2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 34, Number 2

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2016

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: In the precinct today will be 99 grade 11 students from Steveston-London Secondary school in my riding, led by a group of adults, 11 in total, including the teacher who brings a group here every year to learn more about the people’s House, Mrs. S. Christie.

Would the House please give these students — future leaders — from Richmond-Steveston a warm welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: I have two people to introduce today in the gallery. I’m not sure where they are? There they are.

[1005]

One is my assistant administrative…. I think he’s my assistant administrative assistant. His name is Luke Rioux, and he’s a wonderful young man who came to us because he wanted to. He was working in the public service and wanted to be a little closer to the action. So I’d like to introduce Luke.

Also, it’s my sad duty, I guess…. I don’t want to say pleasure, because it’s not a pleasure to pay tribute to someone in my office who’s leaving. My chief of staff, Cynthia Petrie, is leaving to go on to bigger and better things. When I say bigger and better, I mean more lucrative, and good for her.

Cynthia has been with government for quite a few years. She has four children that she has raised, plus her husband Matt, who’s the fifth child, and her minister, the sixth child.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: No, not a troubled child.

We occasionally, in our lives, meet people who are very special and who impress us with just their inherent dignity and Zen-like quality. That’s the way Cynthia is. She is such a steadying influence in my office. I’m a little bit afraid of what’s going to happen starting on Monday, and my colleagues seem share that concern. So homage, a tribute, to Cynthia Petrie. Thank you.

J. Rice: I’d like to introduce the House to someone that’s very important to me. Would the House please make Joan Wilmot from Smithers welcome.

M. Elmore: We have representatives from credit unions across British Columbia with us today. We all know, in all of our communities, the central role that credit unions play is an integral part, not only providing financial services and providing loans and other services to small businesses and playing important roles in our communities but also the leading role they play in British Columbia and the important place they have in our economy.

I know they’ll be talking to us about expanding that role and being able to support small businesses in a greater capacity to build and strengthen our economies in our local areas, throughout our regions and our province.

So I ask everybody to please give them a very warm welcome and thank them for their great work they do on behalf of British Columbians.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I’d also like to welcome the credit union system of British Columbia to Victoria. As a former chair of the board of North Shore Credit Union, now BlueShore, I know how important the credit union system is to communities all throughout British Columbia, and particularly their focus on lending to small businesses.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

BOAT HARBOUR BAY AND
MID–VANCOUVER ISLAND

D. Routley: I rise to speak of a jewel of a location in my constituency, Boat Harbour. The mid–Vancouver Island region is a product of thriving resource industries, some that have come and gone, some that continue to be the productive backbone of our economy.

We are a region characterized by proud and strong Coast Salish First Nations. In order to attract the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, the Canadian government granted huge swaths of Vancouver Island to the coal baron, Robert Dunsmuir. This was all done with little or no accommodation of First Nations’ interests.

This history is represented in our parks, trails, artifacts and, indeed, the families of the region and place names: the Colliery Dam Park, Ladysmith’s well-known Transfer Beach and Morden Colliery Park.

Boat Harbour is a small, beautiful bay which was also a coal-loading point where boats would dock. The old railway connections between these places have become trails and important thoroughfares for locals walking, biking and on horseback.

As our Island communities grow and develop, it is easy for these important historical locations and connections to be lost. Unfortunately, pressures from development are cutting off access enjoyed for generations. Boat Harbour is one such location, linked by a network of trails to other parks and used by the local residents for recreation, travel and public access to the ocean foreshore.
[ Page 11004 ]

This gem of our region is now targeted to be dredged and infilled to create a parking lot.

[1010]

Now, all of us claim to come from the most beautiful part of B.C. Those of us from mid–Vancouver Island cast our eyes downward at those times, not wanting to crush this faith in our colleagues, as we, quite obviously, do represent the most beautiful part of our province.

Boat Harbour is one of the sparkling jewels on the chain of treasures we know and love in the natural landscape of our beautiful island. The thought that such a jewel, because of rights granted 1½ centuries ago to facilitate an industry that has been gone for just about a century, seems impossible and wrong. We must at all levels of government put the preservation of our most precious natural assets as our highest priority.

YOUTH UNLIMITED

M. Dalton: I’d like recognize a most important organization offering support and services to vulnerable youth in British Columbia — namely, Greater Vancouver Youth Unlimited. Youth Unlimited offers places of connection and transformation that help young people discover their potential. If they feel alone, marginalized or just need somewhere fun but safe, Youth Unlimited is there to walk with them and help them learn life skills and support their growth as a person.

They do this through activities, arts and sports camps, drop-in centres, youth groups and a myriad of other programs. Youth Unlimited is a Christian organization, but it’s not preachy, and it’s able to support young people with the help they need, be it physical, mental, social, emotional or spiritual.

In Maple Ridge, Youth Unlimited is run by a great team: Dennis Hemminger, Christine and Tim Gadd, Maureen Floris and Sandra Reilly. Their main initiative is the high school breakfast program, which provides a hot breakfast to over 600 students in five different high schools each week. As a result, more students from families of limited means are arriving on time and paying better attention in the classrooms on days when the breakfast is served.

In Mission, the Youth Unlimited centre is called MY House and is run by Calvin Williams, Barry McLeod, Scott Guitard, Sharon Wiebe and Tiani Foster. Up to 90 percent of youth who come to MY House suffer from substance abuse. MY House provides them a place to eat a warm meal, a shower, and they receive help from volunteers and professionals. The Mission team also organizes Jester’s Theatre that helps youth develop artistic skills and personal confidence.

Will the House please join me in commending Youth Unlimited for the great work they do for our young people.

2016 VICTORIA LEADERSHIP AWARDS

R. Fleming: I rise to congratulate the 2016 Victoria Leadership Awards winners. These awards honour distinguished accomplishments of everyday heroes recognized for their community leadership, service and achievement. Led by Leadership Victoria, the event is a collaboration with the University of Victoria, Rotary Clubs of Greater Victoria, Victoria Foundation and United Way of Greater Victoria.

From youth to lifetime achievements, the 2016 recipients of the prestigious Victoria Leadership Awards are in nine categories, as follows.

Leadership Victoria’s Lifetime Achievement Award, which is for philanthropy, innovation and mentoring, went to Judith Armstrong and Nick Marsden. The University of Victoria’s Community Leadership Award went to Frank Low this year. The Rotary Community Leadership Award, which singles out individuals for their personal integrity and their ethical behaviour, went to Deborah Antonsen.

The Coast Capital Savings Youth Leadership Award, which is for young leaders ages between 15 and 31, went to Jordan Perrault. The Leadership Victoria Alumni Award was given to Erika Ladouceur. The Victoria Foundation Community Leadership Award, which recognizes an organization that’s building community capacity, went to Artemis Place.

The United Way’s Greater Victoria Award for Collaboration and Partnership, which is for a non-profit organization, went to Ready to Rent B.C. The Royal Roads University Leadership Excellence through Coaching and Mentoring Award, which is understandably focused on coaching, went to Lily Seto. And finally, the Vancity Social Innovation Award, which recognizes leadership that challenges status quo and develops new approaches to the areas of social justice, food security and financial empowerment, went to Amanda Evans.

Outstanding individuals and organizations doing great things in my community, and I would ask the members of the House to join me in congratulating all of these individuals and organizations who won awards and thanking Leadership Victoria and its partners for giving them their due recognition in my community.

[1015]

HOWIE THE GUIDE DOG

S. Hamilton: I rise today to thank a very special member of our community for years of faithful service. For eight years now, Howie, a black Labrador-retriever cross, has served as Lynn Jensen’s trusty guide dog. For all of that time, Howie has regularly accompanied Lynn from Port Moody to her work in Vancouver as a CNIB rehabilitation teacher. Howie has constantly by Ms. Jensen’s side and is always on the lookout.

Named after hockey legend Howie Meeker, Howie
[ Page 11005 ]
brings joy and freedom to Lynn Jensen’s life. The two have become inseparable as a result. Howie’s career also took him around the world with Lynn. Many times he soaked up the sun in Mexico and, by the way, has become quite an expert kayaker. And he got a healthy dose of culture after a five-country tour across Europe in 2011.

I can attest to Howie’s good nature, because my wife, Kristen, and I raised and trained him from a puppy in our home for two years before being placed with Lynn. In fact, it was really hard to part with Howie when the time came. But seeing the happiness he gives to Lynn is incredibly moving, and both my wife and I are very proud of Howie.

As a matter of fact, this month Howie is featured in both the Surrey–North Delta Leader and the Tri-City News, which is far more media attention than I ever get.

After 56 years of loyal and dedicated service, Howie will be shifting gears and slowing down to retirement as he’s succeeded by Misty, another black Lab. Although adjusting to retired life may be hard for Howie, he will, however, continue to live with Lynn and her family.

I know Howie can take comfort and pride in all he’s done for Lynn over the last 56 years. That’s dog years, by the way, and there are not many people in this chamber that can lay claim to a career quite that long and distinguished. I’m sure all the members in this House will join me in thanking Howie for his outstanding service. Here’s to you, Howie. That’s a good boy.

HAZELTON ICE RINK

D. Donaldson: Doing a couple of laps at the Skeena old ice arena, now an outdoor rink, with the 8,000-foot Stegyoden peak looming in the background was a highlight of my day last Sunday in Hazelton. The ice was great. It’s a testament to the hard work of the maintenance crew, who have the incredible challenge of keeping that artificial ice surface in shape while open to snow, sleet and rain.

That’s because, as members may recall, the Hazelton ice arena was condemned last spring in the middle of a minor hockey practice. The structurally deficient roof was removed over the summer, and amazing volunteers ensured kids and adults wouldn’t miss a season.

Last Sunday was the figure-skating gala, and following that, a celebration on the ice because the Hazeltons came second in a national on-line vote for the Aviva Community Fund contest and won a $100,000 prize. A chunk of the money was used to purchase a secondhand Zamboni, which has helped keep the ice in good shape. The old tractor used before just wasn’t up to the task.

