen soldiers that we often fail to remember year after year, even on

Remembrance Day — Indigenous veterans.

The Indigenous peoples of this land have a long and proud history

of military service to our country. It can be traced back as far as even

the War of 1812, when Métis and First Nations warriors fought alongside

the British against invading Americans. During the First World War, it

is said that the response from Indigenous peoples to take up arms for

Canada was so impressive that in some Indigenous communities every

single able-bodied man between 20 and 35 years of age voluntarily

enlisted.

In my community, Bernice and Tony Discon, along with their

daughter Sallee Whitewing, organized the Squamish Veterans Powwow to

honour and remember Indigenous veterans. It is an uplifting event with

dancing, regalia, vendors, food and children everywhere, but it is also

a deliberate attempt to turn the tide on the disrespect that Canadians

are guilty of showing to these vets.

Bernice and Tony told me that though Indigenous veterans should

have been hailed as heroes, too many returned only to be treated like

second-class citizens, facing racism and prejudice and then forgotten by

the country they served so loyally. After the First World War,

Indigenous veterans did not receive the same assistance as other

returned soldiers. Many Indigenous veterans also returned home, only to

find that they had had their Indian status stripped away from them for

being away from their reserves for too long while they fought

overseas.

The lives of too many Indigenous veterans have ended in despair

and poverty. November 8 is Aboriginal remembrance day. Let us remember,

and let us do better. Huy chexw a .

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO WILDFIRES

IN CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN

AREA

D. Barnett: Generosity means many things, from financial giving to

volunteering your time and letting hope shine through in times of

crisis. The people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin demonstrate generosity on a

regular basis. But this year’s wildfires brought out the best in

everyone. With so many to thank, I hope I don’t overlook

anyone.

When the evacuations began, the people in my region and

neighbouring communities opened their doors to complete strangers

without hesitation. For evacuees who took to the road to escape the

fires and quickly found themselves stranded on the side of the road,

constituents gave them gas.

That spirit of generosity is now carrying through in the recovery

efforts. Darcy Foster and Shane Gunn had CaribooStrong wildfire T-shirts

made. They sold over $100,000 in a month and gave 50 percent to

volunteer fire departments and 50 percent to the Red Cross. Barkerville

theatre put on a fundraiser in 100 Mile with funds going to the South

Cariboo fire relief fund. Team ORV in 150 Mile House put on a thank-you

to emergency responders and donated $18,000 to the Williams Lake fire

department, $18,000 to the 150 Mile House fire department and $18,000 to

the Red Cross. The Williams Lake Stampede Association put on a thank-you

and raised funds to help many.

[2:00 p.m.]

Quilts have been made by many quilting women and clubs throughout

the province for all fire victims. Church organizations are helping many

with firewood, clothes and necessities. Our food banks, with generous

donations from Save-On, Safeway and citizens. Not to be overlooked are

many others.

There are so many more giving businesses and citizens. Generosity

is well and alive in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

APPRENTICESHIP

R. Chouhan: I am proud to speak to the House today about Apprenticeship

Recognition Week. Apprentices play an important role in growing a strong

economy. They have helped forge the structures and services that

surround us, like the houses our families call home, the bridges we

cross on our way to work and the hospitals where we restore our

health.

Apprenticeships have a vital relationship with our province. The

Industry Training Authority, through our public and private

post-secondary institutions, offers more than 100 trade programs that

provide valuable hands-on experience and skilled education. In turn,

apprentices become certified tradespeople who contribute to our economy

and offer necessary services for British Columbia.

From arborists to heavy-duty mechanics to welders, there are over

45,000 participants in apprenticeship programs in B.C. this year. Over

an average of four years, these apprentices will spend 20 percent of

their time in a classroom and 80 percent of their time getting paid,

on-the-job experience with an employer sponsor. After certification,

they will be skilled tradespeople who can join the industry and the

thousands of skilled trades jobs that are expected to open up within the

next ten years.

We are committed to improving and increasing apprenticeship

opportunities to ensure British Columbians are able to access

good-paying jobs in a thriving economy. Today’s apprentices are

tomorrow’s skilled tradespeople who will be building B.C.’s highways,

schools and hospitals. This week we recognize the hard-working

tradespeople and apprenticeships who build a better B.C. by supporting

formal apprenticeship training.

ROTARY CLUBS IN PEACE RIVER AREA

AND CAMPAIGN TO

ELIMINATE POLIO

D. Davies: I’d like to take a moment to recognize the various Rotary clubs

throughout our province, country and, indeed, around the globe.

Specifically, I want to congratulate and thank the Rotary Club of Fort

St. John — the morning club and the afternoon club, which I’m a proud

member of — as well as the Fort Nelson club.

Besides all the incredible work that Rotary does within our

community and our communities throughout the region, I want to focus on,

specifically, something that’s important to all Rotarians — that is, to

eradicate polio from the world. “End polio now” is a major initiative of

Rotary, and the Peace region clubs work tirelessly on this initiative.

Recently I had the honour of emceeing an event in Fort St. John. We

welcomed a very special guest, Ramesh Ferris, from Whitehorse, and he

spoke on polio. You see, Ramesh is a polio survivor, himself, and

travels the world talking about polio and how close we are to ending

this disease.

Hon. Members, we are this close. Polio remains only in three

countries in the world, and there are less than 14 cases of the disease

in the world. However, if we do not continue to vaccinate children in

nations such as Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan — the only three

countries in the world where polio has not been eradicated — it could

easily get out of control and continue to spread.

Most know polio as the polio virus. The virus is spread from

person to person and through contaminated water. It can attack the

nervous system and, in some instances, cause paralysis. Although there

is no cure for polio, there is a safe and effective vaccine to treat it,

one which Rotary and our partners like the Gates Foundation use to

immunize over 2.5 billion children worldwide.

Hon. Speaker, I encourage you, the members of this House and the

public to reach out to a Rotary club near you and give generously so we

can get from here to here and end polio.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

MSP CHANGES AND TASK FORCE

S. Bond: Today we need to take a little walk down memory lane. Let’s think

back — way, way back — to four months ago. Four months ago the NDP was

going to “fully eliminate MSP,” but they didn’t much want to talk about

the details. Well, now we know why. Fast-forward four months to last

Thursday and the appointment of an MSP task force.

The Minister of Finance has provided some pretty clear direction

in the terms of reference for the work that needs to be done. In fact,

here’s what the task force has been told to do. They are to find ways

“to replace the foregone revenue.” Replace, not eliminate. Replace the

revenue.

A simple question to the Minister of Finance: will she confirm for

British Columbians today that she plans to roll MSP into the income tax

system and increase income taxes for British Columbians? Yes or

no?

Hon. C. James: I’m glad the member across the way is interested in MSP. After 16

years of doubling MSP premiums, we’re going to eliminate MSP premiums.

I’m glad the member across the way also paid attention to the commitment

we made, which was to put an MSP task force together. We have done that.

They will advise government on how to protect health care funding and

eliminate the regressive tax.

It is a panel of respected experts in economics, in law, in public

policy. I will not prejudge their work. I look forward to their report.

We will make a decision, and we will eliminate MSP premiums.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Perhaps we need to remind the minister that the budget that was

tabled by our government included the elimination of an equivalent

portion of MSP without raising taxes at all. In fact, we were honest

with British Columbians. We told them we would eliminate it completely

when our economy was strong enough that we could afford to pay for it

without downloading on B.C. taxpayers.

Let’s be clear. The terms of reference for the MSP task force are

not about eliminating MSP. They’re about finding foregone revenue.

Instead, the task force is being asked to recommend a way to hide it in

higher income taxes for British Columbians. The pledge to eliminate has

become a plan to raise income taxes. I know full well that this minister

knows that if she intends to roll MSP into the tax system, to find

foregone revenue, it would require raising income tax revenue, personal

income tax, by as much as 20 percent.

Can the minister explain to British Columbians why she is

contemplating a 20 percent increase in personal income taxes and

breaking the promise the NDP made?

Hon. C. James: Let’s take a look at the facts. MSP premiums rose by more than 40

percent simply from 2010 on under that side over there. Under that side

over there, if you earned $40,000 or you earned $3 million, you paid the

same amount in that regressive MSP premium under that

government.

I look forward to the work of the panel, I look forward to their

report, and I look forward to eliminating MSP premiums in the next four

years.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a second

supplemental.

S. Bond: Nice try, but let’s face it. It doesn’t say “eliminate.” It says

“replace.”

[2:10 p.m.]

British Columbians deserve a straightforward answer, not some

shell game from their government. The NDP said absolutely nothing about

increasing taxes to meet their promise, and the Premier directly denied

it. A CBC reporter said that when he asked him directly — will it be

rolled into income tax? — he, the Premier, said no.

Here we go again. Say one thing, and do another. First, it was

taxpayers on the hook for political campaigns. Then it was promising a

simple yes or no on electoral reform. Now it’s about rolling MSP into

the tax system. It’s time for the Premier and the Minister of Finance to

stand up and tell British Columbians the truth.

One more time to the minister: will she admit that this is just

another broken promise and that the government will find the forgone

revenue by increasing income tax to British Columbians?

Hon. C. James: Well, I’m happy to share with the member across the way, and all

members across the way, that this panel and this work is about

affordability for families in British Columbia. This work and this panel

are about fairness for people in British Columbia. Like every other

province across this country, we will get rid of MSP premiums in British

Columbia.