Luckily, it was a cool and cloudy day. The previous weekend a bantam hockey tournament had to be cancelled because the ice plant just couldn’t keep up. That’s why residents are keeping their eye on the ball. The community fundraising committee has worked hard and secured $5 million as its contribution to the new Upper Skeena recreation centre.

Now people are awaiting the federal budget — hopefully, near the end of this month — to hear about a matching $5 million contribution and the province following suit after that so that building can begin this year. I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the minister and his staff for making this project a priority.

The season on the outdoor rink will be over soon. The ice plant just won’t be able to keep up as the days lengthen and get warmer. But because the community pulled together, the kids and adults have had a great season. We’re all looking forward to a new facility that the community deserves.

EGG INDUSTRY

D. Plecas: Today I want to talk about an egg-cellent industry in my riding. A breakfast staple for many, eggs are nutritious, they’re wholesome, and they’re produced right here in B.C. In fact, we produce some 64 million dozen eggs a year in B.C. That’s about three-quarters of a billion, which means that on average, each of us is eating about 200 eggs a year.

I love that, because more than 85 percent of those come right out of my riding in the Fraser Valley. Yes, there are about 136 registered egg producers in B.C., and more than 100 of those are located in the Fraser Valley. Some egg farms in Abbotsford have been producing eggs for more than 50 years.

One of those is Golden Valley Foods. Another farm, Janzen Farms, is a very egg-citing place. The birds have free run of the barn. Scott Janzen, who owns the farm, makes sure his thousands of chickens get to sleep properly each night as they peck at his feet, hop on his shoulders and fly past his head. He actually teaches them to fly.

[1020]

We also have Rockweld Farms, a family-owned and -operated farm founded by Tim and Flo Rempel in 1995. Every member of the family contributes to raising and caring for the birds.

These days our farmers are offering more specialty eggs to meet consumer egg-spectations. Eggs range from classic white and brown to omega-3 enhanced, free run, free range and certified organic.

Our farmers can’t be beaten. No, all yolks aside, B.C. egg farmers provide a quality product that contributes to good health and a growing economy. And remember, when you buy B.C. eggs, you are supporting B.C. residents and the B.C. economy.

Oral Questions

POST-SECONDARY TUITION POLICY
AND FEE INCREASES

K. Corrigan: This government has perfected the practice of giving with one hand and taking away with the
[ Page 11006 ]
other. We’ve seen it with hikes in medical services premiums, ICBC rates and hydro rates. Now, they’re gouging post-secondary students.

Government promised to cap post-secondary tuition and fee increases at 2 percent per year, but several months ago the Minister of Advanced Education quietly told colleges and universities to stick students with significant new fees. The bottom line is that students, and often their families, are paying far more than the 2 percent limit. It’s sometimes triple — and 20 or 30 times more, in several cases, higher than the limit.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, can he please explain why he’s directed colleges and universities across this province to break his own tuition cap?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite knows full well that British Columbia has the fourth-lowest tuition rates in the country and that those tuition rates are capped at 2 percent growth per year.

The member asked about fees. She’s a bit behind on this topic. I had the pleasure of spending time with the Canadian Federation of Students and other student bodies on January 22 at both North Island College and Vancouver Island University. The topic of fees came up. I advised them, and I’ve made it clear to the other student associations, that we are keeping a very close eye on fees because they are only permissible where there is a clear and distinct benefit to students. So we are working with students to make sure that any fees that are applied by universities and colleges meet those criteria.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I am well aware of the meeting on January 22 and what actually happened at that meeting.

First, the B.C. Liberals allowed B.C. tuition rates to double, and then they promised to cap them. That cap applied not only to tuition fees but also “program fees, mandatory fees and consumable fees.” But the Minister of Advanced Education never met a policy he couldn’t work around.

Instead of coming clean and admitting to students and their families that they are ditching their promise to limit fee increases, he’s told colleges and universities across the province they can stick students with significant new mandatory fees. In some cases, they’re adding thousands of dollars on to the cost of a post-secondary education.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education explain again why he told universities and colleges to go ahead and break his promise of a tuition cap?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Yet again, the member opposite, who is very capable and generally knows her facts better than she is stating today, is crying wolf.

[1025]

The member opposite is fully aware that we have an arrangement with the universities and colleges where their fees must be justified. They are required to consult with the student body before they institute fees. They are required to consult with the ministry before they institute fees. The fees must provide a genuine and enhanced benefit to students, such as career placement offices, such as wellness programs — things that are actual, tangible benefits to students. That’s why we have maintained British Columbia’s leading status in turning out 430,000 students each year to contribute to our growing and prosperous economy, because students flock to British Columbia because of the job prospects here.

K. Corrigan: The tuition cap policy is very clear. It applies not only to tuition, but it applies to mandatory fees, consumable fees and other mandatory fees. It does not apply for new programs. These fees are being applied across the board. They are breaking the rules.

According to the president of North Island College…. He said: “Earlier this year, the ministry advised B.C.’s colleges they had a ‘new interpretation’ of the tuition limit policy, which enables institutions to implement mandatory student fees.”

A vice-president at Vancouver Community College told the college tuition fee and advisory committee that plans to implement new fees were “being made based on direction from the Ministry of Advanced Education.”

The VP of education at Selkirk College said, “We got an indication in the fall that the province would allow institutions to consider new fees,” all breaking the tuition cap policy.

They give with one hand, they take with the other, and students are paying the price. Why is the minister telling colleges and universities that his promise was meaningless and that they can saddle students and their families with more fees and more costs?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite is very able and is herself a graduate of a number of our institutions here in the province. I’m going to try this answer for the third time now that she’s doing the redo exam for the second time in her question.

Fees are only permissible where they provide a new and clear benefit to students, where they have been imposed with consultation with the students and in consultation with the ministry.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The upshot of this is that around the province, at 25 different institutions, the students tell me face to face that they are getting an excellent educa-
[ Page 11007 ]
tion and that they are getting excellent value for money, because we are providing the machinery for prosperity in this province through an advanced education system that works for everyone.

L. Krog: That’s the interesting part — face to face — because what’s really troubling is that when students from Vancouver Island University and North Island College confronted the minister about fee increases on January 22, he said he knew nothing about them — nothing about them, hon. Speaker.

So there are only two possible explanations for the minister’s apparent lack of knowledge. Either he has no clue what’s going on in his own ministry, or he knew and did not tell the students the truth about his plan to increase their education costs.

To the minister: which is it?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Although the member opposite has been called to the bar for many years, it’s quite apparent that he skipped evidence class.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: This House will come to order.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Relying on his double hearsay of what happened at that meeting on January 22, where I was present and I spoke with the students…. We had a very clear understanding that I was looking forward to working with the students to monitor these fees, to make sure they were getting value for money, because that’s the job of the minister: to deliver excellence to the clientele, and the clientele are the students.

[1030]

We will continue to provide a superb education for hundreds of thousands of aspiring British Columbians, because they want to be prosperous, just like the other people in this province who vote for the government.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: I’m sure we’re both lawyers, but what I’m convinced of today is that the minister is not much of an historian.

The minister held meetings with students from Vancouver Island University and North Island College on January 22. The minister said he was not aware of any fee increases until students told him about it.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Listen, Members, please.

Yet according to emails released under FOI, administrators at Selkirk College were told two weeks earlier that the minister had set up a team within his ministry to review and approve new fee increases.

Why has the minister directed universities and colleges to violate his own tuition cap, and why can’t he be straight today with students about it?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Although I have the deepest respect for the two members who have raised this issue today…. They’re both very capable, very well trained people in our institutions here in British Columbia. They’ve both been practising lawyers. But not only did the member skip evidence class; he must have skipped contract as well.

What happened here is that we have the opportunity to review and monitor fees…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: …being imposed by universities and colleges, and that’s exactly what we do. As I have said four times already, we monitor these fees. The fees can only be imposed with consultations with both students and with the ministry. That’s how we manage to maintain affordable education for British Columbians so that they can make their lives better and join the prosperous class they seek to be members of.

K. Conroy: At Vancouver Community College, students are facing a host of so-called new fees: $835 in shop fees for mechanics apprentices, $937 in material fees for professional cooks and $2,000 in lab fees for pharmacy technicians. At VIU, every full-time student is stuck with $188 in new fees, which is three times higher than the minister’s own fee cap.

Why is this minister sticking students with large mandatory fee increases?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: For the sixth time in the last five minutes, I will reiterate the policy. Mandatory fees can only be imposed in consultation with the student body and in consultation with the ministry and where there is a clear, defined improvement in services to students. Existing fees are historical. New fees must be imposed only in consultation with the student bodies where there is a clear benefit to students and in consultation with the ministry.

As I have said many times in this House, the students at all 25 institutions report that they are getting excellent value for money and that they are pleased with their results because it leads to all kinds of opportunities to be in a more prosperous state than they have been in the past and to join that happy state of British Columbian prosperity that they all seek to be part of.

Madame Speaker: The member for Kootenay West on a supplemental.
[ Page 11008 ]

K. Conroy: What the minister is neglecting to say is that these fees were only supposed to be on new programs, and none of them are on new programs — none of them.

Students at Selkirk College will now pay $144 more per year for two-semester programs. The total increases would be three times higher than the government’s fee cap. And how did they do this? Well, according to the president of North Island College: “The ministry advised B.C. colleges that they have a new interpretation of the tuition limit policy.”

If the minister is so proud of his plans to increase student fees, why didn’t he tell them up front that he was reaching deeper into their wallets?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: For the seventh time this morning, I will make the point that the members seem to be ignoring or choosing not to hear. Where new fees are imposed upon the student body…

[1035]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: …they can only be imposed where there’s a clear, enhanced benefit to students and in consultation with the student body and in consultation with the Ministry of Advanced Education.

This is not new. This is because we seek to provide more services to students which will be of value to students and which will be affordable to enhance their prospects in life, because that’s what they’re asking for.

DISABILITY BENEFITS
APPLICATION PROCESS

V. Huntington: The persons-with-disabilities application has 28 pages and three sections. The applicant completes the first section, a physician the second and an assessor completes the third. It’s a grueling process. And if you don’t have a doctor or a computer, if you can’t read, if you have language or learning difficulties, you are left deeply discouraged.

The minister and her colleague recently announced a streamlined process that will help 1,000 people a year, many of them youth, who are transitioning to PWD from other programs. Can the minister tell us when she’ll streamline the red tape for the thousands of other individuals who still have to fill out the same lengthy PWD application form and then wait months for a decision?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In the bill that is in front of the House currently, we are changing the way that PWD application is put forward for those individuals, to simplify the process.

It’s just building on the work that we are doing constantly in Social Development and Social Innovation to help enable people, to ensure that they have the supports and services that they need. We will continue to work across government to ensure that we are creating opportunities for individuals to get the services they need.

Madame Speaker: Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: In her January 2014 report, the Ombudsperson recommended the Ministry of Social Development overhaul its reconsideration process for PWD applications. The ministry complied.

The report also noted that two-thirds of the decisions to deny an application were overturned on reconsideration — two-thirds of them. The Ombudsman recommended the ministry review its PWD application process. The ministry did an internal review last summer.

However, advocacy groups report that nothing has changed and that approval rates on reconsideration remain high.

I wonder if the minister could explain how B.C. can be the most progressive province in Canada for persons with disabilities when it’s clear the PWD application process is completely broken.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The PWD application process is something that has to take place. Obviously, as a taxpayer-funded program, we need to ensure that those individuals who require services and assistance from the government are qualified under the programs. We are currently looking at ways to improve that service.

I can also tell the member opposite that we have a 90-day turnaround to ensure that people with disabilities are getting as quick access as they can to the assistance that’s needed.

VACANT PROPERTIES AND HOUSING
AVAILABILITY IN METRO VANCOUVER

D. Eby: Vacant homes and condos in Vancouver have been a source of concern for residents for years, and now a long-awaited study on empty homes is being presented at Vancouver city council next week.

The idea of homes being held vacant as investments is the very definition of waste and greed for families trying to find a place to rent or buy in Metro Vancouver.

The mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson, wrote to the Premier and asked her for amendments to the Vancouver Charter to “ensure timely occupancy of vacant units.” When the Premier wrote back, she ignored his request.

To the Minister for Housing: why has the Premier refused to take concerns about vacant homes in Metro Vancouver seriously?
[ Page 11009 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: The Minister of Finance has told the House that there’s work being done on this, so I’ll take the question on notice for when he might be here.

[1040]

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING AND
POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSINGS

R. Fleming: Parents and communities are asking why their schools are closing while the B.C. Liberals are giving a $1 billion tax cut to millionaires and hitting public education with a $54 million budget cut. In communities like Osoyoos, they are asking what Liberal MLAs are doing here to advocate for them and their students, and so far, the answer is almost nothing.

I say “almost nothing” because the MLA for Boundary-Similkameen has said she won’t attend any public meetings on school closures, but she did tell the local paper that she will keep her “fingers crossed” that schools in Osoyoos won’t be closed.

My question to the minister is this. He knows school closures are accelerating because of his budget. He knows that the Premier was wrong. There isn’t $54 million in low-hanging fruit to cut from school boards. So will the Minister of Education do this: will he stand up for education? Will he put kids and communities first, ahead of billion-dollar tax cuts for millionaires? Will he start doing that today by cancelling the $54 million cut that he’s forced onto school boards?

Hon. M. Bernier: Let me start off by thanking the member for Boundary-Similkameen, who has done an absolutely stellar job. The critic opposite actually is quoted as saying: “MLA…should be the voice of Osoyoos in Victoria.” So let me stand here and say she’s been doing an excellent job representing the members of her community.

Actually, as MLAs, it’s about representing the constituents. As critics, it should be about doing their job as well as representing the students. Unfortunately, I have offered numerous times for the member opposite to come and meet with me so we could discuss this issue. I’ll tell you right now how many times that member has met with me on his concern: zero. The member for Boundary-Similkameen, on the other hand, meets with me daily to talk about this issue.

R. Fleming: I’m glad the minister quoted me. What I said, though, was that the MLA for Boundary-Similkameen should be the voice for Osoyoos in Victoria, not the voice for Victoria in Osoyoos. If she doesn’t get that, then her constituents will get to decide whether she even comes back to Victoria after May 2017. There was a public meeting with over 1,000 people attending it….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please proceed.

R. Fleming: Over 1,000 people attended a public meeting on this issue in Osoyoos, and they are looking to their MLA, because the province holds the purse strings for education. The town’s former mayor attended, and he clearly gets it. Stu Wells said this: “This is a decision ultimately made by the Minister of Education. I’d like to see the Premier come to this town and tell us that they’re going to close the school, because that’s whose decision it is.” And he’s right, Madame Speaker. That’s whose decision it is.

Yesterday I asked the Minister of Education why he’s cutting $54 million for so-called administrative savings when B.C. school districts are the leanest in Canada and in North America. No answer.

So let me ask him again a real simple question. Why does his government value billion-dollar tax cuts for millionaires more than public education and keeping local schools open in communities like Osoyoos?

[1045]

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ve lived through school closures in my riding. Closing a school is not an easy decision. School closures and those decisions are made at the local level. Why are they made? School closures are made because of lack of students, not because of lack of funding.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake.

Please proceed.

Hon. M. Bernier: I will continue, because the member opposite continues to talk about how this should be a political decision made by us. That is a very scary notion. We have duly elected school boards around the province. We have a School Act that I would assume both sides of this House would acknowledge and support. So it’s very disturbing that the member opposite would actually stand up and say that this should be a political decision made in Victoria.

On this side of the House, we respect the elected officials in the school district who are making their decisions on behalf of the schools at a local level. And I just want to highlight the fact that, as he brought up funding, we are at record levels of funding in British Columbia. That I want to mention.

D. Donaldson: Lake Kathlyn Elementary School in Smithers is facing closure. As the local MLA, I attended
[ Page 11010 ]
a public meeting in February, hosted by school district 54, where district staff presented the details to hundreds of parents in a packed school gymnasium. The Liberal government–mandated administrative savings plan means the district must cut $380,000 over the next two years. Closing the school will result in savings of $210,000 a year.

This government is giving $1 billion in tax cuts to millionaires over the next four years. That is their choice. The result is that the ministry has forced school districts to cut $29 million in administrative spending last year and a further $25 million this year. Why is the government forcing school districts to close schools to provide a tax cut for the wealthiest in the province?

Hon. M. Bernier: I think this is another perfect example of politics at play. If it’s really important to the member opposite, why is it that the first time he has brought it forward to me is in the House for question period? This is another example.

On this side of the House, we continue to work with the school districts around the province. We continue to respect the fact that there are locally elected school trustees to make decisions at the local level. Schools are closed because of a lack of students, not because of a lack of funding. We have 70,000 fewer students in the province of British Columbia.

At the same time as having 70,000 fewer students, we are at the highest level recorded for funding in schools: over $5.2 billion in the public education system, in the province of British Columbia, going to school districts. We respect the decisions that they make to make sure that that money is going into the classrooms to help the kids of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: School district 72, Campbell River, has written to the minister spelling out the financial burden on it, thanks to his government’s policies. This year, it means — and I quote from the letter to the minister — “unplanned cuts of $1,021,570.” This, because of decisions forced onto them by this government.

School district 72 is now in the process of examining two school closures, Oyster River and Discovery Passage. The amount saved: just over $914,000. That’s almost exactly the same amount that they are being forced to cut this year, thanks to the government’s political decisions.

Why is this minister forcing this school district into a position where it has almost no choice but to close two community schools?

Hon. M. Bernier: I assume, from the line of questioning, that we’re going to be having the members opposite support our budget, which is to have record levels of investment in our schools: $1.7 billion in capital, an extra $110 million going into the school system. On this side of the House, we’re supporting our schools.

[1050]

On this side of our House, we invest in the schools for our students. The reason why we do that and the reason why we’ve been successful there is that we support our students to make sure they have the best outcomes in the world. Why do we do that? Because we have the best economy of all the provinces in Canada. Why is that important? To make sure our students are ready for that.

Jobs in British Columbia mean our students need to be ready, which is why we’re investing money in the classrooms, in the right areas, to have our students ready.

COURT RULING ON
ICBC HANDLING OF ACCIDENT CLAIM

A. Dix: My question is to the minister responsible for ICBC. Yesterday the B.C. Supreme Court awarded Danica Arsenovski nearly $350,000 as a result of ICBC’s malicious and false conduct towards her. Mrs. Arsenovski and her husband were struck by a car in Burnaby soon after arriving in Canada as refugees, as the minister will know. They were systematically and maliciously pursued by ICBC over the past many years.

In her judgment, Madam Justice Griffin ruled that ICBC’s actions were “so high-handed, reprehensible and malicious that it offends this court’s sense of decency…. While the community would find it reasonable for ICBC to fight fraud, I am confident that the residents of British Columbia would find it outrageous for a public corporation to use its resources maliciously. The conduct that occurred here must be condemned and punished to reflect the community’s censure and to ensure that the message is brought home to ICBC….”

The minister is the minister responsible for ICBC in this House. I’m wondering if he is prepared today to formally apologize for these actions to Mrs. Arsenovski and to say what action he is taking in response to this ruling.

Hon. T. Stone: As this particular matter is before the courts, I’m not going to speak to the specifics of it. ICBC is considering its options, which could potentially include an appeal. But I will say this. ICBC is expected to ensure, with each and every claim they handle, that those claims are handled with a spirit of fairness and equity. That also has to be balanced with the understanding that fraud is a consideration or a concern at ICBC.