I would encourage the member, if she has ideas…. There is a

website in place on the MSP. I would encourage the member and all

members on the other side to give input to the website…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. James: …to be able to give input to the panel and bring forward your

ideas.

M. Bernier: The Minister of Finance likes to get up and continue to say that

we have to look at the facts. The only fact we see in front of us is yet

another broken promise by this Premier and this government.

It’s obvious the minister is planning on eliminating MSP in name

only, collecting it through another tax hike. She says it’s all about

making life more affordable, but this government has yet to say how

they’re going to be able to do this without raising taxes, without

actually implementing a fee to the people of British Columbia. In fact,

they put the task force together. They have put a task force together —

another delay tactic, more consultation to avoid promises that this

Premier has made.

In this task force, they put a chair. Lindsay Tedds is the chair

of this task force. In fact, Lindsay is on record saying that MSP should

be rolled into a tax system. She is actually on record saying: “I am not

sure why the B.C. NDP are not being more transparent in their platform

on making sure their intentions are coming clear.”

Again to the Minister of Finance: does she agree with the person

that she put as the chair of the task force — that they’re going to be

looking at rolling this into income tax?

Hon. C. James: We are going to give the opportunity for the panel to be able to

do their work and to consult British Columbians. I understand the other

side doesn’t like to listen to British Columbians. That was very clear

in the last election. The panel has the opportunity to listen to British

Columbians come forward with their ideas. We will consider that report,

and we will eliminate the premiums at the end of four years.

Mr. Speaker: The member of Peace River South on a supplemental.

M. Bernier: There is a huge difference between eliminating and replacing. In

fact, when we look at the last election, the Premier is on record where

he didn’t actually want to talk about this. He went to great pains to

avoid this conversation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

M. Bernier: In fact, the Premier even talked about the fact that an election

is not the time to discuss important issues. This is, actually, an

important issue for the people of the province of British Columbia, and

the Premier knows that we need to be looking at replacing

MSP.

We on this side of the House said that we would make sure that if

we eliminated the other half of MSP, it would not be at a cost to the

taxpayers of B.C. We would make sure that when our economy was strong,

we would find ways to do that. Obviously, the NDP is worried about

making that commitment because they know the economy might not grow

under their government.

Mr. Speaker: Member, your question, please.

M. Bernier: I think the Minister of Finance needs to come clean on

this.

[2:15 p.m.]

Will she revise the terms of reference to allow this panel, the

panel that’s going to be coming forward with reviews, to make sure they

can actually have the opportunity to say, if the economy grows, that

they will make sure taxes will not be raised, that they will use money

that comes from the economy that grows in the province of

B.C.?

Hon. C. James: I would encourage that member to go to the website, to put the

information in, to give your feedback around how the panel should

consider your views, along with all British Columbians’, to eliminate

MSP premiums by the end of four years.

OIL AND GAS COMMISSION AND

OVERSIGHT OF INDUSTRY

ACTIVITIES

A. Olsen: There is an inherent conflict when a regulatory agency is tasked

with not only monitoring but also promoting a sector. Yet this is the

case with the Oil and Gas Commission.

To the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, in the minister’s opinion, does the Oil and

Gas Commission adequately monitor fracking activities in B.C., ensuring

that they’re in compliance with B.C. laws, regulations and guidelines

for public and environmental health and safety?

Hon. M. Mungall: The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission is an independent regulatory

agency that is responsible for oversight of oil and gas activities in

British Columbia — most notably, in the northeast of B.C., where I

visited not too long ago.

In terms of the member’s question, suggesting that the Oil and Gas

Commission does promotional work for the industry, it actually doesn’t.

I would draw his attention to

section 4 of the act governing the Oil and

Gas Commission, which lists all of the purposes for this independent

regulatory body. Promotion is not in there whatsoever. In fact, it’s not

anywhere in the act at all.

This body provides a regulatory function. That is what’s clear in

the act. It ensures that industry is complying with provincial

legislation and regulation and that the public interest is protected.

There’s no doubt about it. Any regulatory body of government has to keep

that first and foremost, and the Oil and Gas Commission is tasked with

that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that clarification. It’s come to my

attention, and it’s come to the attention of British Columbians now,

through a number of articles that have been written, that in a

hyperbolic attempt to get LNG at any cost — unicorns, rainbows, golden

toilet seats for everyone — there were a number of illegal dams built in

this province.

These unauthorized dams violate several provincial regulations,

including companies applying for water licences after the dams have

already been built, failing to submit engineering plans for structures

that store huge amounts of water, failing to ensure that proper safety

measures are in place or seismic evaluations are completed and failing

to adequately consult First Nations.

I’ve seen reports linking fracking to groundwater contamination

and numerous reports of old wells continuing to leak methane.

Interjections.

A. Olsen: There we go.

This is a pattern of a regulatory body failing to enforce

regulations that are vital to the health and well-being of the citizens

of British Columbia. I can understand what the grumbling is about

because this is the legacy of the former government. It appears to

British Columbians that in fact, there is…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Olsen: …some promotional role that’s going on.

Will the minister commit today to look into these issues that I

have raised and that have been raised in the media?

Hon. M. Mungall: Well, I’m sure the member can appreciate our shock when we learned

about these unregulated dams. In fact, there are 51 sites that would

actually qualify as regulated dams but were not properly inspected or

regulated under the previous government. We take that very seriously,

and actually, we’ve already taken quite a bit of action. I wrote to the

member down the way about that.

[2:20 p.m.]

To be clear, the environmental assessment office, as well as the

Oil and Gas Commission, have conducted site visits and inspections to

ensure that projects did not pose a threat to the environment — that

while they are unregulated, while we need to bring them into regulation,

there was no spill or leakage.

The OGC has issued seven compliance orders to draw down water

storage levels by 50 percent in two cases and to completely drain dams

in two of those cases. Staff continue to monitor the situation very,

very closely. As I said, we take this situation very seriously, and we

are taking action.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

I. Paton: The Minister of Transportation has indicated that she is prepared

to spend up to $1 million on a technical review of the George Massey

Tunnel replacement. In my hands, I have two reviews. The first one is

the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project by WSP MMM Group

of July 2016. The other one is the George Massey Tunnel Replacement

Project: Evaluation of Crossing Scenarios by MMK Consulting in

March of 2014.

On several occasions in the House, the minister has been asked

directly if she is familiar with the material that is posted on her

website. Unfortunately, I don’t believe I heard the actual answer, so

I’d like to give the minister another opportunity.

I’m not expecting the minister to have read all 14,000 pages, but

these are key reports that normally I would assume the minister

responsible for the file would have reviewed. However, given the

minister launched her ride-sharing review without having read the

previous report, I’m sure she can understand why I must ask this

question.

To the minister, has the minister read either the report entitled

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project: Evaluation of Crossing

Scenarios or the other one, George Massey Tunnel

Replacement Project: Review of Replacement Options ? To the

minister, a very simple question, just a yes or no.

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that the member opposite.... This is his real pet concern.

I think that it’s important that he does try and find his way into

question period every day. But I’ve got to say it was his government,

when that side of the House was in government, that led us to the

position we’re in now. Because having decided that they wanted to move

ahead with a project, they did so without consulting anyone.

Our view is.... We acknowledge there is a problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. C. Trevena: But to find the right solution, we want to work with the people.

We want to work with the mayors of the region. We want to work with the

communities of the region to make sure that the solution we put forward

deals with both the problem and the vision that people who live in the

region have for their region.

I. Paton: Once again, on Friday, back home in my riding, I took the

afternoon to go to the tunnel replacement office in Richmond. It’s such

a fascinating place to go. It’s almost like a pet project of mine to go

to the tunnel replacement office, but I still believe there’s been no

recollection of the minister having attended the tunnel replacement

office.

Once again, I don’t find the minister’s answers very forthright.

The minister is prepared to spend up to $1 million on a review to find

out “whether it’s let’s twin the tunnel, whether it’s let’s do a bridge

and a tunnel, or let’s just have the bridge.”

Both these independent technical reviews looked at these options

closely. I’d like to know what the minister thought — maybe she can give

me an answer on what she thought — of what the WSP MMM Group had to say

in the

summary at the end of the report, where they made some very

specific findings.

Does the minister agree with this recommendation, and if not,

why?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The member said it himself. It’s his pet project. I think that he

is one of the few people who’s questioning this review. Even his own

mayor has said, in a letter to myself: “Delta council is very supportive

of the provincial government’s decision to undertake an independent

review of the project. We appreciate it’s important to ensure any

decision on the future of the crossing is based on the best available

information.” That’s what we’re doing. The mayor agrees it’s a good

idea. Others in the region think it’s a good idea. We’re

proceeding.

J. Johal: The minister doesn’t seem to understand the urgency of the

situation.

Recently my office received an e-mail from Chris, a Richmond

resident. It took Chris 90 minutes to get from Ironwood Plaza in

Richmond to the other side of the Fraser. Ninety minutes. Day after day,

my constituents battle with this. They miss important events with family

and friends. Recently Chris was stuck in traffic instead of watching her

kid’s soccer game. In her letter, it says: “I can’t begin to say how

infuriating this is, day after day, to have the time with my family

stolen from me. How many of my kid’s soccer games will I need to miss?

I’m tired of this battle every day.”