The corporation is certainly expected to treat people fairly and equitably, but they also do have to ensure, on behalf of the ratepayers in British Columbia, that they also are doing what they can to stamp out fraud at the corporation.

ICBC will continue to assess its options moving forward with respect to this case.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continued second reading of Bill 8 in Section B, the chamber of the assembly; and in Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — MINES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

D. Donaldson: I am pleased to take my place once again on second reading of Bill 8, the Mines Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Where I left off yesterday was a description of how important mining is to the province, and mineral exploration, and the fact that we on this side of the House are very supportive of the mining sector. But I’m very troubled by the erosion of public and investor confidence under this government, which this bill is attempting to address in part.

[1055]

As we know from the minister’s comments, the introduction of this bill was to address the Mount Polley tailings breach, which focused attention on mining in B.C. and damaged confidence in the industry and government’s regulation of the mining sector.

What we see in this bill is the province and this government trying to catch up with other jurisdictions, as the minister has pointed out, and other ministries, because the regulations and the ability of those other ministries have additional compliance and enforcement tools. In this case, we are seeing this bill address that. The confidence, I must say, in this government around mining is still shaken.

In this particular bill, what I am looking for, and hopefully we’ll find it in committee stage, is: who will determine the transgression of permits? The bill sets out that the chief inspector of mines has the authority if a contravention of mining permits occurs, and it provides the ministry with additional compliance and enforcement tools.

Is this going to be self-regulation or reporting by industry, for instance? In the past, with this government…. The Forest Practices Board has pointed out, for instance, in the Forest and Range Practices Act that the self-reporting has not been successful. So will it be actual government staff on the ground reporting the contraventions to the chief inspector, or will it be the proponent self-monitoring?

To give a little further insight regarding this situation as to why public confidence is shaken, I refer to an audit of the environmental assessment office’s oversight of certified projects conducted by the Auditor General. The Auditor General found…. I’ll quote from that report:

“The environmental assessment office’s oversight of certified projects is not sufficient to ensure that potential significant adverse effects are avoided or mitigated. Specifically, the environmental assessment office is not ensuring that certificate commitments are measurable and enforceable, monitoring responsibilities are clearly defined, and compliance and enforcement actions are effective.”

The Auditor General’s report goes on to say:

“The environmental assessment office is not evaluating the effectiveness of environmental assessment mitigation measures to ensure that projects are achieving the desired outcomes.”

Finally:

“The environmental assessment office is not making appropriate monitoring, compliance and outcome information available to the public to ensure accountability.”

This report was in 2011, and the government asserts that some of the recommendations have been addressed. That was in 2011, and in 2014, we had the breach of the tailings dam at Mount Polley. This shows why the public has a lack of confidence in the government around the monitoring aspects.

To go on with that, the Auditor General also looked at the oversight of proponent self-monitoring. So again, in committee stage, I hope we are able to get to the details in this. In many of the cases that the Auditor General looked at, it was proponent self-monitoring.

The Auditor General went on to say:

“The environmental assessment office does not formally track certified project conditions and commitments for compliance.

“Compliance verification activities such as inspections, together with well-defined enforcement actions, provide greater assurance that proponents will comply with environmental assessment certificates. However, the environmental assessment office is not significantly active in either of these areas.”

[1100]

Again, you can set out in legislation that there will be additional compliance and enforcement tools. That’s set out in Bill 8. But if those tools aren’t used or if they’re not monitored so that they can be used, then the public confidence will still be shaken in this government’s ability to oversee these kinds of projects. This is what we need to find out from the minister: whether it’s going to be proponent self-monitoring or actually boots on the ground from his ministry or others.

Again, if this ministry will be the boots on the ground, then that means there has got to be inspections. I refer to the budget. The Ministry of Energy and Mines actually lost ground in this budget. They didn’t even keep up with inflation. In fact, the small lift that was given to the ministry is in actual fact a decrease in the budget when you look at inflation.

One of the responsibilities of the ministry, under the mines and mineral resources line item, is to ensure safe and environmentally responsible development. Again, if it’s going to be the proponent self-monitoring, then there are some issues there. If it’s going to be the government
[ Page 11012 ]
staff on the ground doing the monitoring so that the chief inspector can determine if contraventions have occurred, then we have a problem, because there is no lift in this budget to reflect the additional work that that could mean for Ministry of Energy and Mines staff.

Perhaps, then, it might be the Ministry of Environment staff that will do that additional information-gathering to supply the chief inspector of mines with the information that he or she may use for compliance and enforcement. Yet the Ministry of Environment is down by $3 million in actual dollars in this budget.

Again, on paper we have a bill that addresses some of the concerns that were raised, as the minister says, in the Mount Polley tailings breach and the confidence that was damaged in industry and government regulation as a result of that. When it really gets to the details about how this bill will be enforced on the ground, those are lacking, especially when it comes to who is going to do the enforcement.

This is important, and this bill is important. Again, unless it is backed up with something substantial, then it’s not going to boost public confidence. As I’ve already indicated, we all need increased public confidence and increased investor confidence in the mineral exploration and mining sector in this province in order for the industry to be able to fulfil its full potential for the people working in it and for the revenue that is generated by it. So it is linked to investor confidence, as well, and this bill references the confidence in industry.

These are very tough times for mines and potential mines and mineral exploration companies to find investment, investment dollars. I would point out that…. I’m not one to often quote from the Fraser Institute, but I have followed over the years their survey of mining companies for investment concerns. They do this every year. It’s a worthwhile report to look at.

The Survey of Mining Companies done in 2015 surveyed 3,800 individuals between September 15 and November 27 working in the mining industry. This represented 109 jurisdictions, and this speaks to what the bill speaks to about investor confidence.

One of the criteria they looked at in investor confidence was uncertainty concerning disputed land claims. Out of the 109 jurisdictions, B.C. came eighth from last. There were 101 jurisdictions that finished ahead of B.C. when it came to the uncertainty concerning disputed land claims. Venezuela finished ahead of B.C. Colombia finished very well ahead of B.C. Peru finished very….

Interjections.

[1105]

Deputy Speaker: Members. Minister.

The minister will come to order now. Minister, please come to order.

The member will continue.

D. Donaldson: I’m sure the minister will listen to my comments coming up, because he seems to be interested in the topic. Who else finished ahead of B.C.? Manitoba, Western Australia, New Zealand. The reason this is important….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat.

The Minister of Mines just used very vulgar and embarrassing language. I would like him to come back — and the member opposite. Both of them will apologize to this House.

N. Macdonald: I will certainly apologize to the House, and I look forward to the minister coming in and apologizing to the House.

This is not the first time that the minister has done this. He has called me a loser, and now he stands up with an expletive. If that’s what we’re doing here, and the minister is setting the tone, that’s fine. But I apologize for my behaviour.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

The member for Stikine will continue until the minister returns. We’ll deal with him then.

Member, proceed.

D. Donaldson: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, and I’m sorry the minister is unable to hear the rest of my comments.

What I was going to point out — and what I am going to point out — is that the uncertainty concerning disputed land claims and the lack of investor confidence around that lies directly at the feet of his ministry and this government.

How does that come about? Well, I’ll give you a couple of examples. The Morrison mine project is adamantly opposed by the Lake Babine Nation, the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow. That’s because they have major concerns around the project when it comes to sockeye spawning areas in Morrison Lake. They vehemently opposed the environmental assessment review — the parts that said that the project would have no significant long-term impacts on the fish in that lake.

Again, here is an example of First Nations — and the minister had some very strong comments about First Nations — who are in opposition to a project. Meanwhile, this has impacts on uncertainty concerning disputed land claims and, therefore, investor confidence and the confidence that Bill 8 is supposed to be reinstating.

We also have the Tk’emlúps and Skeetchestn bands recently filing an aboriginal title claim over an area that would include the proposed Ajax mine. Mostly, that claim is about impacts on ecosystems. Again, a lack of confidence in this government and this ministry to regulate activities on the land.
[ Page 11013 ]

The investor confidence is an interesting one as well. I heard the comments from the Minister of Energy and Mines. How could you not hear them? He was screaming. I believe that what he missed is that investor confidence is impacted by things like when the Premier labels people who don’t agree with her about development on the land as ragtags.

Perhaps the Minister of Energy and Mines would like to respond to that — his boss, his leader, the head of the province and the head of the provincial government labelling people who disagree with her as ragtags. That creates divisiveness, the kind of divisive attitude that was expressed by the Minister of Energy and Mines just a few minutes ago. It’s a reason that there’s a lack of investor confidence regarding uncertainty around disputed land claims.

I’ve given two examples of the government’s mismanagement of the aboriginal title issue after the Tsilhqot’in decision. Their continued lack of focus on aboriginal title has caused this kind of lack of investor confidence.

[1110]

Again, we have a minister, not going a very long ways to increase investor confidence or public confidence when he follows the Premier’s lead of calling people who disagree with them as ragtags — and these were hereditary chiefs.

I’ve talked a little bit about the public confidence and a little bit about the investor confidence that is in tatters as a result of the mismanagement by this government of regulation. We have this bill in front of us, Bill 8, that actually is trying to make some strides towards restoring that confidence. It’s a little bit difficult, mind you, when the horse has left the barn on public confidence, to regain it. It’s very difficult. What the public wants to see is action being backed up with words, and so far, in this legislation, we have words, but the public has a right to be skeptical around the actions that will back it up.

There’s one other area I’d like to touch on in these general comments around Bill 8, and that has to do with the certainty discussion. Again, B.C. is eighth from last out of 109 jurisdictions when it comes to certainty regarding disputed land claims, and that’s a result of the government’s approach to that topic. I pointed out a couple of examples. This one has to do with resources on the land. Bill 8 really is about resources on the land, and those are mineral resources.

What we have in this period, which is one of the cyclical downturns in commodity prices, is an opportunity. That opportunity is for this government to focus on the minerals in the ground and do some work on exploring that better in order that we can do better land use planning and avoid some of the uncertainty that exists because of the actions of this government and restore some public confidence.

I’ll give you an example of how that relates to Bill 8. The Association for Mineral Exploration B.C., in their submission to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services…. They made a presentation in the fall, in November, I believe. One of the areas they pointed out that needed further attention was on the topic of kind of developing the mineral potential in the province.

I’ll quote from one photograph in that presentation regarding the economic state of the industry. Here’s what they had to say to the Select Standing Committee on Finance:

“The provincial government plays a critical role in assessing mineral development potential, and the Ministry of Energy and Mines was once a world leader” — once a world leader — “in geological database management and mineral development potential mapping. By properly taking into account the fact that valuable minerals are a hidden subsurface resource, mineral development potential mapping is essential for government to consider in order to make well-informed and more balanced decisions about land access and use. Currently the mineral development potential mapping in B.C. is 30 years old. The evolution of science, technology and human needs has made many commodities more valuable now as compared to 30 years ago.”

Earlier I was talking about our support for Geoscience B.C. and the support that we have given to that organization, supporting in allocating $3 million towards that organization in 2014 and $5 million towards that in 2015 and how those dollars were multiplied. I talked about how that ended up in some earth-based science work in the north and some data gathering.

This topic that the Association for Mineral Exploration brings up is around the bigger picture, the picture that has been the work of the B.C. geological survey, an agency within the Ministry of Energy and Mines, within the minister’s ministry. As the submission from the Association for Mineral Exploration of B.C. pointed out, the data gathering by that agency, much of the mapping work, is 30 years old. It was recognized as world-class when it was conducted 30 years ago, and now there’s been a lag.

[1115]

The reason I’m speaking about this in relation to Bill 8 is around the damaged public confidence in industry and government regulation. If we have a database of what’s out there, the minerals hidden beneath the ground, then we can do much better planning around that. First Nations will have a much better idea of the kind of wealth that is on their traditional territories, on aboriginal title lands, and they’ll be able to make decisions around which areas of their traditional territories should be developed from a mining aspect and which areas should not be developed from a mining aspect.

This way, the public can have confidence in the disputes. The conflict around the uncertainty, as the Fraser Institute report put it, concerning the land base can be alleviated. People will have much more confidence in industry and government regulation of the mining sector.

Although Geoscience B.C. does a specific type of work in specific areas — doing magnetic surveys, anomalies — in specific parts of the province, the B.C. geological survey does it for the province as a whole, and especially does the mapping.
[ Page 11014 ]

It was disappointing, therefore, that this submission was made in November, well in time for it to be considered in this current budget, yet the Ministry of Energy and Mines lost ground in this budget. The lift to the ministry didn’t even keep up with inflation. It indicates that the minister wasn’t concerned enough about the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C.’s submission to include that and get it through Treasury Board in order that we have a more up-to-date database.

Again, that’s important in relation to Bill 8 because public confidence would be increased, First Nations’ confidence would be increased if we knew and they knew what kinds of minerals are found on their territories. Then the decisions can be made regarding whether those minerals should be exploited — and again, exploited within the context of sound environmental practices. These practices were severely damaged by the Mount Polley tailings breach that happened under the oversight of the minister and this government.

In conclusion, public and investor confidence is paramount to a mineral exploration and mining sector that is absolutely important to the people in this province. Actions, or inactions, of this government have done a lot to damage that confidence. Bill 8 is part of the response, but until we have some more in-depth debate at committee stage, the public and investors have every reason to continue to be skeptical of this government’s ability to manage the resources properly.

With that, I’ll take my seat and thank you for the opportunity to speak at second reading to Bill 8.

D. Barnett: Mining in British Columbia has been an economic engine since Billy Barker struck gold in the Cariboo in 1861. Mining creates real jobs, looks after the environment and revenues to our province for our social network, education, health care and infrastructure.

Mining is a safe industry. Immediately following the August 2014 incident at Mount Polley, the chief inspector of mines ordered inspections and third-party reviews of tailings storage facilities at all permitted mines in B.C. The inspections and reviews did not identify any immediate safety concerns. The chief inspector of mines investigation found in January that the dam at Mount Polley failed because the strength and location of a layer of clay underneath the dam was not taken into account in the design.

[1120]

In addition, last January, in response to the independent panel’s recommendation to strengthen current regulation operations, the chief inspector of mines ordered mines to confirm whether foundation materials similar to those at Mount Polley exist below any of their dams. The work was completed in June 2015, and no immediate risks or safety concerns were identified.

I would like to point out to this House and to the opposition that this Mount Polley was approved by the NDP in the 1990s — amazing how the opposition is so good at pointing fingers at others for their errors. Read the mine inspector’s report, the independent panel report. It is clear a flaw in design approved by the NDP in the 1990s was the cause.

They can add whatever they want to the report. They can continue to fearmonger and keep communities wondering with their rhetoric. But I would ask they accept the facts and support this bill and mining in British Columbia.

Currently, compliance and enforcement tools under the act are limited to shutting down the mine through the cancellation of a permit, issuance of a stop-work order or pursuing prosecutions. This legislation does two things. It enables an administrative monetary penalty program under the Mines Act, a key compliance and enforcement tool that is not currently available under the Mines Act. And it increases the penalties available on conviction of an offence.

The amendments introduced are part of our government’s ongoing actions to implement the 26 recommendations of the independent panel and the chief inspector of mines following their respective investigations into the Mount Polley tailings storage facility failure. Work to implement a number of the recommendations is well underway.

Our government continues to work with First Nations, the mining industry and citizens to ensure mining in B.C. continues to be the safe industry it has been since its inception, providing great opportunities for British Columbians.

M. Farnworth: I rise to make a few remarks on Bill 8, the Mines Amendment Act, 2016. In particular, I was struck by some of the comments of the previous speaker. Sometimes you just wish members could get out of their ideological speaking notes and understand exactly what a piece of legislation is about and where the piece of legislation comes from.

It came about, in part, because of a terrible, terrible situation in Mount Polley. It happened under your government’s watch. You’ve been in power now for 15 years. You want to go back and say: “Oh, it was the 1990s. That’s where the fault lies.”

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, and the member wants to mutter under her breath. It’s a shame she doesn’t have the courage of her convictions to sit in her seat and listen to what other members have to say.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: It’s really unfortunate that the minister….
[ Page 11015 ]

Hon. S. Bond: You were disrespectful to her.

M. Farnworth: No, I was not.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Take a seat, please.

Members, make sure that no comments are made when the members are not in their seat or in the House. The member will continue.

[1125]

M. Farnworth: Just to point out to the minister, I’m not questioning how hard the member works. I’m questioning comments that were made in her remarks and their inaccuracy — and that that’s unfortunate.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I hope that the minister, then, chooses to engage in debate.

The point is that this particular bill makes some important changes that come about because of a terrible situation that happened at Mount Polley. Those changes coming in this bill, which this side of the House will support, are important changes in an industry that’s important to this province — very important in this province. Yet there’s a constant refrain from the other side of the House that somehow this side of the House does not support mining or that this side of the House is anti-mining.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Again I hear a member saying “not true.”

There have been great strides under previous administrations around mining, strengthening mining and encouraging mining. But there are some simple facts that the government likes to use when it suits them and chooses to ignore when it doesn’t suit them. And that is that mining is a cyclical industry based on the price of the commodity.

When copper is at 65 cents a pound, it stays in the ground. That’s something that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations doesn’t want to acknowledge. That’s something that he doesn’t seem to want to recognize. But that’s a fact. When the price of a commodity is low, exploration tends to be low, and when the price of the commodity is high, you can’t get it out of the ground quick enough.

To say that this side is anti-mining is just straight not true. The minister is entitled to his opinion. But the point is that we are discussing a piece of legislation that will improve the situation for mining in this province. It’s a piece of legislation that this side of the House supports.

Bill 8, the Mines Amendment Act, 2016, will alter the Mines Act by allowing financial penalties for the transgression of permits. Currently, compliance and enforcement tools under the act are limited to shutting down a mine through the cancellation of a permit, issuance of a stop-work order or pursuing prosecutions. The maximum penalties will be raised from the current $100,000 and can go up to one year’s imprisonment to $1 million and up to three years’ imprisonment. That’s important. That’s extremely important, because what it does is bring it in line with other resource-extraction industries that are taking place in this province.

The fact is that it’s taken this government some 15 years to get to this particular point, and the reason it’s here is because of what happened at Mount Polley, where you had an independent review, you had another review that was done within the ministry, and those things came back with the recommendations. It’s those recommendations that we are going to be debating in committee stage.

The question you really have to ask is: why did it take what happened at Mount Polley for this to happen? Why did it take what took place in the northern Interior of British Columbia, those events around Mount Polley, to make this happen? I mean, the reality is that the government says they want the safest mining in the world, they want to encourage mining, and we’ve got to have the best standards. Well, we have strong standards in other industries. Yet for some reason, the standards when it came to the mining sector were significantly weaker.

[1130]

It’s important that these sections get passed, and we’ll have a lot more discussion at committee stage about them. At that time, I know other members will be asking detailed questions at committee stage, particularly dealing with the individual sections.

There were 26 recommendations of the three-person, independent panel and from the report of the chief inspector of mines following their investigation. It’s important that when these changes take place, everything will then be brought into line with other resource extraction acts. That’s what’s crucial.

We’re going to be speaking in favour of these particular recommendations, and I look forward to the committee stage of the debate. I look forward to the opposition critic asking the minister questions, and they are both going to get satisfactory answers in a congenial and collegial manner.

Hon. S. Anton: The province of British Columbia is a jurisdiction born in the mining industry.