To the minister of consultation paralysis, how many more parents

will have to miss soccer games because you would rather spend a million

tax dollars on another study rather than read the work that’s already

been done?

Mr. Speaker: Member, if you may take your seat for a moment, please.

Member, if I may ask you to rephrase your question and address the

minister by the proper title.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, you will address ministers by their proper

title.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, thank you for your opinion. Please be seated.

Member, please be seated.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, I will entertain points of order after question period.

Thank you. Please be seated.

The member for Richmond-Queensborough, please continue.

J. Johal: To the minister, how many more parents will have to miss soccer

games because she would rather spend a million taxpayer dollars on

another study rather than read the work that’s already been

done?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say, if we’re talking about paralysis, that side of

the House had 16 years to deal with it and did absolutely nothing. When

they finally came up with a project, they hadn’t consulted anybody.

Nobody wanted to see it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Even the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, now sitting on the

other side of the House, said there was “too much political calculation.

We need to stop telling local communities and regions what’s best for

them. We need to start engaging with them to improve the places where we

live, work and play.” That’s what we want to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: The minister says that there’s been no consultation. I’m just

going to walk you through this. There have been exhaustive environmental

assessment processes here, with 145 technical and scientific reports,

14,000 pages of information pertaining to this project. Three rounds of

public engagement which involved 3,000 people, 35 separate meetings with

Metro Vancouver and TransLink, 110 meetings each with Richmond and

Delta.

If that isn’t enough, there’s the issue of safety. There was an

average of 24 ambulance trips through the tunnel every day in 2016. Six

of those trips were code 3, which means lights and sirens. That is a

parking lot. The Massey Tunnel is a parking lot, and 80,000 people a day

sit in traffic every single day. As Chris said in her letter: “Please,

I’m begging you. This time for review is over. It has been reviewed to

death. Let’s get the shovels back in the ground and get this bridge

built now.”

Again, to the minister, instead of spending all the taxpayer money

on a new study, why won’t she read…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

J. Johal: …the previously prepared independent reports?

Hon. C. Trevena: The member is from Richmond-Queensborough. His own mayor, the

mayor of Richmond, did not agree with the project. No mayor agreed with

the project, bar one. That mayor, the mayor of Delta, now agrees that

it’s really important to be doing the review that we are doing. We’ll

continue with what we’re doing.

J. Sturdy: I must admit I am a little surprised that the minister would be so

dismissive of the concerns of 80,000 people a day, referring to the

Massey Tunnel replacement project as a “pet project,” with which I

certainly don’t agree. The minister has not been very compelling with

regard to her rationale as to why she needed to spend up to another $1

million on yet another review. In this House, she said: “Whether it is a

bridge, whether it is twinning the tunnel, whether it is a tunnel and

bridge combination…. We don’t know.”

Had the minister read the reports on her own website, she would

know. It would almost be comical if this sham review wasn’t costing

taxpayers so much. Will the minister confirm she is prepared to spend up

to $1 million on a redundant review, simply to create the pretence of

actually doing something about the largest traffic bottleneck in British

Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: Unlike the previous government, we actually want to listen to

people and to engage with people to make sure that we get the right

solution. We have heard countless times that their idea…. The vanity

project, which was pushed through without proper study and without

proper consultation, was not welcome.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, if you might take your seat for a moment, please, until

the noise quiets down.

Members. I remind all members that we have visitors in the gallery

who are trying to hear.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, we want to make sure we are consulting with people,

that we are doing a full study of all the possibilities rather than

moving ahead with something that will be very costly without having done

a proper review.

[2:35 p.m.]

We want to make sure we are spending public money wisely, not just

on a vanity project that nobody agrees with.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

M. de Jong: It was not my intention to raise any kind of a point of order, except

for the fact that the Chair chose to intervene in proceedings during the

course of question period.

The principle at stake here is very, very important. The

rules….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. de Jong: Because it will govern the nature of the debate in this chamber, the

symbolism is very important — the sword-lengths and all that. Ultimately, we

do battle with language. The use of language, or the type of language we may

use, is guided by two things. It is guided by the rules, the standing orders

of the House, and by convention.

As I pointed out several weeks ago when we last had this conversation,

I have considered both. I have consulted Standing Order 40, from which all

members can derive guidance about the use of parliamentary language. Most

members, if not all, are aware that there is language that is entirely

inappropriate. There is language that causes distress. There is language

that members are not happy to be confronted by, but it is not

unparliamentary.

If the Chair is going to impose a standard, if the Chair is going to

purport a standard that goes beyond what is in the standing orders and

beyond what has been convention in this House and parliaments for literally

centuries, then…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, continue.

M. de Jong: …it troubles me because one of the, perhaps, most important tools

available to all members acquires an element of unpredictability.

It is with the greatest respect, hon. Chair….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, please continue.

M. de Jong: These are not rulings that can or should occur at the whim of the

Chair. They are guided by standing orders that have governed this place for

decades — centuries, in fact. So the Chair’s intervention, as occurred just

a few moments ago, to require the withdrawal of language that is not

unparliamentary troubles me greatly. It suggests that there is a standard at

play that none of us are aware of, that is not in any way predictable or to

be anticipated and, with the greatest respect, represents, in my view, an

inappropriate intervention by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for your opinion, Member.

S. Furstenau: Hon. Speaker, as House Leader for the Greens, I rise to support your

intervention. I would like to speak to some of the comments that were just

made.

We have school groups coming into the gallery, and their teachers are

not bringing them back because they are so dismayed by the behaviour that

they’re seeing. To evoke the notion that it’s been done this way in the past

is to fail as governors and elected officials, because if we evoked that, we

would still have slavery. We would not have women voting.

It is not enough to say it has always been done so. I would say that

it is our duty, as elected officials, to show leadership and to demonstrate

that we can hold a government to account without personal assassinations and

without name-calling and to have this be a place where we debate ideas and

policies.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to respond to some of the comments. I want to start off by

saying that first off, having sat on the opposition side as well as the

government side, I am very familiar with the nature of debate as it takes

place in both aspects. It is part of the role of opposition, in essence, to

throw things, to ask questions, to be strong in their debate, to be strong

sometimes in their language.

There has been a tradition in this House of language that is

acceptable and language that is not acceptable. I would remind the Chair to

consult the last time that I remember rising, as my colleague across the way

did, around the use of a word which the previous Speaker had ruled as

acceptable and the incoming Speaker did not particularly care for. That was

the use of the word “misleading.” At that time, I argued the point which was

that the word “misleading” was perfectly appropriate. It had been used

before. It had been ruled on by Speakers before, but using an adjective in

front of it was not appropriate. That has been the way this House has always

functioned.

The current Speaker, at that particular time, said: “No, it’s not.” We

had quite the debate over that particular point. That ruling has, under that

Speaker, continued.

Speakers are independent, and they make rulings that we may not always

agree with. But they make rulings, and it is incumbent upon this House to

respect those rulings. I also believe that, as well, as the

Parliamentary Practice states, language in debate should be

governed by good temperance and not by impugning the motives.

That has taken place in the House, and people have been able to be

creative in a way that has been demonstrated that malintent is not the case

for the language. That’s usually started off by respectfully addressing a

minister of the Crown by their proper title in terms of asking the question.

Sometimes subsequent to that, there has been…. As my colleagues and I have

known, we have found a creative way to ask a question as well.

What I would ask, hon. Speaker, is that we remind the House that the

rules in our Parliamentary Practice do guide us and that this

chamber is often the place where heated debate takes place. But if

temperance is what guides us, then we will be just fine in terms of how our

question period and the rest of the debates, in fact, take place.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Thank you to all of the members who made comments. I will take them

under advisement.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call estimates for the Ministry of Energy. In Committee

A, I call continued debate on the estimates of Environment. Once those are

completed, it will be followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney

General.

[2:45 p.m. - 2:50 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM

RESOURCES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $95,006,000.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Chair, for this opportunity. I would like to thank the

minister and congratulate her on her new appointment. I would like to

thank the staff on both sides. It’s a lot of resources here, and it

takes a lot of coordinated effort and time to do what we’re doing here

today, so I appreciate all that.

[2:55 p.m.]

First of all, a bit of a disclaimer. My scruffy appearance is in

no way a sign of disrespect to the House. It’s my sad attempt to bring

awareness to prostate cancer — Movember. It actually might be

appropriate, because I maybe look like a mining prospector from the late

1900s.

I know time is valuable. We’ve been allotted about 10½ hours for

this. I was thinking of doing about three hours here with mining,

another three hours with oil and gas, and then we’ll finish off tomorrow

with the B.C. Hydro file, with about four hours. I’ll also be bringing

in a few colleagues intermittently throughout the estimates. They’ll

have some questions pertaining to their ridings.

I’m very honoured, once again, to be looking after this file. It’s

a huge driver to our economy — energy and mines. Mining obviously builds

communities, and my region of Kootenay East is no different. The

minister herself represents a region that was built on mining: Silver

King, in Nelson, and all around Kootenay Lake — communities that have

been built on mining.

Up north, where some communities have some of the highest

unemployment in the province, they’re getting a boost to mining right

now. They’re getting employment fulfilled, and they’re getting skills

training that’s necessary in these communities. Some of the communities

have high double-digit unemployment rates — 30, 40, 50 percent.

Actually, in some cases, some of these First Nations communities have 80

percent unemployment. But I’m happy to say that mining is there to give

them a new lease on life, so to speak, and give training where the

training is required.