In 1858, the future colony was a land of First Nations, some immigrants and the Hudson’s Bay Company. But the gold rush brought a flood of miners from the United States. Fearing a loss of British jurisdiction and authority, the new colony of British Columbia was formed at Fort Langley on the 19th of November, 1858.

This province was born with the mining industry, and with this government, the mining industry is welcome and encouraged. Government’s goal is to grow the
[ Page 11016 ]
mining industry in British Columbia because it creates prosperity. Mining jobs are family-supporting jobs. The industry and the jobs it brings helps us to tax reasonably and pay for needed social services.

There was a time, of course, in our early days when British Columbia was known around the world as an outstanding jurisdiction to look for, find, develop and operate a mine. It is our government’s goal to be in that position again, but we lost it for some time.

We always had the geology — we still have the geology — but we have not always had the political will. It was tough to build a mine in the 1990s in British Columbia. We had only a tiny fraction of the Canadian exploration investment, and we were punching way below our weight.

But since we were elected in 2001, we have doubled the number of people employed in mining. In 2012 and 2013, over $1 billion was invested in exploration in British Columbia, and $338 million was spent on exploration in 2014. This is more than 11 times higher than it was in 2001.

In 2001, we had 6 percent of the Canadian exploration investment. Today we have 21 percent of that investment. These are remarkably changed numbers, and they’re a demonstration of our government’s commitment to the mining industry and to building mines in British Columbia.

The measure of success is, of course, the opening of mines. Since June 2011 six new mines have opened or are under construction. No other Canadian jurisdiction can say that. We have New Gold’s New Afton mine, Mount Milligan, Copper Mountain, Red Chris, and under construction, we have Brucejack and Silvertip.

We have other projects in the development stage — Ajax, Kitsault, KSM, Blackwater and Kemess Underground. We have some very promising exploration projects like Amarc’s IKE project in central B.C. and Red Mountain in the Stewart area.

Of course, with the low metal, coal, oil and natural gas prices, labour and materials and equipment are readily available, so this is an excellent time in the commodities cycle to build a mine.

We have other advantages in British Columbia, of course. We are a global centre for expertise: engineers, scientists, people engaged in high tech supporting our industries, tradespeople and accomplished lawyers, accountants and finance people. Go to downtown Vancouver, and you can find anyone you need within a block or two. Vancouver is a world centre of mining.

[1135]

Over 50 percent of mineral exploration and mining companies listed on the TSX are headquartered here in British Columbia. As of December 2014, there were 51,514 mineral and placer claims in British Columbia, comprising nearly 11 million hectares.

How did we get here? We got here because we have re-made British Columbia. British Columbia is an excellent place to do business and an excellent place to live. We’ve reduced corporate income taxes by 33 percent since 2001. They are now the second lowest in Canada. We’ve reduced small business taxes by 44 percent since 2001. They’re now the third lowest in Canada. We’ve reduced personal income taxes to the lowest in Canada on the first $120,000 of income.

We heard, a few days ago, the Finance Minister introducing our fourth consecutive balanced budget. A little later this year, we will have our third consecutive surplus. We have a triple-A credit rating. We’re the only province in that position. We are forecast to have the highest growth….

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, would you please relate your comments to the bill that we have on hand.

Hon. S. Anton: Well, it is to the mining industry and why the mining industry is successful here. Since 2001, billions have been invested in infrastructure — rail, highways, ports, transmission lines, health and education.

For the mining industry, Mr. Speaker, we have created attractive royalty programs. We offer tax incentives to help encourage mineral exploration. We make a commitment that a project’s environmental assessment process will take no longer than 180 days. In 2001, B.C. had one mining project in the environmental assessment process. Today we have over 20.

We built the northwest transmission line, a power line that opened a quadrant of B.C. that was not on the grid, making it possible for a huge renaissance of mining in northwestern British Columbia. We reduced exploration permitting turnaround time to an average of under 60 days, from over 100 days previously. And the ministry recently received a 40 percent increase to the mines division budget — another demonstration of the importance to government of the potential for growing mining.

The new major mines permitting office will improve the coordination of authorizations for major mining projects in British Columbia and enhance service to mining, which proponents are prepared to pay for.

We have such a positive story to tell about mining in British Columbia, and the renewed interest by investors in our province is a demonstration of that.

Let me talk for a moment about another matter of critical importance in British Columbia, which is the role of our First Nations partners in resource development. Back in 1858, in the gold rush, the miners would have gone nowhere and gotten nothing without the First Nations’ provisions of transportation, goods and services. Today First Nations are integral to the mining industry and are supportive of the employment, training and contracting opportunities which come with a mine.

In the last ten years, our government has signed hundreds of revenue-sharing and other agreements with First Nations. In fact, we are the only province to set up
[ Page 11017 ]
a revenue-sharing program with First Nations relating to mines. Recently, for example, the Tahltan people voted 87 percent in favour of entering into an agreement with Imperial Metals and the Red Chris mine. I might add, the mining industry employs more First Nations than any other industry in British Columbia.

Why do mining companies bring their investments to British Columbia? Superior geology that’s underexplored. World-class geological databases cataloguing a growing inventory of more than 14,000 mineral occurrences. A robust venture capital market. A culture of innovation. Geoscience B.C. A highly educated workforce. Talented tradespeople. World-class accounting, legal, environmental and engineering expertise in Vancouver. Tremendous infrastructure investment — port, highway, rail, electricity, airports. Low taxes. Fiscal responsibility. Political stability. Investment incentives. Low-cost electricity rates with sensible energy policies. A proximity to Asian markets and well-developed relationships with those markets.

British Columbia is a superb jurisdiction for the mining industry.

[1140]

We have ambitious goals in government for British Columbia, and they are showing results. Being ambitious about mining means that mines have opened and will open in British Columbia. This increases prosperity for families and for our province. For example, yesterday the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation was describing positive changes we’ve been able to make for persons with disabilities. We are able to make unprecedented capital investments. We lead the country in growth and optimism.

In 1858, the colony of British Columbia was founded, prompted by the need to put laws around miners and their industry. We continue today to ensure that our mining industry in British Columbia, a world leader in excellence in mining practices, has the appropriate regulatory structure. Putting administrative penalties into the Mines Act is part of that structure. Administrative penalties have the advantage of being more immediate and achieving a more immediate response. They’re found in many areas of government. They are extremely effective.

I am, of course, in full support of the proposed changes to the Mines Act, in support of one of British Columbia’s most important industries.

L. Krog: I’m very pleased to stand this morning to speak to the Mines Amendment Act. I can’t help but reflect on the fact that I represent a community that was built on coal. Indeed, it’s quite surprising. If you arrive in beautiful Nanaimo Harbour on the float plane, you’ll pass two busts. One is of Mark Bate, the first mayor of Nanaimo. The second….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, take your seat, please.

The Chair will ask the Minister of Mines to stand up and apologize and withdraw his comments.

Hon. B. Bennett: I withdraw that remark, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: And apologize.

Hon. B. Bennett: I apologize.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Member for Nanaimo, continue.

L. Krog: You will see a bust of Mayor Mark Bate, Nanaimo’s first mayor, and Coal Tyee, who was the Snuneymuxw Nation member who travelled down to Fort Victoria and indicated to the authorities then that there was this black rock in Nanaimo available in some abundance. Of course, the Hudson’s Bay Co., quite interestingly, responded with a very positive interest in that.

It’s fun to follow the Attorney General in this matter. Eventually, the gold rush and those things and mining and all of that led to the appointment of Matthew Baillie Begbie. The Attorney General’s father wrote a very interesting biography of Mr. Begbie called The Man for a New Country, as I recall, which I don’t think she flogged to every student in law school. It was pretty close. I enjoyed my copy, in any event.

The point is this. Mining is a significant part of British Columbia’s history. It is also….

Interjection.

L. Krog: The minister from the Kootenays is always…. I am always delighted when he pays attention to what I have to say.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Nanaimo has the floor.

Please continue.

L. Krog: It’s one of the four murals outside in the rotunda, outside this very chamber. I’ve pointed that out to members many times — mining, forestry, agriculture, fishing.

It is an important part of British Columbia’s history, and it will be an important part of British Columbia’s future. It will be more likely to be an important part of British Columbia’s future if we can demonstrate that here in British Columbia, as with these amendments, we are making changes around penalties that reflect the importance of protecting our environment. At the same time, we exploit those wonderful and amazing resources which
[ Page 11018 ]
have enabled many British Columbians to earn significant income, supported rural communities and helped build rural British Columbia, let alone helped fill the corporate towers of downtown Vancouver.

I do have to respond to a couple of remarks of the Attorney General, when she says: “We have doubled the number of employees in the mining industry.” Now, let’s be blunt about this. The government stands up one day and says: “Government doesn’t create jobs. The private sector does.” Then the next day they stand up and say: “We have doubled the number of employees.” I have to ask myself: which is it?

[1145]

Now, the one thing the Attorney General and I can agree upon in her remarks is when she said: “We have remade British Columbia.” Oh my, oh my. We certainly have remade British Columbia. We’ve remade it to the extent that the wealthiest people in Canada would want to live in British Columbia because they’re going to get such a wonderful tax regime to give themselves the benefit of residing here. At the very same time, we’ve got the second-lowest minimum wage in the country, coupled with social assistance rates that pale by comparison to the province of Alberta. So certainly, British Columbia has been remade.

To come back to the amendments, which is the subject of today, I think that it’s really, really important to be reminded of what the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke said the other day around political will and enforcement. It’s like the very wise police officer said to my law 11 class in high school when he was asked a question about marijuana. He simply said, in response to the question, which was the question of the day back in 1970 around legalization, etc.: “A law that can’t be enforced is a bad law.”

Now, that’s a slight difference from the will to enforce the law, but a law that can’t be enforced is arguably a bad law.

One of the great stories — and it turns out to be a myth — is that when the Cherokee Nation was ordered transported from its traditional territories to Oklahoma, which led to that historic tragedy called the Trail of Tears, where thousands of them died on the way…. The great piece of history — it is a myth — is that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall, and the Supreme Court decided that the U.S. government couldn’t do it. The response from President Andrew Jackson was…. This is what is widely believed. He responded by saying: “The Chief Justice has made his decision. Let him enforce it.”

Now, that is a compelling story, and it reflects the great difference between the power of the courts and the power of government. The truth is that historians have now determined that the president actually never said that, but it’s a great story. I guess that’s my point today. There are great stories, and that’s what the Attorney General was talking about — some great stories today, but no grasp of the reality of things.

In the ’90s, the price of many of those mining resources was in the toilet. Copper was a fifth of what it became in the mid part of the last decade. So British Columbia’s mining industry, as a wise economist has pointed out many times, is dependent on world commodity prices. It’s not particularly dependent on government policies. It’s not particularly dependent on a number of other factors. It’s dependent on the price of the resource. The reality is that the price of the resource…. I’m going to be kind to the B.C. Liberals today. The fact is that the price of many things is down.

What do we know about mining? From 2014 to date, there have been over 2,380 direct mining jobs lost and 16 mines in closure or moving to “care and maintenance,” which means they’re non-operational for various reasons. Now, they include environmental catastrophes and permitting transgressions, but mostly it has to do with low commodity prices.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I just wonder if the Attorney General can remake British Columbia again and take credit for the state of the mining industry, or perhaps the more appropriate phrase would be not credit for but responsibility for the mining industry. In other words, are things tough and getting worse because of something the government is doing, or is it only when things get better that the government is prepared to step in and take credit?

The old cliché was never more applicable: “Failure is an orphan, and success has many fathers.” The B.C. Liberals are very, very good at claiming parenthood when it’s appropriate and disavowing and shutting the door on those children who they don’t want to welcome to the family table unless they’re successful. I suppose one could say, in the broadest sense of social policy, that kind of reflects what they do with the poor in this province. If you’re rich, we want to you vote B.C. Liberal, and if you’re poor, well, we don’t really care. We’re not going to increase social assistance, and indeed, we’re going to take away your bus pass to boot.

Now, this legislation is an improvement, and I want to give the government credit for this. This legislation is actually an improvement.

[1150]

By increasing the fines from $100,000 and up to one year imprisonment to $1 million and up to three years’ imprisonment, it reflects an attitude about protection of the public and protection of our environment and respects also what will be one of the most complex and is one of the most complex issues facing British Columbia today, in particular, as opposed to even other parts of this country. That is, how resource-based industries like the mining industry deal with the results of — I can’t
[ Page 11019 ]
even pronounce it appropriately — the Supreme Court of Canada decision around aboriginal title.

Nothing will move forward in this province without the consent and approval of First Nations. It is a new reality for British Columbians. Unless the government shows — in fairness, as it is — that it is prepared to stand up for the protection of the environment, as it does through this legislation, things will not progress. There will not be new jobs in mining. There will not be opportunities for young British Columbians to work in an industry which was one of the four cornerstones of the economy of this province.

I mean, those murals out there didn’t get painted or put up because they bore no relation to the reality of British Columbia. They were painted because they reflected the reality of our economy. It has been the reality of our economy for a very long time. Even though the level of employment is actually relatively small compared to many other industries, it can, in good times, have an historically extremely high return for the provincial government.

We all want the province of British Columbia to prosper. We want people working in our rural areas. We want them to have the opportunity to enjoy employment in an industry that has been part of this province virtually since first contact.

Now, these changes bring the Mines Act into line with the Environmental Management Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Oil and Gas Activities Act, all of which include these kinds of penalties. That is appropriate, because we are facing a new world and a new marketplace, where nations, just as they did with how our lumber was produced, how our trees were cut and how our forests were managed….

We are facing a new reality of a world where people will simply boycott our resource products, whatever stage they’re at in terms of refining or milling or whatever the case may be, unless we can demonstrate that we are doing it in a respectful way and also respecting the rights of the people who have occupied this land since time immemorial and who never ceded the title to these lands — except in rare circumstances, such as the Douglas treaties, which form the basis of claims for the Snuneymuxw people in my constituency.

It is extremely important that we modernize, that we step forward and encourage, direct and indicate to the mining industry that it is important that they mine in a responsible way. It is important that they protect the environment, and if they don’t, there will be severe consequences.

Now in fairness, I must say that if a mining company makes a $100 million profit in a year, a $1 million fine is almost inconsequential. But as many of these mines face tough circumstances, notwithstanding what the Attorney General is trying to tell us about the state of the mining industry, a $1 million fine has a pretty salutary effect on a company that’s already losing money. And $1 million, notwithstanding the price of homes in Vancouver, is still a lot of money to most folks.

When you have to come up with that money, it sends a message not just to the mining industry but to the community and to the world that British Columbia is prepared to move into the 21st century, respectful of the importance of the mining industry to British Columbians and the employment it provides and the economic spinoffs that flow from that employment and, at the same time, is prepared to say that we want to protect our environment, we want to enhance the rights of First Nations and respect their care and respect for the land.

With some pleasure, I’m going to support this legislation. I know our able critic will have many questions which will get down to the nitty-gritty of things, because sometimes, you know, the Trojan Horse is the Trojan Horse. It looks kind of good on the outside, but you dig a little deeper and, well, the inside isn’t quite as attractive.

[1155]

Again, I will certainly support this legislation. I look forward to it being passed. But as the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke made so abundantly clear in his eloquent remarks the other day, unless it is clear to those who work in the ministry that this government is prepared to enforce and actually look out for the environment, enforce these regulations, then, what we do here will be largely meaningless.

With those closing remarks, I thank the chamber for taking the time to listen to me this morning on a very important bill.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. B. Bennett: I’ll be relatively brief, given the time. I would like, first of all, to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Bennett: I would like, also, to get on the record that the comment made yesterday by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke that the reason, and I paraphrase, that Mount Polley Mining Corp. was not penalized for the accident that happened there was because of a “$1 million private fundraiser” — I’m quoting from Hansard — “for the B.C. Liberals in 2013” in Calgary, attended by the Deputy Premier and by myself.

I actually was not there. I don’t know anything about it. And for anyone to suggest…

Madame Speaker: You’re closing down the bill?
[ Page 11020 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: …that this side of the House can be bought…. It’s not much wonder we get upset.

In terms of the bill, let me just say that both the independent report that was done….

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam.

Point of Order

M. Farnworth: Point of order. You can’t read from tablets in the chamber. Oh, I’m sorry….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: No, you can’t stand and read from tablets in debate. You can use it through that….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: No, if we’re going to be doing things, at least what…. We’ve got the rules, okay?

Madame Speaker: Thank you. However, we have exercised latitude in times other than question period.

Please close the bill, Minister.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me close the bill by just saying this. The independent panel that we appointed within two weeks of the accident and the chief inspector of mines report that looked at over 100,000 documents and that took more than a year — both pointed at the cause of the accident being an unstable layer of materials underneath the perimeter embankment of the dam at Mount Polley. Both reports indicated that the initial and original site investigations done in the 1990s were the reason why the dam failed.

To sit in this House and listen to the NDP talk about how the accident at Mount Polley was the fault of the B.C. Liberal government is just almost too much to take.

With those remarks I will close debate on Bill 8 and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Bennett: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Mines Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Madame Speaker: I can tell all hon. members that the conduct in this House today is absolutely appalling.

Minister of Energy and Mines, Columbia River–Revelstoke: that will never occur in this chamber again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 11 a.m.

On Vote 27: ministry operations, $426,148,000 (continued).

C. Trevena: I have two questions to the minister. They’re about forest service roads. The first one is about the Zeballos Forest Service Road. I’ve asked every single estimates for the last ten years about the Zeballos Forest Service Road.

I think the minister is very well aware that it serves four communities, if you include the Fair Harbour road: Kyuquot, Ocluje, Ehattesaht and Zeballos. There are two schools being served by it. Students try to travel out quite regularly for activities. They are both K-to-12 schools, one in Kyuquot, one in Zeballos.

The road has been deteriorating rapidly. It’s been having a very bad winter — so bad that we’ve had the ambulance having to turn around and not use the road, so it is becoming a serious safety concern. There are people who are very fearful of using the road, and not surprisingly. It is not being kept well.

I’d like to ask the minister, on the Zeballos Forest Service Road, whether he will commit to upgrading it and continue to put the amount of money that the road really needs to keep it upgraded. It is a matter of continuing grading. It is a matter of keeping it clear. It is a mat-
[ Page 11021 ]
ter of brushing. It is a matter of levelling it off at times. The road really needs a huge amount of investment to keep it servicing these four communities, schools and emergency services.

My second question — in the interest of time I’ll give it to the minister at the same time — is the road that connects Lillooet to Highway 97 via the Big Bar ferry. There is only one road access, and this is it.

The road has seen the winter maintenance from kilometre 43 to kilometre 95 ended, and this leaves residents really struggling to ensure that they can get along that road. This road has been cleared for many years, has been maintained for many years, and residents are extremely concerned now that the road isn’t being kept open, and concerned about what it’s going to mean this year and into future years.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Minister.

[1105]

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s important to comment…. You know, we have a wide, wide network of forest service roads. When there is industrial activity, the roads are maintained to an industrial standard by the user. When there isn’t, then they’re maintained to a standard that ensures that there is access.

This winter there were very unusual conditions in Zeballos, on the forest service road there. We spend, currently, in excess of $300,000 annually to maintain the gravel service and snow removal on the Zeballos route when forest licensees are not hauling. That included a $149,000 contribution from the Ministry of Transportation under the roads serving residents program. We continue to do maintenance work and upgrading on the road with those investments. I recognize that there were very unusual circumstances. We’ll undertake to review the situation and get back directly to the MLA, to the member opposite, on that one.

On the Lillooet, the Highway 97 connection through on the Big Bar — I don’t have the specific information on that. We’ll undertake to review that directly and get back to the member opposite.