I guess that’s probably a good place to start. We’ll start with

the mandate letter. To get a flavour of which way this ministry is going

to promote mining in the province, let’s start with the Premier’s

message and mandate letter: “…to make life more affordable” and build a

strong, stable economy and “ensure that people from every background

have the opportunity to reach their full potential.”

In my

preamble, I alluded to some of these communities — high

unemployment, low skill levels — that are being revitalized with the

mining industry. I guess the first question would be: what can the

minister do to keep these vulnerable people employed in the short

term?

Hon. M. Mungall: We are just getting settled in over on our side here. While we do

that, I first want to acknowledge the people who are with me in the room

right now. We have the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, Dave Nikolejsin. We have Wes Boyd, who I know has an official

title, probably more official than what I’m about to give him right now,

which is all things finances.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mungall: Assistant deputy minister of numerous natural resource ministries.

That’s why I just shortened it up to all things finances. We also have

Peter Robb here, who’s the assistant deputy minister responsible for

mining.

I also want to take this opportunity to just offer a few opening

words as well and start by thanking the many people who have stepped

forward over the last few months to provide me and this ministry with

support. We have Melissa Sanderson and James McNish, who are my two

ministerial assistants. They are absolutely stellar and doing a

fantastic job.

We have Lucy Hansen, who is my administrative coordinator. My

executive assistant is Robert Hill, who recently started his position

out of my Nelson community office in, oh my goodness, mid September. So

it’s been a month already. We also have a lovely young woman who anybody

will see when they walk into the office. Her name is Samantha, and she’s

a fabulous young woman who’s just getting started here, working with

government. I’m sure she’s going to be going very far.

Over the course of the next couple of days, we’ll see other

ministry staff move in and out so that we can best answer the member

opposite’s and his colleagues’ questions.

I also want to say that I take my mandate letter very seriously,

and I’m very excited to be moving ahead on many of the programs. The one

that I will highlight in reference to the member opposite’s question is

actually the mining jobs task force. As we know, we don’t need to just

create good, family-supporting jobs in industries all across this

province; we need to make sure that we’re keeping those jobs.

[3:00 p.m.]

The mining sector, as the member noted, is subject to the rise and

fall of commodity pricing and, therefore, is subject to their ability to

invest in British Columbia based on that commodity pricing. We want to

make sure that we’re creating sustainability with the jobs that they are

able to develop and already have.

The member comes from Kootenay East. I’ve already been in his part

of the world, not just as his neighbour MLA but as the minister,

recently touring the Line Creek operations up in the Elk Valley. Teck

alone employs roughly about 4,000 people in British Columbia alone. When

you just think of those types of job numbers and how important they are

to B.C…. And that’s just one company out of the many companies that are

involved with the mining sector here in British Columbia, one of the

oldest sectors, in fact.

I know that I could take up a lot of time talking about how long

the mining sector has been here and my own personal ancestral

relationship with the mining sector in this province. I think the member

might have actually mentioned North Star silver mine. The prospector who

struck the first claim for that mine was my ancestor.

These jobs are very, very important — always have been and always

will be — to British Columbia. So we want to hunker down, sharpen our

pencils and make sure that we are retaining those jobs, not just

creating them. That’s exactly why we’re going to be pulling a task force

together to do just that, looking at a variety of issues. I already

mentioned commodity pricing but also environmental

sustainability.

We know what happened with the Mount Polley mine, for example,

where the breach of the dam caused incredible environmental damage. Had

we done a better job of ensuring that we had compliance and enforcement,

would that even have happened? When it did, of course, it put a lot of

jobs at risk.

That’s one of the other items that he will see in my mandate

letter — specifically, in terms of ensuring that we have an independent

body that is enhancing our compliance and enforcement component of this

ministry, of mining. We are ensuring that we have enough boots on the

ground — maybe that’s the best way to say it — doing that compliance and

enforcement. We are working with industries so that they are getting the

supports that they need so that the communities and First Nations are

also getting the supports that they need so that we can keep those jobs

well, well into the future.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for the response. You mentioned the task

force. Yes, we need to make sure everything is balanced, and we need to

make sure processes are followed and compliance and enforcement is in

place. I think that’s what we have been doing.

However, does the minister anticipate any interruption to jobs

while this review or this task force is being created? Any interruption

of jobs, obviously, is detrimental to people that work in those

industries. Their families are affected. Lots of people are negatively

affected financially by interruptions to their work. So does the

minister anticipate any interruptions to the jobs while they go through

this task force review?

Hon. M. Mungall: A mining jobs task force would have absolutely no decision-making

power over whether an industry, a company, might have to shut down for

whatever reason while we are doing our due diligence and our work. I

hope that commodity prices continue to do well and that that has a

positive influence, just as it’s doing right now.

[3:05 p.m.]

For example, we have two new mine restarts here on Vancouver

Island. Myra Falls and Quinsam coal are just restarting right now

because commodity prices are working in their favour. As we know, here

in British Columbia, we are mining for metallurgical coal, which builds

the steel that you might find in your stainless steel pots and pans or

your stainless steel appliances or the windmills that fire up a lot of

energy all around the world in terms of wind farms. That’s the type of

mining that’s going on for coal here in British Columbia.

To the member’s question: do we anticipate any job loss during the

time that this task force is operating? That, again, would not be

something that government can directly influence or not influence. In

terms of the commodity pricing, that would be the determining factor for

industry.

T. Shypitka: What the minister is saying is that commodity prices would be the

only variable that would affect job stalling, job loss or a temporary

hiatus of jobs in the province. It’s commodity-based only.

Hon. M. Mungall: I mean, already into this…. I don’t know if the member opposite is

trying to say that we’re going to do a jobs task force, and in the

meantime, as that jobs task force takes place, there’s going to be all

this job loss as a direct result of this government. That’s kind of

ridiculous. I hope that’s not what the member opposite is trying to

insinuate.

I hope what he’s trying to get at is just some concern in terms of

what influences the industry. As I mentioned, commodity pricing is one

of those factors. There are a whole host of factors. If he would like to

get a whole list of what those all are, he’d be best to talk to, for

example, the Mining Association of B.C. or the association of mineral

explorers, both of whom I meet with on a regular basis.

T. Shypitka: I have spoken to the MABC. I’ve spoken to the AME as well. I’m

just trying to get a flavour here. That’s all I’m trying to

do.

The minister is saying that commodity pricing fluctuates. That’s

one of the hard things that mining associations go through — commodity

prices. It’s an unstable, unknown environment.

What I’m trying to get to here is if that’s what the minister is

saying — that commodity prices are the only things that affect jobs here

in B.C. in the mining sector. There are compliance and enforcement

issues. There are a lot of variables, and there are a lot of processes

that the mining industry goes through that can and will affect jobs in

this province. That’s all I’m really trying to get to, but I’ll leave

that for now.

I’m glad the minister mentioned Teck Coal. I’m very, very proud of

Teck Coal. They’re part of my region. They’ve got five of the top nine

mines in the province, and they’ve done really good work. I’m glad she

went up to Line Creek and checked out the facility up there. She knows

the people from Teck Coal now, obviously, which is great.

In those meetings, does the minister recognize that Teck Coal is a

responsible corporate citizen in their mining practices?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

T. Shypitka: I just want to get a little bit more narrowed here and maybe ask

the minister if she can name the coal and metal mines that opened in

B.C. since 2011.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: In terms of the coal mines, there are Brule, and that’s in Tumbler

Ridge; Wolverine, also in Tumbler Ridge. Then we have a

copper-gold-silver mine in Mount Milligan, copper and gold at Red Chris,

and gold and silver at Brucejack. There have been a couple others that

have opened, but one is actually closed.

T. Shypitka: New Afton, Red Chris might be some of those as well. I’m glad the

minister acknowledged some of those mines. We had a jobs plan in 2011 to

open up some mines here in B.C. That’s something we were fairly proud

of, as the B.C. Liberals were concerned — having an aggressive benchmark

on opening new mines. We set the bar fairly high, and we’re happy with

some of these mines that the minister has mentioned.

Speaking to benchmarks and goals, can the minister give me her

benchmarks or her goals on how many new mines she would like to see open

in her four years of office?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think the member opposite is referring to the previous Liberal

government’s jobs plan that saw that government would be opening eight

mines. While they achieved that eight, the member opposite should know

that several of them — three, actually — closed, as well, under their

tenure.

What we have been doing in terms of working with industry and what

we want to be able to do with our jobs task force is look at

competitiveness so that we’re not just having these numbered targets and

saying: “Yay, photo-op. Hey, we look great in front of this picture.” We

actually want to have sustainability as part of our overall goal, and

the sustainability component is that competitiveness. That’s something

this government is very much dedicated to.

[3:15 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: So the minister doesn’t have any goals set for opening new mines.

Yes, we did set some aggressive goals, as B.C. Liberals. We had eight.

That was our target, eight. We did lose a couple. But I think it’s this

type of goal-setting that sets us apart. This is what a responsible,

go-getting type attitude is all about.

I’m not sure if the minister knows a person called Benjamin E.

Mays. He was an American civil rights leader in the United States in the

’50s and ’60s. He said: “It must be borne in mind that the tragedy of

life doesn’t lie in reaching your goals. The tragedy lies in having no

goals to reach.”

Although we did not get to the accomplished goal that we had set

out, we set goals, nonetheless. I think industry looks to that. I think

industry looks to see an aggressive goal stance on how we open new

mines, how we do things. They look to government for that leadership.

They look to government to see that they’re on side.

Once again, maybe just set a low bar. Set something that is very

obtainable. Try not to use any of the ones that we’ve set in progress

already. Would the minister please reconsider on maybe setting some sort

of goal here on opening new mines?

Hon. M. Mungall: From my conversations with industry, and as I said in my previous

response to this member, industry’s focus is not on hard numbers and

hard goals.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: I see that there are some members opposite who are quite

disappointed in not being involved with those types of meetings with

industry anymore. Oh well.

Back to my answer to the member, what industry is telling us is

what they want to see is the sustainability. They want to see that if

they’re going to open something up, they’re going to be able to stay

open. That competitiveness component is what their priority is. They’re

not really interested in these hard and fast numbers that previous

governments have put forward and then weren’t able to sustainably

deliver on, which is exactly what happened under the previous Liberal

government.

T. Shypitka: Does the minister support the Ajax mine?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member ought to know that this is currently in a statutory

decision-making process. It’s going to be coming to the final statutory

decision-makers, which is myself and the Minister of Environment. I

believe November 14 is the date. I will be following that process and

the law accordingly. That means that I will not be stating a pro or con

view of Ajax mine.

T. Shypitka: The minister may be familiar with the Auditor General report on

compliance and enforcement activities within the ministry and the

Ministry of Environment. It was mentioned in the report: “Legislative

framework…that drives compliance and enforcement activities and not the

organizational structure.” Does the minister believe this to be

true?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s interesting in the big House, doing estimates…. I’m so used

to doing it in the little House, where you can actually hear each other

so much better. Of course, I’m over here, and you’re way at the other

end. So please don’t mind if we ask you to repeat your question, if we

need to. But I think we got it.

I’ll just say that of the Auditor General’s recommendations, we’ve

accepted all of them. We’re working on delivering on those right now,

and you’ll know that in my mandate letter one of the things that we’ve

identified specifically is the compliance and enforcement component for

the mining

section of the ministry. We are also working on that as

well.

T. Shypitka: Yeah, we are corner to corner here.

It was mentioned in the report: “It is the legislative

framework…that drives compliance and enforcement activities, not the

organizational structure.” Does the minister agree with that

statement?

Hon. M. Mungall: I believe that what the member opposite is quoting from is

actually the ministry’s formal response to the Auditor General’s report,

not the actual Auditor General’s report. He’s nodding his head. So that

is correct.

On that note, in the Auditor General report, as I mentioned, there

were several recommendations. We’ve accepted those recommendations. I

think that, going forward, he points out in terms of the legislative

response. I agree that there needs to be a legislative response. I also

believe that there needs to be an organizational response. That’s why my

mandate letter is clear in terms of identifying a way that we can do

compliance and enforcement so that it has a greater sense of

independence than it does now.

I guess my fulsome answer to the member opposite is that there

would be both a legislative and an organizational response to dealing

with these issues highlighted by the Auditor General.

T. Shypitka: Thank you for the answer, Minister. Speaking of this separated

unit from compliance and enforcement out of the ministry, can the

minister describe what C and E will look like — just a brief description

— and what it looks like and where it’s going? Is it going to

Environment? Is it going to FLNRO? Is it stand-alone? How many

employees, maybe? Perhaps what expertise will they have? That kind of

thing.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Critically, I didn’t say that it would be out of the ministry.

That’s a critical component. What we’re looking at right now are

different models around the country, and most other jurisdictions don’t

have the people who are permitting also doing compliance and

enforcement. That’s what B.C. has had for quite some time, and that’s

exactly the issue that we’re trying to deal with — so that the people

who are doing the permitting are not the same who are doing the

compliance and enforcement.

I guess you could say we want that sober second thought. We want a

different set of eyes looking at the compliance and enforcement

component. Whether that is independent…. This is not definitive. Don’t

run with this. Whether it’s something like the Oil and Gas Commission

that is independent as a Crown corporation, arm’s length from

government, from the ministry itself, or whether it’s a different unit

within the ministry, these are different possibilities that we’re

reviewing right now.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister. So nothing definitive yet. It’s being

reviewed, I’d imagine, and seeing where this subset of the ministry

would go, if it’s going to stay within the ministry or not — maybe

somewhat like the Oil and Gas Commission, perhaps. Does the minister

have any timelines on when they’ll actually have a decision on what this

compliance and enforcement will look like? When will we know?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I mentioned, we’re reviewing this component of ministry

activity right now, and we’re reviewing it in detail. We want to make

sure that we get this right because, often, when we create these

structures, they are the structure that’s in place for quite some time.

So we want to make sure that we’re getting it right and that we’re also

costing it out. I know that as a B.C. Liberal member, he will appreciate

that we always have to make sure that we’re crunching the numbers

appropriately. So we want to make sure that we’re costing that

out.

We also want to make sure that we’re consulting with the

communities and industry who are going to be most impacted. We don’t

want to leave people out of these types of decision-making because, at

the end of the day, we want this new structure to work, and we want any

new legislation to work when it’s on the ground, not just in a

theoretical realm. We want it to be practical.

Of course, that consultation is key to ensuring that we’re meeting

our goals for competitiveness — that we want to be the top competitive

jurisdiction in North America. So we have to bring all of this together

and do this review appropriately.

[3:30 p.m.]

I will say, though, that we don’t want to drag our heels as we do

it either. We do need to do it expeditiously. We do need to make sure

that we are adhering to the recommendations from the Auditor General’s

report in a timely manner, not only because that provides certainty and

that sustainability that the industry is looking for, but for

communities as well.

T. Shypitka: What we don’t know, I guess, obviously…. We don’t know where it’s

going. We want to do it expeditiously. So wait and see. But it’s got to

be timely. All right.

What we do know, I guess, is that it will be removed from the

Energy and Mines Ministry…. Or no, you said you don’t know yet. I’m

sorry.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

What we do know is how many inspectors. We’ve got some really

smart people on your side there that have seen how many inspectors we’ve

had in the past in compliance and enforcement. We must have a roundabout

idea of what that subsection of the ministry looks like — compliance and

enforcement. How many bodies do we need? What kind of pay grade, as far

as how many full-time employees are concerned? A little bit more detail

on….

We know it’s going to be isolated from Energy and Mines. It may

sit inside it. But it might sit outside it. Whatever it is, there must

be an idea of how many full-time employees it will take and more detail

on what it looks like. So a little bit more of an idea on

that.

Hon. M. Mungall: The very issue that the member highlights is precisely what we’re

doing right now. It’s step one. We’re looking at those. So I don’t have

some concrete numbers for him this budget cycle, but that’s exactly what

we’re looking at.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister. We’ll switch topics a little bit

here.

The former government established a working group with the state

of Alaska. That was to build trust and understanding between the two

territories. A statement of cooperation was signed between the two

jurisdictions. It was a bilateral technical working group. It was

established to work on water monitoring, environmental assessments and

to share information on mining activities — so a very collaborative

approach to the two jurisdictions. It was well received, and I think

some really good things came out of it.

I guess the first question is: is the ministry now still embracing

that ideology about working together with Alaska?

Hon. M. Mungall: That is a very timely question, because I actually met with the

Lieutenant-Governor of Alaska this morning on these very issues. Our

commitment to be working collaboratively on transboundary issues

absolutely remains. It would just be ridiculous to break that strong

relationship.

T. Shypitka: Were the deputy ministers there? Was it just the minister herself?

What is the minister going to do to advance these

negotiations?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’ve moved beyond negotiations. The agreements have been signed,

and we are well into implementation phase. That was actually some of the

topic of conversation that we had earlier today.

I was in attendance. Obviously, the Lieutenant-Governor was in

attendance, and he had several people joining him. I did as well,

including my deputy minister here; as well as my assistant deputy

minister, Peter Robb, as I already mentioned; as well as a fabulous

staff person within my ministry, Kathy Eichenberger, who has been one of

the technical people working on this collaboration for quite some

time.

[3:35 p.m.]

I would just maybe offer this up to the member as well. The

deputies, both on the Alaskan side as well as ours, have regular

meetings. Then the assistant deputy ministers provide the technical

support and then deliver on the actual technical work that results from

those meetings.

T. Shypitka: Thanks, Minister. That’s a very good initiative. I’m glad to see

it continue.

We’ll switch into exploration for a bit here. In regards to

mining, can the minister tell me if there is any net change to the

budget for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources from

last year’s budget, as far as exploration is concerned?

Hon. M. Mungall: Clarification: there’s actually, technically, no exploration

budget. Is the member opposite referring to the geological survey or to

Geoscience B.C. or some of that other information-gathering

work?

T. Shypitka: Let’s start with Geoscience B.C. The province provided $7.17

million since 2005. Then more recently there was a $10 million bump and

another $5 million for 2017-2018 and I think another one for 2018-2019.

Does the minister expect to see this funding going forward past

2018-2019?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m going to do my best to explain what’s gone on with the

budgetary cycle for Geoscience B.C. I want to, first, acknowledge that

we highly value their work. The more knowledge we have about what’s

going on in the ground, the better that we are able to attract industry

to ensure that we’re able to extract our resources and build a strong

economy as a result.

That said, what Geoscience did is they wanted to have a larger sum

up front, so that is what government did in March 2017 — gave them $10

million. Essentially, that $10 million was the $5 million that was

allocated in the 2017-18 and the 2018-19 budgets. They got a larger

amount of dollars all in one lump sum so that they could do some of the

work that they’re looking to do right away.

[3:40 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. I guess the question

continues. Does the government, this ministry, plan on continuing this

same type of funding for geoscience in the second part of the next term

of the minister’s tenure? I guess that would be 2019-2020.

Hon. M. Mungall: I am aware that Geoscience B.C. is looking for sustainable

funding. The reason that they’re looking for sustainable funding is that

under the previous government, they would basically get year-end

funding, so it was never consistent, one year to the next. My

understanding is that the previous minister was tasked with finding ways

to ensure that they had sustainable funding. Unfortunately, that did not

occur.

Going forward, I think this is a worthwhile issue for us to look

into, and we’ll be doing that.

T. Shypitka: Geoscience is an amazing sector of the mining industry — no doubt

about it. It was explained to me once that the prospectors and the

exploration junior mining companies found the needle in the haystack,

and it was up to geoscience to find the haystack.

They’re doing it really well with some really cutting-edge

technologies. We saw the spectrometer demonstration at UBCM, identifying

greenhouse gases in oil lines and pipelines and things like that. Really

exciting stuff with geoscience.

If the Chair would allow, I have a colleague of mine that would

like to ask a couple of questions.

D. Barnett: I have a couple of questions, as I live in a region that has a bit

of controversy. My first question is: will there be any change to the

process which mining companies now adhere to, to obtain permits for

exploration?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: From a policy perspective internally right now, we are not

contemplating any changes to the exploration permits. That being said, I

don’t want to preclude any suggestions that may come forward from the

mining jobs task force. If something does, we will definitely be

considering it, as would be appropriate to do, as it is the mining jobs

task force looking to ensure the sustainability of our mining

jobs.

D. Barnett: I may have missed it, but who is on your task force?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member may note that there’s been no announcement, that it is

merely an item that is in my mandate letter and that I’ve committed to

working towards.

D. Barnett: Will the new government be issuing exploration permits to mining

companies in the West Chilcotin?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’ll let the member know that it’s actually statutory

decision–makers, not the minister, who make decisions on any permits.

That process is continuing on as it always has.

T. Shypitka: We’ll go back to geoscience or exploration a little bit. The

minister may be aware that when the NDP were last in government,

investment in mining crashed in 2001. That was the year they lost 77 of

the 79 seats. Only $25 million was invested in mineral exploration in

B.C. — $25 million. Today there’s close to ten times that. I believe,

actually, that in 2016, it was about $272 million.

So a fairly simple question. What will the minister do to ensure

that exploration investment and confidence — which is a big thing — does

not plummet like it did in the 1990s?

Hon. M. Mungall: I know that the members opposite do like to talk about the 1990s

an awful lot. I was not even allowed to vote for the majority of that

decade. I’m no spring chicken anymore, so I think we can move beyond

that decade to talk about today.

We are continuing to fund and support the geological survey branch

in the ministry. I already talked about looking for Geoscience B.C. in

terms of that sustainable funding model that they’ve been requesting for

many, many years, that has been promised to them for many, many years

but that the previous government failed to deliver on.

I already talked about the mining jobs task force that I’m very

much looking forward to.

The member opposite will also take note, in my mandate letter,

very, very clearly: “Develop an improved and properly resourced

approvals process to assess mining applications and increase industry

safety by establishing,” as I mentioned, “an independent oversight

unit.”

We want to make sure that we are funding our permitting process

sufficiently so we’re able to get these mining permits approved through

the appropriate regulatory mechanism in a timely manner so that we can

keep things flowing and make sure it’s not government that is holding

industry back.

[3:50 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Yeah. Absolutely, we’ve got to move forward. There’s no doubt

about it. I was just indicating actual statistics. We want to move

forward, the way we have been for the last 16 years.

We talk about the task force. We don’t know who’s on it. We don’t

know if compliance and enforcement are going to be in or outside the

ministry. We don’t know when it’s going to happen, but it’s got to be

timely. It doesn’t seem there are a lot of answers to some of my

questions here, but we’ll give you some more time on it.

I think I missed the answer — before I went to the break, there,

with my colleague — on geoscience and funding. We’ve indicated that

there was a $10 million bump. It was to be split up over the two years,

like you said.

Is there an actual, firm commitment to keep that funding in place?

You have just stated that we have to move forward, and we have to fund,

and we have to make things right. Is there a firm commitment on funding

geoscience in the future?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re 110 days in. The idea that we’d have everything done from a

platform is kind of silly. I mean, they had 16 years to deliver on at

least four platforms. As I mentioned already, around geoscience, it was

a promise by a previous minister’s mandate letter that they would

actually have some type of sustainable funding source that would be more

predictable every year instead of the year-end funding that they got.

They still didn’t deliver on that. So this type of suggestion coming

from the member opposite…. I hope he sets that aside.

That being said, Geoscience B.C. already has that $10 million I

spoke of. They have that. That has been disbursed. They are now able to

spend that accordingly over the next couple of budget cycles.

As I mentioned earlier, we’re committed to making sure that the

type of work that Geoscience B.C. does takes place. We want to look at

this issue that they have around some predictability in their funding.

Rather than having to come to government every now and again at the end

of a year and ask for whatever’s left over, we want to have some more

front-end predictability, and we’re looking into that.

T. Shypitka: So what the minister is saying is that this government will not be

interested in funding year to year in the mining sector. They will come

up in the budget in February and, I guess, give a full range of funding

throughout the whole sector in a four-year plan, I would imagine. It

wouldn’t be year to year. Is that what I’m hearing?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Can the member rephrase his question? I’m not really too sure what

he’s asking. I feel like he might have extrapolated something I said

into a realm that I was not intending. If he could maybe rephrase his

question.

T. Shypitka: I thought I heard the minister say that funding year to year was

something they weren’t interested in. It was something that only the

B.C. Liberal government was doing in regards to geoscience. I could be

wrong on that.

My question earlier was: will they continue the funding to

geoscience, be it year by year, or be it in a four-year term or

whatever? I want to see some kind of commitment by the ministry that

geoscience will be kept funded past the 2018-2019 year, when the $10

million runs out.

Hon. M. Mungall: So from what I’m hearing from the member opposite, I’m a little

bit concerned that he might be blurring geoscientific work that the

ministry does out of the geological survey branch with Geoscience B.C. —

suggesting that the ministry is somehow going to discontinue this type

of work if we don’t have some type of long-term, predetermined funding

for Geoscience B.C.

I want to state for the record that this government and this

ministry remain committed to that geoscientific work. It needs to be

done. It’s imperative for the overall benefit of our province, in terms

of creating that knowledge base of what is in the ground.

That being said, I feel like I’ve answered the member’s question

several times in terms of where we’re going to be going with the funding

approach that we have for Geoscience B.C., which is a non-profit

organization that is not within government but rather is funded by

government — I believe exclusively funded, actually, by government. What

we intend to do is to take a look at their request for more predictable,

sustainable funding. This is a request that they’ve had for many years,

a request that was assigned to previous ministers to look into and to

deliver on, and they failed to do that.

This government wants to stop with that approach, and we want to

actually take this request very seriously and look into it.

T. Shypitka: I’m not quite sure if I got an answer or not. It was a simple

question. It was just whether we can depend — geoscience can depend — on

funding. A hard number would be a great answer. That would be something

we’d really be happy with.

The previous government had hard numbers. They gave them…. It was

$10 million. It was $71½ million since 2005. It was a well-funded sector

of the mining industry.

We just want to know an answer on a hard number going past

2018-2019. If this will continue, give us an answer on how much that is.

We’d like to know if there’s an actual…. Somewhere in the plan over

there, there must be some allotment to keep geoscience moving. It’s a

great industry, as the minister has indicated. We’d like to know a hard

number, a target, on how this funding is going to proceed — fairly

simple.

Hon. M. Mungall: The member ought to know that under the B.C. Liberal government,

there was actually never a budgeted line item for Geoscience B.C. They

only received money at the end of the year. Any number that you look at

from the past, that was a response at the end of the fiscal year to

Geoscience B.C.’s request.

[4:00 p.m.]

To suggest that his government somehow provided advanced budgeting

for Geoscience B.C.... That’s just not how it was done. They received

money at the end of the year. So if he’s looking for hard numbers from a

government, not even his own party delivered on that.

T. Shypitka: Well, I believe I heard there was a hard number. It was $10

million. It was an advance for two years. It was $10 million over two

years. So that was a hard number, but we’ll leave that for

now.

We’ll go into tax incentives for a minute. I might have some other

colleagues join me here fairly shortly.

Mineral exploration in B.C. depends heavily on the B.C. mining

flow-through share tax credit program. This program ends in a little

over a month; I believe it’s December 27. Investors from around the

world are deciding now whether or not to bring their money to

B.C.

Will your government extend this essential program, or will you

fail to take action and let these job creation and economic development

opportunities escape, as your government did some time ago? Will the tax

credits still remain?

Hon. M. Mungall: All tax policy questions are better directed to the Minister of

Finance and the Ministry of Finance during their budget estimates

process, as that’s where these decisions are ultimately made.

That being said, the member may want to take note of what was said

in the budget speech earlier in the session, which would see that the

mining exploration tax credit program will be expanded under this

government to include costs incurred for environmental studies and

community consultations.

T. Shypitka: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

We’ll go into the major mines office for a bit here. Will the

minister commit to maintaining the major mines permitting office that

was created by the last government?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The person sitting next to me, my deputy minister, is actually the

person very much responsible for creating what I would say is probably a

best practice. So absolutely, we’ll be continuing on with it.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister.

We’ll go into the Tahltan and Klappan issue. The former government

worked closely with the Tahltan First Nation to protect the Klappan. The

former government also worked hard with the Tahltan on an agreement

between Imperial Metals and the First Nations about the operation of the

Red Chris mine.

The next critical step that the Tahltan First Nation wants is a

reconciliation agreement between the provinces and the Tahltan. Can the

minister please tell the House what specific steps she has taken to

ensure that the relationship between the Tahltan and the province

advances through a reconciliation agreement?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member will know that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation is the minister responsible for any type of

reconciliation negotiations. He is taking the lead and has already begun

to do so. He met with the Tahltan chiefs last week and is working with

them going forward.

T. Shypitka: Here’s another simple question. Does the minister plan to make any

changes to the requirements of companies proposing to build mines in

B.C.?

Hon. M. Mungall: A similar question to one that was asked by the member’s

colleague, and what I told her is that at this stage, we’re not

contemplating any changes to the permitting process. That being said, if

the mining jobs task force should come forward with any proposed

changes, we’ll be taking those into consideration, as would be the

responsibility of the government to do with the work done by its task

force.

T. Shypitka: Here’s another unrelated question, but somewhat related. Is the

minister aware that mines are required to spend millions of dollars to

process water from the minesite to a high level of purity, even when

that same pure, expensive water is being discharged into highly turbid

glacier waters that immediately negate the expensive water process paid

for by the company?

A little bit of common sense here might be the order of the day.

Would the minister review such practices, onerous types of enforcement

issues on water purity to match what they’re being discharged

into?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The guidelines for water discharge are done by the Ministry of

Environment provincially and federally, and this province will be

complying with those guidelines.

T. Shypitka: It is with the Ministry of Environment. The minister is correct.

However, these regulations are what keep B.C. mines competitive — or not

competitive, in this case.

Would the minister just commit to advocating for common sense on

the issue of the receiving environment when it comes to discharge of

water? Just common sense — would she advocate for that?

Hon. M. Mungall: Well, the member opposite’s common sense is not what defines an

acceptable level of anything going into our water. It’s actually

science-based. And all the technical people, First Nations, industry are

around that table that is deciding what is an acceptable level of

anything going into our water sources when industry is discharging their

treated water — and how they treat it as well.

[4:15 p.m.]

I just want to say that I’m very glad that we live in a society

that is making these decisions using science and that people are

following the law, as they ought to be. I will also say that I’ve been

able to tour several of the water treatment plants that are being

invested in by various companies, and they are quite proud — they are

very proud — to be doing such strong environmental activity and making

sure that if H 2 O comes out, H 2 O is going back

in.

T. Shypitka: So H 2 O going out and in should be somewhat compatible.

I would imagine that’s what the minister is saying. So given that

mindset, all I’m asking is…. The water, the H 2 O that’s going

out…. Does it make much sense to the minister that the H 2 O

going out is purer than what it’s going into?

It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense that way. We do have to

follow environmental guidelines, absolutely, 100 percent. But when

you’re purifying water to such a degree that it’s ten times the purity

of the water it’s going into, it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense

sometimes. We’ll leave that for now.

Health and safety. A pretty easy question here. Do you agree that

your ministry does an excellent job of keeping workers safe at minesites

across B.C. and that mining is the safest industry in B.C.? I was just

recently at the mine safety 100th anniversary in Fernie about a month

ago. The work that these people do is absolutely amazing, and they are

keeping people safe. Would the minister agree that, at minesites across

B.C., mining is the safest heavy industry in B.C.?

Hon. M. Mungall: One of the things I often say, when I’m asked about my ministry,

is that I definitely have the A-team. Another example of that is the

fact that our mining industry is actually the safest heavy industry in

B.C. And I want to give full credit not just to the industry and to the

labour unions, but I want to give a lot of credit to my A-team in this

ministry who are out there, boots on the ground, doing the job of making

sure that our industry is safe.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister. Absolutely, I agree 100 percent. There’s a

lot of good work that’s been done over the years by government and

unions alike — lots of great workers out there that take it very

seriously, keeping everybody safe. That’s good work between all parties,

absolutely.

Is your government contemplating putting WorkSafe B.C. in charge

of health and safety at B.C. mines?

Hon. M. Mungall: No.

T. Shypitka: So we’ll make a commitment here on record that you resist the idea

vigorously if any colleagues of yours suggest anything other than that

in the future?

Hon. M. Mungall: No one has suggested any changes whatsoever to the way in which

we’re regulating mine safety.

T. Shypitka: So that’s a no. You will vigorously oppose those types of ideas in

the future?

Hon. M. Mungall: I don’t want to prejudge anything that could happen in the future.

I just think that’s irresponsible of anybody in government to do that

sort of thing. If something very negative happens and somehow our safety

rate is reduced, should government be responsible and take a look at

that? Absolutely.

[4:20 p.m.]

As it stands right now, our number of days without accidents is

the highest in terms of our mining industry. We’ve been doing a stellar

job thus far. I already mentioned that we have the A-team ensuring that

our mines are safe places to work — that when people get up in the

morning and they go to work, their family and loved ones can expect them

to come home.

That is something that, no matter what, will always be the driving

factor. If something in our current system disallows that from

continuing on, you better believe I’m going to be looking into

it.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for the answers there.

If the Chair is okay with it, I’ve got a colleague at the end who

would like to ask a few questions as well.

J. Rustad: Mining, of course, is an important component for my area, my

riding of Nechako Lakes. There are a few operating mines in and around

the area. There are a number of closed mines in and around the area. I

wouldn’t mind following up on a few questions, starting off with the

Endako mine.

Endako was a mine that was in operation for many, many, many

years, into the decades — 45-plus years. It is currently under care

maintenance, I believe, with regards to low molybdenum prices. Having

said that, the tailings pond is one…. There are no tailings going into

it at the moment, coming out of it. There are periods where the tailings

ponds will get quite dry, and there will be dust that comes off of the

tailings pond.

What I’m wondering is: does the Minister of Energy and Mines…? Are

you looking at a plan or thinking about how to work with the company

that owns the former Endako mine with regards to resolving this issue of

potential dust or other things coming off of the tailings pond

area?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for bringing up a local community concern.

Unfortunately, we don’t have the exact information for him right now.

There is quite a bit of technical information that I’d like to get the

member at a future date, if I may.

What I do know is…. My ADM did mention that the ministry does work

regularly with Endako. He has staff that was just meeting with them last

week on some of these technical details. If I may, I’ll get the member

opposite some of those details from the meeting.

J. Rustad: Thanks. That would be much appreciated. I didn’t think that a

detailed question like that would be something you might have on hand,

but it’s one that needed to be asked, obviously, for my riding and for

the folks in my riding, in particular, that are concerned about the

conditions at that particular operation.

Moving onto some of the other operations that are in the area,

AuRico Gold is proposing an underground mine, formerly known as Kemess

North. I believe it enjoys First Nations support for that mine going

forward. It’s done a significant amount of engagement. I think it’s got

all the permits that it needs, in terms of going forward.

[4:25 p.m.]

What I’m wondering about, in particular…. When you see a mine like

this that hasn’t been built yet but wants to be built, that’s got

support, does the minister see any changes to agreements in place, or

conditions, operating a mine, taking into consideration

UNDRIP?

Hon. M. Mungall: From our perspective, we don’t see any problems or any issues

coming up. In fact, what First Nations who are involved told me just a

couple of weeks ago…. Two weeks feels like two years sometimes. I’m sure

you remember this. What they were saying to me is that they felt the

process they’ve been engaged with to date for the Kemess project is

UNDRIP in action. They just really felt like it was exactly the way —

how it should be going.

They have their environmental assessment certificate. They’re

moving along, and we don’t anticipate any reason why they wouldn’t be

able to continue.

[4:30 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. That’s good news to hear with

regards to that project.

It raises an interesting idea, though — or question, I guess. As

the First Nations have said, UNDRIP, or the UN declaration on the rights

of Indigenous peoples…. We like to use acronyms in this place. We all

know what those acronyms are. But for the many, many watchers, they may

not know what….

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Well, I might have a couple on my side, too. The minister

mentioned there may be two or three on her side that might be watching.

In any case, for the people watching, it’s important to maybe spell

those sorts of things out.

That was one of the projects that, as former minister responsible

for what’s now known as Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, of

course, we did a lot of engagement around. I’m glad to hear that’s what

their perspective is.

That leads to the question. Is that going to be the ministry’s

approach in engaging First Nations on all projects with regards to

meeting the goals and recommendations, or the desires, laid out under

the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples?

Hon. M. Mungall: I feel like I could talk quite a bit about this. The reason is

that I think moving into an era of reconciliation and the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples…. Moving away from some

of those acronyms — I’m hoping that maybe that will increase the

viewership. Moving into an era of reconciliation and ensuring that

UNDRIP isn’t like a ticky box on a thing to do…. It’s a process. As the

former minister will know, it’s a process. When First Nations come back

and say, “This is what it meant. We felt included. We felt like we were

meaningful partners,” to me, that’s the test that we want to be able to

meet.

I have to say that I’ve been just continuously impressed in the

last 110 days at the work that this ministry has been doing,

particularly around mining, in terms of leading what that process would

look like to ensure that First Nations are meaningful partners in our

industries. That said, recognizing that consultation is very imperative,

it also can be costly. So that’s one of the reasons that we’ve

acknowledged that in this budget update just announced a couple of

months ago, where we said that community consultations will also be part

of an expanded mining flow-through share tax credit. I think I got all

of the words in that acronym.

Recognizing that consultations are a must in an era of

reconciliation and that to put the time needed to them requires costs.

We don’t want those costs to be a reason or a barrier to not do that

effective consultation, so we’ve acknowledged that in this budget as

well.

[4:35 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that response. So just going a step

further with regards to UNDRIP, or the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples, and engagement — the process, of course, that went

on with AuRico Gold in their project, and Kemess Underground — I guess

the question that I’m thinking about is….

There were a number of manuals that were produced a few years ago.

They’ve always been updated on a regular basis to show the changes and

expectations that government has of industry when they engage with First

Nations — the mining industry in particular, since we’re obviously here

talking about the estimates for Mines. What I’m wondering is: will the

ministry be providing a guideline with regards to how those

consultations should be undertaken or potentially could be

undertaken?

The reason for asking this question, of course, is that in the

case of AuRico Gold, you’ve got a company that reached out, that did the

work. You’ve got First Nations that were engaged and interested. You’re

not always going to have those scenarios, so you may end up with a

situation where there are some challenges. And there may be some court

challenges, as we have seen on other projects.

I guess the question is: will the ministry be updating what those

expectations are in terms of engagement? Is the ministry goal, in a

statutory decision–maker, to have some level of cooperation or agreement

achieved before a mining project can proceed?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is

responsible for any update, any guidelines, and so on and so forth. That

being said, I think the example from his own constituency that the

member provided, with AuRico Metals and the Kemess Underground project,

in terms of…. They took the initiative, and they went and started

consulting with First Nations before being required to do so

specifically by government.

They were able to achieve an impact-and-benefits agreement — or an

IBA, as we all say for short — before even approaching government for

all of its permits and so on. Then you have communities that are very

happy with that process and turning around and feeling like they’re full

partners in the project. While that’s not a requirement by this

government to go that type of route, I will acknowledge that that was a

very smart process, very smart approach that AuRico took.

I think that as we all move into an era of reconciliation — not

just government but industry as well — we’re going to see industry doing

more of that. As I have talk to industry around the province, whether

it’s oil and gas, whether it’s mining, whether it’s renewable energies,

the desire by industry to be working proactively with First Nations, to

truly be working in a meaningful partnership with them, is growing. I

think that’s great.

J. Rustad: I’m in agreement there in terms of the engagement. I think that’s

a positive thing in terms of how industry has changed over time. There’s

no question that’s a plus. It creates, in my mind, a project that is

sustainable, supports communities and brings about some of the goals and

objectives that I think both sides of this House would like to

see.

Moving to the next project that I’d like to spend just a little

bit of time talking about….

Maybe just one quick side-note from the minister’s answer. I’m

assuming that the Ministry of Energy and Mines is guiding. I know that

MIRR, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, has the

responsibility for those documents. But it is led, obviously, by

individual ministries that write the components that go into it. So I’m

assuming that your ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, would be

undertaking that work. I see that the minister nodding, so that’s good

to know.

On to the next project I wanted to just ask quickly about, which

is the Blackwater project, New Gold’s project. If I remember correctly,

it was on the verge of being able to receive an environmental

certificate back last spring. I’m wondering if the minister could

provide me with an update with regards to where that permitting process

is.

Hon. M. Mungall: New Gold. Where they are at is that they’re still in their

environmental assessment process. They’re working with both the

province, the environmental assessment office, as well as the federal

government on mitigating caribou issues. Until that time, there’s not

much that I can comment on, because eventually it’ll come to me for

decision-making and I’ll need to be looking at that very objectively.

But to answer your question that’s where they’re at.

J. Rustad: Just curious in terms of the caribou issue. Is that more to do

with road access or the actual mine operation itself?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: It would be both. The minesite does overlay some of the caribou

habitat as well.

J. Rustad: The nations that are engaged directly on that…. There are a number

of nations peripherally as well. But Ulkatcho and Lhoosk’uz Dene — or

Kluskus, as it’s known — are supportive of the project. They’re working

through an IBA, a benefit agreement, or whatever it’s called, with New

Gold.

Obviously, the province is engaged in negotiations around trying

to include an agreement. One of the things that the nations were looking

for was access, direct access, to the minesite across the Blackwater

and, as well, coming around the back side for the folks coming up from

the Anahim area to be able to access for jobs, etc.

That’s something that I know a number of ministries are working

on, but ultimately, it will be a key component as to whether or not this

mine proceeds. So I’m wondering if the minister can provide an update

with regards to the discussions and potential for those components to be

moving forward.

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for bringing this up. I actually recall

having this very discussion with an interested First Nations at the

First Nations leadership gathering. Where things are at on this is that

the Ministry of Transportation has earmarked the budget required for

this to go ahead. But I guess that the decision-making on it, being able

to go ahead, is within the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development. We just didn’t think that acronym was

long enough when we became government, so we thought that we’d add a

couple more letters there.

That ministry is watching how things go with the environmental

assessment certificate. If it is approved, the rest of government is

ready to move ahead.

J. Rustad: Just on a side note, I rather enjoyed…. I tried to get business

cards when I had both ministries put together, but I had to order so

many cards that it just didn’t make sense to get a few. I thought that

it would be fun having Forest, Lands, Natural Resource Operations,

Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation all as part of one

title.

The Blackwater project represents, obviously, a significant work,

a significant job opportunity for the local nations and for the

communities in my riding and will be an economic driver potentially for

many years to come.

[4:50 p.m.]

The caribou component that’s within the potential impact of the

minesite…. I know that the company is responsible in terms of putting

the plans forward with regards to that. Has the minister or have the

minister’s colleagues been engaged with the federal ministry to find

ways to be able to resolve some of those concerns and work in engaging

with the company so that the company can find the right path forward to

be able to see this mine advance, taking care, obviously, of that

important component of wildlife?

Hon. M. Mungall: To answer the member’s question, in short, it would be yes. As the

member can imagine, we have multiple staff and multiple ministries who

are engaged on this very issue with the federal government and with

Blackwater as well.

J. Rustad: One follow-up, related and unrelated, is the work that Geoscience

B.C. is doing. Geoscience B.C. has done some flyovers and some of the

technical work throughout my riding — several passes going — and some of

the targets and expansion opportunities around Blackwater were part of

the results of Geoscience B.C. In terms of that work, it’s identified,

obviously, some other interesting targets that we’re hopeful, for the

folks in Nechako Lakes, will lead to other potential mining

opportunities.

Previous, the ministry has been advocating for resources to go

into geoscience to carry on the important work that it’s doing. I was

curious about the minister’s perspective on Geoscience B.C. and whether

or not the ministry will be working with Finance to try to find

additional funding for that organization going forward.

Hon. M. Mungall: Maybe the member wasn’t here, but we’ve actually been canvassing

this issue quite a bit in these budget estimates.

Around Geoscience B.C. Obviously, they have huge value throughout

this province in ensuring that we all have good information,

science-based information, about what is in the ground. As the member

opposite pointed out, once we have that knowledge, we’re able to

determine and industry is able to determine what opportunities exist for

economic development.

We also do a lot of that work within the ministry as well — not

just externally with the non-profit Geoscience B.C. but through the

geological survey branch within the ministry as well. There’s no doubt

about it. There are a lot of rocks to bang. There’s a lot of earth to

look around and see what kind of minerals exist underneath the ground.

So a lot of work needs to be done for sure.

The way Geoscience B.C. was budgeted for in the past was that they

would get year-end funding. As the ministry had extra dollars available,

they would give that to Geoscience B.C. to the point where Geoscience

B.C. was exclusively funded by the provincial government. So in past

years…. For example, in 2007-2008, it was $11.7 million. But in 2013-14,

it was $3 million.

In this last budget cycle, 2016-2017, they received $10 million.

Part of that $10 million was actually budgeted for the 2017-2018 and

2018-2019 years. So they were actually given all of that in advance

because they wanted to get ahead on some of the work that they were

doing. So that’s what the government of the day negotiated with

them.

At this stage, what Geoscience B.C. is looking for and what

they’ve requested for many years — not just from this government but

from previous B.C. Liberal governments as well — is more predictability.

Rather than just getting what is available at the end of the year, could

they be more involved in the budgetary process in advance — perhaps

multi-year, whatever it is — just so that they’d have that predictable,

sustainable funding source?

It was a promise that that would happen under the previous

government — twice, I believe, in the previous Minister of Energy and

Mine’s mandate letters. Unfortunately, that wasn’t delivered on. So what

we’re committed to doing is looking into that request with Geoscience

B.C.

J. Rustad: Thank you for your patience in terms of answering the question

again. Geoscience, as I said, is an important component within my riding

— and welcome work that they have been doing.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’m curious, though. I want to go back to the UN declaration on

the rights of Indigenous peoples, as it is in all of the mandate letters

to various ministries. I believe that it’s in all of t