D. Routley: Yesterday we were discussing the restocking of the forest, reforestation, and particularly the not sufficiently restocked areas. Just to refresh the conversation, the not sufficiently restocked area is something that can only be designated after a survey and after comparison to the expected standard in the area. So it’s a definition that is only applied once certain requirements are met, and those requirements are in the judgment of the ministry based on evidence. They can only be removed from that designation once they are either treated — in other words planted — or there’s satisfactory evidence that they have restocked themselves.

The last estimates…. The minister generally accepted that there were approximately two million hectares of NSR. This time we’re being told there’s 650,000, roughly. I would like to know, from the minister: if that’s the case, how many hectares is the government treating each year? What is the positive-negative inflow or outflow from the NSR designation?

[1110]

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, just to comment on the assertion that the member opposite made. I never said that I didn’t agree with the estimate of the starting point. But we do come from a little bit of a different starting point in how we determine where we get to the numbers that we’re talking about.

What we do is look at that overall estimate within the timber-harvesting land base. There is an amount that is netted off — that is, areas that are expected to be harvested and therefore will have harvesting obligations on them. That’s about 700,000 hectares. We would not spend public dollars on harvest into those areas because we anticipate that those areas are going to be harvested.

While they may be in that overall estimate of the two million, those are netted out, bringing it down to the 1.2 or 1.3 million hectares.

[1115]

Those are the areas that are to be monitored for potential NSR. We do the surveying, the monitoring. Once the monitoring is done, then the actual NSR is identified, and the management decision is made as to whether that would be replanted or whether it would allow for natural regeneration.

The current NSR estimates, as I said yesterday: 672,000 hectares. Approximately 500,000 is the rolling industry amount, as obligations for and legal requirements for licensees to replant. The remainder of about 117,000 hectares is government responsibility.

That’s how you net it down from that two million figure. There is, in the overall, about 1.2 million that is the area to be monitored. That’s in an estimate. Not all of that may be NSR, because some of it may be determined that it is potential for…. Or it would naturally regenerate and then would be taken out of that estimate. And we would continue to refine the figures through the monitoring.

That’s how we get down to…. That’s the difference between the initial estimate and what we currently identify as NSR land in the results database.

D. Routley: I understand that there is the estimated quantity of NSR and then the known, established quantity. Rather than dispute whether it’s two million or 700,000 and which starting point we take when the Forest Practices Board said it was two million — but in any case….

What is the net, positive or minus, in terms of hectares of NSR in the last year? Have we made any progress? If so, how many hectares have we made progress on, on the positive side? And what are the total hectares planted last year?
[ Page 11022 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: We commented yesterday around what the NSR is, how it’s defined and calculated within the timber-harvesting land base.

[1120]

The Forests for Tomorrow program, planting programs, are expected to have removed over 300,000 hectares of the mountain-pine-beetle- and wildlife-generated NSR by 2025. We are ramping up the program in the efforts. We talked about the growing number of the process to move towards planting 28 million seedlings. Last year — I think we provided this number yesterday — on the FFT planting, there were 15,000 hectares, and 15,000 hectares in 2015-16.

We’re just going to get to the net. I’m just looking for the calculation here. I understand the question that the member opposite is raising. I’ll provide that information shortly in terms of the net figure. I know what you’re working towards. It’s how much is added in and how much is replanted each year.

I should just comment. I think, when I made my comments, I said: “Mountain pine beetle–impacted and wildlife-impacted.” I meant wildfire-impacted.

D. Routley: I thought the minister meant my husky had been there. He would dig enough holes to impact the forest.

The number that I’m really interested in extracting is just how much progress we’re making each year. Then if the minister can give me that number — based on the fact that he acknowledges roughly 120,000 hectares of lands that the government is responsible for restocking and 700,000 in total, differing with the other estimate.

Even taking his own estimate of the government’s obligated territory — not “We’re going to ramp it up later,” but based on the progress we’re making right now, if it were to be extrapolated forward — how long will it take us to eliminate it? There will always be some coming in and some going out, but how long will it take us to eliminate the accumulated deficit in planting and in NSR area?

[1125]

Hon. S. Thomson: One of the things we committed to yesterday was to provide the member opposite with a complete chart. We undertook to do that, and we will do that.

The Forests for Tomorrow program, as I pointed out, continues to ramp up. It’s our target to eliminate the NSR by 2025 — that is the replanting program — and the assessment of the areas that would be natural regeneration as part of that process. But it is always a moving target. Every year it will depend on the wildfire situation. It will depend on plant or forest health issues. Pest issues could add to it. There’s a natural lag between the reforestation efforts before it comes in and the land can be taken out of the NSR.

We will, as I said, provide the member opposite with the complete summary, which will indicate the amount of plantings per year and the projections. There are 15,000 hectares currently in the program. We’ll get the rationalization of the numbers and the in-and-out, positive-and-negative estimates in the plan going forward.

D. Routley: I’d like to switch gears — several gears, actually — and move to a local issue I spoke of in the House earlier this morning in a statement. This is related to a proposal to dredge and infill Boat Harbour in the Ladysmith-Cedar area. As usual with foreshore issues, there’s a confusion of jurisdiction between the local government — the regional district of Nanaimo — and the provincial ministry that we’re addressing here, as well as the federal responsibilities under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. So it’s kind of a cross-jurisdictional issue.

[1130]

Just for a little background information, Boat Harbour was a harbour that was used for boats to be loaded with coal in the early part of the 20th century. It was servicing local coal mines. It’s an absolutely beautiful little spot, but it has legacy pollution issues with the coal sediment at the bottom of the bay.

It is a nursery for crab, and there’s a crab fishery just off the bay. It is a spawning ground for herring. So, at least as far as I and my constituents can see, there’s a significant potential environmental impact if this harbour is filled in, in order to create a parking lot for an expanded marina. There are opinions on both sides of this issue, as there always are. Some of the local residents are upset about the reduction in access to trails, reduction in access to the foreshore and removal of trees on Crown land at the end of Kendall Road, which comes into the bay.

Then there are other constituents who live on nearby De Courcy Island and depend on the marina there for access to and from their homes, as there’s no ferry service to De Courcy Island. They’re concerned that if the project doesn’t go ahead, they may lose their marina and their access, making life much more difficult for them.

I wonder if the minister is aware of this issue and if any of the staff have considered what might be done. This is a long introduction. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans say that they have delegated their approval authority to the minister’s ministry. So if he could fill me in on where this stands.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m aware of the file and have actually been there. I know the spot that you’re talking about.

I think the member opposite may know this. This is a private water lot. It was granted in fee simple with no conditions attached. The proposed development does not require authorizations from our ministry, and the responsibility lies with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and federal Transport, under navigable waters. So there’s not a role for us here.

I’m surprised, in terms of the member’s comments, that DFO says they have delegated authority to us. They
[ Page 11023 ]
can’t delegate authority to us, because we have no role or no authorizations required from us. The regional district has received a development permit application, which I’m sure the member opposite knows.

[1135]

What I will undertake to do is to clarify with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans around that statement. The advice and the information I’m provided with is that it doesn’t require any authorizations for us, and the responsibility to deal with that…. Given that it is a private water lot and fee simple, that’s where the responsibility would lie.

D. Routley: In fact, I think I’ve misspoken, and the minister is correct. In fact, what I’ve been told is that DFO has delegated their authority to the B.C. Ministry of Environment. When Ministry of Environment estimates were taking place, I asked the Minister of Environment if this was in fact the case. I was told that, no, that would be the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Perhaps if the minister could check into that aspect of it and what role the province might have. We want to see productive development in the community but not at the expense of public access, not at the expense, unreasonably, of the environment. Any help the minister could give would be much appreciated.

Then I think I’ll move on to some questions on value-added, if that’s possible. That will give a chance for people to jump up and sit down.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll just comment quickly. I will also undertake, as I said, to…. In clarifying that with DFO, I’ll also talk to my colleague the Minister of Environment.

D. Routley: The ministry service plan says: “Employment figures in the forestry sector are stable and slowly growing.” Can the minister provide a breakdown of the number of workers employed in the industry, broken down by those employed in harvesting, those employed in manufacturing and those employed in tree-planting, silviculture and other forest health activities?

[1140]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member has asked for the breakdown within those categories. We will need to do a little bit of work in order to provide the estimates around that, because some of those categories would include numbers that are within the direct jobs and the indirect jobs, when you look at tree planting and those activities that support the industry.

We work with the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training to get the numbers. We can provide the information around how those numbers are developed, the sources of information. To the degree that we can provide the background, we’ll undertake to do that.

D. Routley: Well, considering tree planting and silviculture are a value-added aspect of the industry, it’s my understanding that the budgets for those functions in the late ’90s were in the $130 million range. What is the budget for tree planting and silviculture now?

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of the provincial expenditures, and recognizing that we’re a portion of the overall expenditures around reforestation and tree planting — because licensees take a very significant portion of that — the current budget for reforestation in the Forests for Tomorrow program, in ’15-16, $35 million, and in ’16-17, increasing to $40 million. In B.C. Timber Sales operations, the current expenditure is $43 million.

The Chair: Member, last question.

[1145]

D. Routley: Yes.

Can the minister provide breakdowns in the number of workers employed in harvesting on the coast as opposed to the Interior? I realize that that might be another number that’s difficult to obtain off the cuff, but we’ll be back after lunch, and I wonder if that could be produced. Could he put those numbers in a historical context? In other words, could he compare them to numbers over the past 20 years, if that’s possible?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member noted that we probably wouldn’t be able to provide that information off the cuff. As part of the undertaking that we took earlier, we’ll attempt to include that in the information.

It will require some work with JTST and others within industry, so in terms of being able to provide it directly after lunch, we’ll probably be challenged. We’ll attempt to see what we can do, and we will get it as soon as possible. We also want to make sure that the information we provide is accurate.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada