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, April 14, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 37, Number 4

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

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, of course, we have a whole bunch of Scouts in the House today. I want to welcome them. In particular, I want to welcome some Scouts that I had the opportunity to meet with this morning. I want to give a special welcome to Edmond Wu, Svetlana Campbell, Tomas Kalyniuk and Emilie Diver for meeting with me today to talk about the importance of Scouts.

I used to be a Cub Scout and a Beaver, so dyb dyb dyb, dob dob dob, and all those things they do in Scouts. Welcome to the Legislature.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, would like to officially welcome all the Scouts to the Legislature.

I do have a list of them to read out. I apologize in advance if I get your pronunciation wrong, because I’m not very good at this: Inaara Devsi, Melissa Wu, Briana Greer, Inara Mawji, Jennah Merchant, Julia Craig, Svetlana Campbell, Kiarra Murray, Heather Eskritt, Samantha Seney, Cassidy Benson, Marlissa Moro, Emilie Diver, Tara Rooney, Phallon Stoutenburg, Ashton Bates, Shakil Jessa, Abhishek Nair, Joseph Agosti, Tomas Kalyniuk, Markus Meyer, Bryson Stoughton, Rhys Paetkau, Justin Scott, Nicholas Wolter, Edmond Wu, Eoin Mowatt, Brent Vernon.

And the adults with them: Caitlyn Piton, Owen Paetkau, Mark Paetkau, Sammi Lin and Alamin Pirani. I want to clarify that introduction. He’s the executive director for Scouts Canada, B.C. and Yukon and has been with the Scouts for 27 years professionally and 24 years as a youth member in Kenya and a volunteer in Canada.

Could we please welcome all of the Scouts and their leaders to the Legislature today. They will be meeting with all of us.

Tributes

RANDALL WONG

B. Ralston: I want the House to note the achievements of the Hon. Mr. Justice Randall Wong, a pioneer in Canadian law, who is retiring from the B.C. Supreme Court.

He began his career in 1967, working as the first Canadian of Chinese ancestry to serve as provincial Crown counsel. He was appointed to the B.C. Provincial Court in 1974. In 1981, he became the first Canadian of Chinese ancestry to serve as a federally appointed judge with his appointment to the B.C. County Court. In 1990, he was promoted to the B.C. Supreme Court. He served there with distinction and recently announced his retirement.

[1010]

I’d like the House to congratulate him for a distinguished and exemplary career of public service.

Introductions by Members

S. Hamilton: I rise today to welcome to the House 132 students, teachers and parents from one of the best schools in Delta North, and that’s Burnsview Secondary School — one of the best because both my daughters graduated from that school. They’ll be filing in here shortly to attend question period and see how democracy works.

I’d ask the House to make them welcome.

Speaker’s Statement

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
AND RESPECTFUL DEBATE

Madame Speaker: Members, I had the opportunity last evening to canvass yesterday’s conduct, and this reminder, I believe, is timely: “No member shall use offensive words against any Member of this House.”

As members know, proceedings in this House are based on centuries of tradition and mutual respect, and further, good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.

I have been reluctant to interrupt the proceedings in question period. I can assure you my reluctance has expired.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M219 — ELECTION (SPENDING LIMIT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Election (Spending Limit) Amendment Act, 2016.

G. Holman: I move that a bill intituled the Election (Spending Limit) Amendment Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Please continue.

G. Holman: The Liberal government has refused to take big money out of politics. They want the rich and
[ Page 12212 ]
powerful to continue making large donations to political parties. This level of influence on the political process is not fair and should be banned or limited as it is at the federal level and as members of the opposition have proposed in private members’ bills tabled in this and in previous sessions.

Despite what the Premier claimed last week about limits to spending, this government also made the problem of big money in provincial politics worse by removing long-standing spending limits in the 60 days prior to the campaign period.

As a result of this change, a change which government refused to consider, despite the efforts of the opposition, political spending right before the formal election campaign begins is unlimited. This creates a Wild West situation that we observe south of the border with some consternation.

This bill would reinstate a limit for political parties for the 60 days prior to the beginning of the campaign period. To be clear, this legislation does not apply to third-party advertising, only to political parties and candidates.

The bill would complement legislation introduced by the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the session that would ban political donations from corporations and unions as well as place limits on personal donations.

The reinstatement of pre-election spending limits would help to restore a more level playing field in which smaller parties in the province can compete more effectively in election campaigns. The reinstatement of pre-election spending limits will also help restore confidence in the B.C. electoral system, a system which has been badly damaged by this government’s cynical refusal to take big money out of politics and their use of taxpayer-funded advertising to their political advantage.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M219, Election (Spending Limit) Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Rice: I rise to request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Rice: I would like the House to please make welcome Alison Sayers, who is a constituent from the Bella Coola Valley. She lives in Firvale and is the chair of the Central Coast regional district as well as a member of the UBCM executive. I think this is her first time to the House.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CAMPBELL RIVER
COMMUNITY BUILDER AWARDS

C. Trevena: It’s hard to define what makes community work, but a good community is one in which people care about their neighbours and care about the place itself. That’s why it was a privilege to attend Campbell River’s 2016 community builder recognition dinner.

Max Chickite, Mike Gage, Bill Henderson, Jim Lilburn, Kris Mailman and Morgan Ostler were recognized by Mayor Andy Adams and his council for their outstanding contributions to Campbell River over many, many years.

Max Chickite, a First Nations artist from Cape Mudge, brought Transformations on the Shore, the chainsaw art show, to the city. He spent many years working as a volunteer, teaching carving in the community schools.

[1015]

Mike Gage, whose name is synonymous with all things salmon in the salmon capital of the world, has spent years on river conservation. His work, he’s said, could not have been done without the local resource industries.

Bill Henderson is another wonderful carver from the Campbell River band who shares his skills with youth and so regularly donates his art to many fundraising events.

Jim Lilburn, the quintessential man behind the scenes at the salmon festival, loggers sports — which is Canada’s largest — and Canada Day, has saved not-for-profits tens of thousands of dollars by loaning stages, tents and all the big equipment events need.

Kris Mailman, entrepreneur and philanthropist, the owner of Seymour Pacific and Broadstreet Properties, headquartered in his home town of Campbell River, makes significant contributions. All are important for those who benefit. But the latest, which will help people for many, many years to come, still leaves me and many others stunned by his generosity: an MRI for our new Campbell River Hospital.

Morgan Ostler, a champion for agriculture, for the environment and for the inland Island highway in Campbellton, and a former councillor, writer, business owner and proud grandmother, perhaps summed up everyone’s feelings. “I have been so blessed to live here,” she said.

All six have helped make Campbell River the special place it is, and they deserve the recognition they have received.

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

G. Kyllo: It’s my pleasure to rise today and inform this House that April 19-26 is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week. We’re blessed to live in a
[ Page 12213 ]
province with a world-class health care system that all British Columbians can take pride in. However, organ and tissue donation remains an important issue within it.

Right now, more than 500 British Columbians are in need of an organ donation. I’m sad to say that 21 passed away last year waiting for a transplant. Registering as a donor can help save the life of someone who is in desperate need of help. It’s estimated that a single donor can save up to eight lives.

While more than 95 percent of British Columbians support organ donation, only 20 percent have made the decision to register. That’s why it’s so important that we raise awareness of organ donation registration throughout our province.

There are a number of ways through which a person can become an organ donor. It takes less than two minutes to register on line at register.transplant.bc.ca. More information is also available at 62 Service B.C. locations across the province for anyone who has questions about the registration process, and a pilot is also now underway at four ICBC offices.

There are few excuses for not registering as a donor. Anyone may register, regardless of their medical condition, and there is no age limit, young or old. In fact, the oldest organ donor in Canada was 93 years old.

I ask this House to join me in recognizing the critical role of organ and tissue donation next week, from April 19-26. Together we can raise awareness, promote understanding and, most importantly, help to save lives.

FIRST NATIONS LANGUAGES AND
FIRST PEOPLES’ CULTURAL COUNCIL

S. Fraser: I urge everyone in this House and everyone watching to go next door to the Legislative Assembly and visit the Royal B.C. Museum. There’s a display there on First Nations languages, and it’s amazing.

My colleague the member from Vancouver–West End and I had the opportunity of a tour by Tracey Herbert, the executive director of the First Peoples Cultural Council, last week. Thank you, to Tracey. It’s an amazing display, and it’s a powerful display. The First Peoples Cultural Council turns 25 this year — happy birthday.

Integral to the amazing First Nations cultural mosaic of this province are 34 languages and 61 dialects, all of which are facing varying degrees of risk, and the First Peoples Cultural Council has been playing a key role in saving and preserving them. They have been assisting communities to implement successful strategies to revitalize languages, arts and culture by offering funding, training and resources. They monitor and report on the status of First Nations languages and traditional arts practices and create opportunities for language champions and artists to be recognized as the experts in their work. And the council facilitates respectful connections between First Nations, First Nations governments, other governments, foundations and private sector and arts organizations.

The work of the First Peoples Cultural Council…. What it does is vitally important. British Columbia is home to 60 percent of Canada’s First Nations languages, but only 4 percent of B.C. First Nations speak an indigenous language, and 59 percent of those speakers are over the age of 65. The clock is ticking.

[1020]

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action make it clear that aboriginal rights include aboriginal language rights and that there is an urgent need to preserve them.

Let us in this House acknowledge and support the vital work of the First Peoples Cultural Council and what they do in this province and wish them a very, very happy 25th birthday.

URBAN WILDLIFE COORDINATOR
FOR COQUITLAM

L. Reimer: It may surprise you to know that Coquitlam is the bear-sighting capital of British Columbia. In 2013, over 1,200 black bear sightings were reported in the region. This fact makes urban wildlife a critical issue in communities like Port Moody, Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra.

I would, therefore, like to take the opportunity to recognize an outstanding individual and celebrate his dedication and hard work as he enters retirement. As the urban wildlife coordinator for the city of Coquitlam, Drake Stephens went above and beyond to ensure the safety of both local residents and the animals themselves. He received calls about everything from moth infestations to skunks with their heads stuck in jars to bears and hungry coyotes — bears such as Big Bob and also a bear that I have named Vincent.

As a member of Coquitlam city council, I had the opportunity on many occasions to work closely with Drake, especially on educating members of the public to coexist well with wildlife. By delivering hundreds of school workshops, Drake increased bear awareness in the community to ensure that humans learned to live harmoniously with urban wildlife. This includes the unnecessary killing of the animals, especially our beloved bears.

When Drake started his career, bears were routinely shot if they ventured into neighbourhoods. Now, thanks to increased awareness, lethal measures are a last resort. Over the years, bears have wandered onto school grounds, and Drake has been called. Children remained inside the school after school hours until the bear has wandered off. Ten years ago this bear would have been shot just for being near a school. This is just one of many examples that highlights the positive impact of Drake’s work.

With much of Coquitlam residing on the edge of greenbelts, we can reasonably expect even more inci-
[ Page 12214 ]
dents of urban wildlife encounters. It’s my hope that we continue to live with our beloved animals in a humane and thoughtful manner.

Would all those in this House please join me in extending our thanks to Drake Stephens for his exemplary service and wish him a very happy retirement.

TOURISM AND EVENTS IN BURNABY

K. Corrigan: I want to congratulate Tourism Burnaby for its incredible success in promoting Burnaby as a destination for events, conferences and leisure travel. Leveraging incredible facilities in the city as well as its natural beauty and amenities and through working in partnerships, Tourism Burnaby has had particular success in hosting sports events that bring thousands of visitors to hotels, facilities and businesses in the city.

In the past year, professional rugby’s Pacific Nations Cup came to Swangard Stadium, and the Canadian Under-18 Rugby Championships were held at Burnaby Lake, where they will be held annually in the future. The Pat Quinn Classic hockey tournament featured 34 local, Canadian and international teams, and it also will become an annual event.

In November 2016, over 800 athletes from 150 countries — as well as coaches, team managers and referees — will come to Burnaby for the World Junior Taekwondo Championships. We are also very excited that the national rowing championships will be held at Burnaby Lake in the fall. This, again, is to be an annual event. Finally, Burnaby will host the 2016 table tennis pan-American cup in June.

Not only has Tourism Burnaby been wildly successful in securing sporting events; it also works closely with event planners and organizations to bring their meetings and conferences to Burnaby. Just two examples are the B.C. Touring Council — they just had their yearly conference in Burnaby, as it has for more than 15 years — and the B.C. Destination Marketing Association, which will also be holding their conference and AGM in Burnaby in May.

Congratulations to Tourism Burnaby Chair Ed Jaskula and the board, and to executive director Nancy Small and her team for all the great work and the success in helping to make Burnaby a great place to visit.

GREATER VANCOUVER
REGIONAL SCIENCE FAIR

R. Lee: Recently I had the pleasure of attending the 34th annual Greater Vancouver Regional Science Fair, which is held every April at UBC. Secondary students from across greater Vancouver had the opportunity to participate in this three-day event.

[1025]

I am proud to say that my constituency of Burnaby North was well represented by students from three secondary schools: Burnaby North, Moscrop and Alpha. Several young scientists from Burnaby North received honourable mention for their projects, which ranged from discussing the benefits of hydroelectricity to examining how sugar content in fruit will increase as it ripens. Four students from Burnaby North received silver medals in their respective divisions for a project which analyzed tea pigments and another which investigated the mechanism of a Venus flytrap.

Participants from Moscrop Secondary School brought home two bronze medals for projects in improving the reflectivity of eggshells and conditions in colonizing Mars.

Young scientists from Alpha Secondary fared exceptionally well, receiving an array of awards. One project on using solar power to heat water picked up an honourable mention. Two projects were awarded bronze medals for their study of how hunger impacts focus and how much gas certain beverages produce in the stomach. One student, Dante Wong, brought home the gold medal for analyzing how to harvest energy produced by hydraulic shocks. He also won the Canada-Wide Science Fair Grand Award.

These bright students will undoubtedly make an impact in their respective fields as they continue with their secondary and post-secondary studies. This innovation and expertise will allow B.C. to continue leading Canada.

Oral Questions

B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT AND
DIVIDENDS TO GOVERNMENT

J. Horgan: You know, I was driving in to the office today, and I was feeling a bit nostalgic. I was remembering back before the last election when the minister then responsible for B.C. Hydro, now the Deputy Premier, had a press conference and said that he had wrestled B.C. Hydro to the ground. There was going to be no need for rate increases in the year before the election.

I thought: “Yeah, I remember that.” Then I remembered also a big bus that said “Debt-free B.C.” on the side, travelling back and forth between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, telling everybody that the world was going to be a better place if only the B.C. Liberals were re-elected.

I thought to myself: “Well, debt free and a cap, a flat — no more rate increases at B.C. Hydro just three years ago.” Yet now we find that for the past number of years, B.C. Hydro has been borrowing money, putting it on the backs of ratepayers, transferring it to the B.C. Liberals so they can pretend they’re balancing their budgets.

Rather than having no rate increases, we’ve had a 28 percent rate increase at B.C. Hydro. On April 1, they went up another 4 percent. Next year, another 4 percent — matching increases in MSP premiums year over year
[ Page 12215 ]
over year by a government that said: “We’re going to be debt-free and no cost to the people of B.C.”

My question, hon. Speaker, through you to the very eloquent and capable Minister of Energy is: why in the world should anyone believe a word you say?

Madame Speaker: I remind all members that questions and answers go through the Chair.

Hon. B. Bennett: There’s a lot in the question. I could focus on all of it, but I’ll start with the member’s reference to debt.

I’ve been really clear. I haven’t tried to evade this question. I haven’t tried to say that there’s no debt, that Hydro is sitting there and not investing in infrastructure and, therefore, doesn’t have to borrow money. I haven’t tried to say that Hydro doesn’t pay dividends to government. I’ve been really clear. I’ve been really transparent about that.

I acknowledge that since 1992 in this province, B.C. Hydro has paid dividends to whoever happens to be in government — the government of British Columbia, regardless of which political party is there. I said the other day we didn’t start that process, that practice. The NDP started that practice.

[1030]

What we have done is, first of all, taken B.C. Hydro and worked with them and helped them find savings in their operating costs, almost $370 million. We’ve worked with B.C. Hydro to get them to manage their executive compensation more effectively. In fact, right now their executive compensation leads Canada in terms of other public utilities. And we established a ten-year rates plan in which we committed to reduce the dividends payable to government by $100 million a year. That is, I think, a responsible approach to the current practice.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, again, if I could just add a little bit to the minister’s answer for clarity for those watching here and those watching at home, that the rate-smoothing accounts or deferral accounts from the beginning of B.C. Hydro to 2004 totalled $150 million.

Since 2004, that $150 million has gone to $5.5 billion. That’s managing debt on that side of the House. For the minister to say that he’s been working with B.C. Hydro to help them…. I can well hear the executives and the senior managers at B.C. Hydro saying: “Please, stop helping. You’re not helping us.”

You’re not helping when you direct them to borrow money that they don’t have so that they can add more to the rate base. For the minister to say, as the previous minister did before the election, “There will be no rate increases,” to now say this one, after the election, “We’ll start stopping the dividend as soon as we finish with the next election,” really speaks, I think, to the root of the issue.

The B.C. Liberals have been using B.C. Hydro as an election tool for the past 15 years, and I can tell you that people on this side of the House and people across British Columbia are sick and tired of it. B.C. Hydro was once the crown jewel of British Columbia. It is tarnished, it is soiled, and it’s the direct responsibility of the Premier and the government on that side of the House.

My question to the minister is: if you were so certain that you should stop taking a dividend, why don’t you stop right now and give a break to B.C. rate taxpayers?

Hon. B. Bennett: I should just correct the record. The Leader of the Opposition, having advised at least one Energy Minister during the 1990s, I think will be aware that when the dividend is paid by B.C. Hydro to government, that’s the cash within the government reporting entity, and it actually doesn’t affect the balanced budget at all. It’s cash, and the member knows that. The member likes to tell the story differently, but the member knows that that’s the case.

I’ve got to tell you that it does warm my heart to hear the B.C. NDP so concerned about the fiscal integrity of B.C. Hydro and the fiscal integrity of the B.C. government, given their own record when they were in government, with six consecutive credit downgrades. They wouldn’t know a triple-A credit rating if they fell over it.

I mean, they have absolutely no credibility to be talking to this side of the House about the fiscal management of the government of British Columbia. When they were in government, they failed to balance budgets nine times out of ten years. They had one really famous budget where they actually got caught faking the balanced part of it. It wasn’t balanced. They actually got caught by the Auditor General.

I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has a job to do in opposition. He just doesn’t have any credibility on fiscal issues.

A. Dix: What the minister says and what B.C. Hydro and government officials said after the election, in writing, is totally contradictory — what the minister just said. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that in August 2013, senior government and Hydro officials got together to deal with the debacle at B.C. Hydro caused by Liberal Party management.

[1035]

The minister seems to confuse dividend and net income. Before the election they created a rate-smoothing account designed to get them through the election. It affected Hydro’s bottom line. It affected the dividend. It affected the phony pledge not to raise rates in British Columbia. It affected all of those things.

You can see this detail — for example, on page 3, info note, August 15, 2013. You can see in the same document that B.C. Hydro had three choices. I’m referring to page 55. They could have protected the ratepayers by lowering the
[ Page 12216 ]
revenue requirement to government. They chose not to do that. Or “they could increase regulatory accounts,” which, it says here, they knew wouldn’t be approved for the BCUC.

Why did the Minister of Energy and the government choose to continue to hide the situation at B.C. Hydro in this way?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, government and B.C. Hydro aren’t hiding anything. All the information that you need to know and want to know about B.C. Hydro is in their service plan. It’s all there. When these folks on the other side of the House were in government, they didn’t invest almost anything in capital projects.

They sigh, and they make noises, and they don’t like it, but it’s a fact. If you go back and look at the service plans all the way from 1991 through 2001, you will find that there’s very little expenditure….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. B. Bennett: The point of that is more than strictly politics. The point of saying that is that when this government was first elected in 2001, there was a backlog of need for capital projects. The Leader of the Opposition, who I still believe knows better…. I still believe that he has to know better than this.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: The Leader of the Opposition says: “No, there wasn’t.” There was a backlog of need for capital building by B.C. Hydro when we first got elected in 2001. Since then, we have invested billions of dollars.

We continue to spend, or B.C. Hydro continues to spend $2.4 billion a year on capital. Yes, they have to borrow some money to do that. We need to build some new transmission. We want to make sure we have a reliable system. Yes, there are accounts where that capital cost goes in. Like I said the other day, it’s like a mortgage. It gets amortized over a period of time and gets paid off.

It’s not that complicated, and the Leader of the Opposition and the critic ought to know better.

A. Dix: Well, it isn’t that complicated. The level of deferral accounts in B.C. is 12 times as high as the level in Manitoba. That’s a fact. It is a fact that in the period from 2012-13 to the present, B.C. Hydro has made — made — $2.9 billion in net income, which has dealt with the government’s surplus. That’s $700 million more than the government’s net surplus in that period.

It is a fact that they are addicted to deferral accounts to pretend that the situation at B.C. Hydro and that the government’s finances are better than they are. That is a fact. There would be no net surplus without deferral accounts at B.C. Hydro, and this is the only government in Canada that uses them this way. The B.C. Hydro materials show it plainly.

Madame Speaker: The member will pose his question.

A. Dix: The purpose of the rate-smoothing deferral account is to cover up the impact of government incompetence. My question to the minister is: why doesn’t he stop using those accounts and tell the public the real state of the finances at B.C. Hydro?

[1040]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I still believe, and I think most of my colleagues, maybe all of my colleagues, believe that B.C. Hydro is, in fact, still the Crown jewel of the Crown corporations. We think that Forbes magazine is correct when they say that B.C. Hydro is the No. 1 employer in Canada. We think that B.C. Business Magazine is correct when they say that B.C. Hydro has the most influential brand in the province of British Columbia, because B.C. Hydro does a good job.

I don’t live in the Lower Mainland. I live up in Cranbrook. We have windstorms, but we don’t have anything similar to what happened a couple of times here in the Lower Mainland. When you look at the response of B.C. Hydro and the workers at B.C. Hydro to those windstorms, in terms of getting out there, taking the trees off the road, keeping people safe and getting the power back on for almost a half a million people in record time….

I continue to believe that B.C. Hydro, overall, does a darn good job for the people of British Columbia. B.C. Hydro will continue to invest in the capital that’s necessary to ensure that we continue to have that reliable system going forward.

WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA

G. Heyman: Last week the Environment Minister once again explained away her failure to provide soil and manure test information to the Steele Springs water board. She claimed the information was privacy-protected. The ministry itself required the tests in 2014. The tests indicate the amount of nitrogen that can be safely absorbed by crops before water is contaminated. Provincial law requires proactive release of the requested public health information without delay.

My question is to the Environment Minister. If she won’t release the soil and manure tests that her own ministry demanded, will she immediately have the ministry conduct their own tests and release those to the water board without delay?

Hon. M. Polak: We have already canvassed the fact that the information in question is not owned by the ministry. It’s not the ministry’s information. So there are legal re-
[ Page 12217 ]
quirements with respect to keeping that information confidential. However, I do note that the Privacy Commissioner has been asked to look into this. Of course, we would follow any recommendations that flow from that.

There is, indeed, another community meeting tonight. Staff have been working diligently to put together their best plans with respect to both monitoring as well as testing, and they will be discussing how they move forward with next steps at that meeting tonight. I would certainly encourage community members to be there. There will be every ministry and agency that is involved in the issue present.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: There is, indeed, a community meeting tonight with ministry staff in attendance. It’s the third such community meeting over a period of three years. Residents say the meetings are exactly the same — promises to study the issue, no plan of action and not the information that was requested.

The issue is urgent. The 2016 crop season is upon us. Chief Christian of the Splatsin First Nation and area residents depend on the Hullcar aquifer. Nitrate levels are 30 percent above Canada drinking water–quality guidelines. They continue to rise. Residents want a moratorium on further manure spraying until water quality can be assured.

Will the Minister of Environment simply end her delays and excuses and commit today that she will stop manure spraying above the Hullcar aquifer until safe, clean drinking water can be assured?

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, there has not been any application since August. Nothing has been spread since August. So the member is incorrect with respect to the idea that there is continued application of effluent. I have spoken to the Chief, and we are working together to develop the best way for us to engage with their First Nation.

[1045]

To the member’s suggestion that somehow dedicated ministry staff from my ministry, from Agriculture, people from Interior Healthare not taking this seriously…. I would just point him to the executive director of the Okanagan Basin Water Board, who, in response to questions about the work that is being undertaken, had this to say. Anna Warwick Sears said: “I was struck by the strength of the response from the Ministry of Environment. I feel like the ministry took the issue seriously and has a plan going forward.”

L. Popham: The minister repeatedly says that the source of nitrate contamination is yet to be determined, so presumably, that’s her rationale for two years of inaction.

In 2014, the senior environmental protection officer who issued the compliance order on the farm, backed by a senior hydrogeologist, clearly said that the largest dairy farm is “the likely cause of the nitrate contamination.” The compliance order had a clearly outlined appeal process, yet the farm owner did not appeal.

Area residents are deeply concerned. They want an end to excuses and a moratorium on manure spraying. Successful agriculture does not depend on liquid manure spraying as a fertilizer option. The residents want a moratorium.

Will the minister respond to the community’s needs for clean drinking water and, please, take action before an agricultural season begins again?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to action, there is action that has been taken and is being taken. It is represented by the staff who are diligently working together with the community. They’re in regular contact with the Steele Springs water district, with Save Hullcar Aquifer Team. They’re working with the Okanagan Basin Water Board. We’re also working together to establish lines of communication that work effectively for the First Nation. There is a tremendous amount of effort taking place.

It is not for those of us in the political sphere to make decisions around how activities should be undertaken on the land base. That is for the people who have the technical expertise, working with the agriculture community and making decisions based on the science. There has been no application of effluent since August. There are still concerns about the aquifer, and our staff are working diligently to address those.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

V. Huntington: British Columbians are being subjected to a wave of political advertisements that are being paid for with their own money. “B.C.’s plan to protect Canada’s strongest economy is working,” they say. “Balanced Budget 2016 means we can keep taxes low and invest in B.C. families.”

Compare that script to the government’s 2013 campaign material. “B.C.’s strong economy is creating jobs and keeping taxes low for families. We’re protecting it with a balanced budget….”

You know, I support balanced budgets, but taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for government advertising that is identical to party messaging. Can the Minister of Advanced Education, who is responsible for government advertising, tell the people of B.C. why they should be paying for these ads, and does he really think government should be a third-party advertiser?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m glad this point has been raised, because there are great dividends to living in this province when we have a balanced budget and a growing economy. It means that there are benefits for all British Columbians. Some British Columbians aren’t aware of
[ Page 12218 ]
these benefits, such as property tax transfer exemptions, the B.C. education and training savings grant, from the various different programs available through Work B.C. and WelcomeBC.

So we have an obligation to make sure that all British Columbians can share in our prosperity by letting them know about the programs available to them. We are pleased and proud to do this.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

[1050]

V. Huntington: These issues aren’t new. In 1996, the Auditor General reported on the use of public money for political advertising. Just over a year ago, the Auditor issued a follow-up report stating that: “Currently there is no clear guidance in B.C. around government partisan advertising.” She added: “Eighteen years later, we make the same recommendation to government.”

The recommendations were simple: ban partisan political information from government communications, establish appropriate guidelines and make sure the policy is followed.

Perhaps the minister can tell us what he finds so difficult about those recommendations and why he refuses to ensure that taxpayers aren’t footing the bill for the Liberal re-election campaign.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, as you know, Madame Speaker, our government works for the benefit of all British Columbians, because we have the interest of every single citizen of this province in mind. Because of the unprecedented prosperity in this province, this gives us an opportunity to let British Columbians know about the opportunities available to them.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In fact, the Auditor General’s report went on to say: “We are not advocating that the Office of the Auditor General take on the role of reviewing government advertising for partisan messaging, as is done in several jurisdictions that we examined in this review.”

So the Auditor General came to the same conclusion as we did. It’s necessary to get the word out to British Columbians so they can learn things like opposing violence in schools, the #SaySomething campaign, the adoption campaign.

Will anyone stand up on the opposite side of the House and say that we should not be advertising adoption and the #SaySomething campaign? If they are prepared to oppose those campaigns, they should stand up right here, right now.

DEATHS AND INJURIES OF CHILDREN
IN CARE AND REPORT BY
GOVERNMENT SPECIAL ADVISER

D. Donaldson: The Representative for Children and Youth’s latest update reveals the grim news that 36 deaths and 217 critical injuries of children and youth in care or receiving services from the Ministry of Children and Family Development were reported to her office just between October 1 and January 31. She is reviewing 156 of the critical injuries and five of the deaths reported over this four-month period. We know that at least 62 percent of children in care are of aboriginal ancestry, so it stands to reason that many of these children who were hurt in the government’s care are aboriginal.

In October, the minister appointed Grand Chief Ed John as her special adviser on aboriginal matters to report out at the end of March. It’s now April 14. When will the minister release Grand Chief John’s final recommendations on such a critical situation?

Hon. S. Cadieux: In British Columbia, we have a rigorous oversight program for the Ministry of Children and Families, because vulnerable children in our province matter. It is right that there is a rigorous program of oversight. We do report on critical injuries and deaths immediately to the representative for her oversight, but we also report publicly about those every six months. We’re the only jurisdiction in Canada to do that, because we believe it’s right.

Grand Chief Ed John has been doing a lot of work with us to look at the overrepresentation of aboriginal children in care. He’s been reaching out to First Nations to help us have a dialogue and to increase our dialogue about permanency and the urgency for permanency for aboriginal children and youth. That work is ongoing, and Chief Ed John has requested an extension so that he can continue that work, until the end of June, and we have agreed to that extension.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Bob Plecas, in his report on the Ministry of Children and Family Development, declined to offer any recommendations dealing specifically with aboriginal issues. He said Grand Chief John would be providing direction on aboriginal issues, but now the minister says it’s just about permanency.

[1055]

This is a chaotic approach. The minister does not seem to know who is addressing aboriginal matters in her own ministry. Meanwhile, kids in care keep dying and getting injured. The numbers show that since October, the Representative for Children and Youth is investigating, on average, a critical injury a day and more than a death per month.
[ Page 12219 ]

If Grand Chief John is not reporting out on how to help protect aboriginal children from being critically injured and dying in the care of the ministry, who is?

Hon. S. Cadieux: While we have engaged the assistance of other experts and other individuals to help us look at this very complex issue, I am addressing this issue as minister because it is in my mandate. It is my responsibility, and I am happy to do it.

B.C. FERRIES REQUEST FOR
VARIANCE TO FUELLING REGULATION

C. Trevena: B.C. Ferries is looking for a variance from Transport Canada on a refueling regulation for its new Polish-built ferries.

Instead of following international codes and fuelling from shore or from a barge, B.C. Ferries wants to bring a truck onto the ferries into an enclosed space. This isn’t done anywhere else in the world because of safety reasons. There are too many potential ignition points.

To the Minister of Transportation: why is B.C. Ferries putting workers and passengers’ lives at risk by trying to get the rules changed?

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly thank the member for the question.

What I can say is this: I am not aware of the specific details that she has mentioned in the House today. I will endeavour to understand what exactly is at issue here.

But I will say that everything that B.C. Ferries does with respect to the operation of their many ferries across the coastal ferry system is all done in absolute compliance with Transport Canada safety guidelines.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly here, I call continued debate on Motion 11, and in Section A, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Donaldson: In the gallery, we have joining us a two-time Smithers municipal councillor, Coun. Phil Brienesse. He is here to meet, in his new role as a director at-large, with the Union of B.C. Municipalities executive. I just want to point out that Phil, as a member of Smithers council, is doing amazing work on reconciliation with his council, on reconciliation with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs.

Would this House join me in making him welcome in his visit to the Legislature.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 11 — TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

(continued)

M. Farnworth: I rise to continue my remarks from yesterday afternoon.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

As I recall, we were having some interesting discussions around the TPP and the government’s desire to ram it through without going to any public consultation.

The Premier was vigorously engaged in the dialogue….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Heckling, as my colleague calls it, but putting out some points of view that I found particularly interesting.

[1100]

Comments from other ministers and comments from the Government House Leader today from Kamloops…. I didn’t get a chance to address all the comments that I’ve heard made.

Now, I think I did deal with the issue of Kamloops and mining and how I found it somewhat ironic that this government kept going, “We’ve got to get to yes; we’ve got to get to yes,” except when it seems to be talking about the Ajax mine in Kamloops.

I listened to other members talk about….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, he says get to yes on that too. Now, that will be interesting to see, and I look forward to what the Minister of Health has to say about that.

The other comments — and the one I found most fascinating…. I’ve got to repeat it again. Literally everyone who spoke was going on about: “China, China, China. Trade with China, TPP. Trade with China, TPP. Trade with China.” They were kind of like melding the two together, as though they were somehow related.

I’d just like to remind those members that China is not part of the TPP negotiations.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: It’s not part of the TPP negotiations. In fact, hon. Minister, one of the reasons why the TPP nego-
[ Page 12220 ]
tiations are taking place is to try and keep China out, to build a barrier around China, against China. That is a fact.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: As my colleague rightly says, geopolitical strategy.

If the government spent a little time sort of researching and understanding the evolution of the TPP, if they spent a little time looking at the broader global picture…. As opposed to sort of blinkers on, the Stephen Harper approach — “Oh, trade agreement; must be good; sign now; that’s it” — without any sort of desire to fully understand the implications, to fully understand what’s taking place. It’s just a little bit mind-boggling that they continue to do that.

Of course, I’m still fascinated by the Minister of Agriculture’s comments, that we are going to be in another world war, that there will be another. I see a minister looking somewhat incredulous at that, but he can check the Blues. The Minister of Agriculture stated that TPP was important, and he went on to say that we will be in another world war and that the TPP will allow us, in terms of our agrifood industry, to somehow get through that.

That is just quite a remarkable thing to say. If not for that comment alone, one would think the government would want to seek public input. I mean, if that’s guiding a minister’s thinking on the other side, no wonder people want to put this out and ask questions and say: “Hey, what’s going on?”

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, the minister says: “Time to wrap it up.” Well, I’ve got a few more minutes yet, and we’re going on for a little while.

I may say those comments in jest, but the reality is that we have a federal government in Ottawa that has taken a serious look at the agreement, which has 10,000 pages. It has decided in its wisdom — and, I think, rightly so — that Canadians should have the ability to have input on that. Provinces’ opinions, Canadians’ opinions, the various sectors of the economy — their opinions matter, and we need to hear from them.

This is a national agreement. The federal government is responsible for it. So they’re holding hearings, and they’re looking at it from a Canadian perspective. First, those hearings start Monday in Vancouver, and this government is not interested in that. They just want to say: “No. Boom. That’s it.”

[1105]

What we’re saying is that we should take the time and follow the lead of the federal Liberal government in Ottawa — a government that so far has indicated a willingness to work, for example, with cities on key infrastructure projects, a government that has said that it wants to be open and transparent. In fact, those were the key words around their motion to put the TPP out to public hearings. They want to hear what people have to say, and that’s the right thing to do. That is absolutely the right thing to do.

I find it somewhat puzzling that when you have had…. We had a federal election, and people clearly rejected the divisiveness, the secrecy, the mendacity of the Harper government — their desire to control everything, to stifle debate, to muzzle scientists, to muzzle the facts. Everything that Canadians felt was wrong turfed them at the last election. It made it clear that they want openness and transparency in how government deals. So I find it somewhat strange that this government wants to follow in the old Harper Conservative, tired, defeated, un-Canadian strategy of ensuring no debate and ensuring no discussion.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: As my colleague says, they really are Harper Tories. As others have said, they really are the last refuge of the Harper government.

That’s why we put forward the amendment that we did. That’s why we said that it’s critical that we hear what British Columbians have to say, that we hear what different sectors of the economy have to say. There are a lot of issues at stake.

There are the issues of supply management. I know that government says: “Oh, supply management. No, people concerned about the supply management system don’t have to worry, because there’ll be transition money in place. There’ll be money available.”

Well, hold on. When you hear that, that tells you something. That tells you that there are going to be significant changes. That tells you that they know that people are going to be impacted. That tells you that there are going to be sectors of the economy that are going to be impacted in such a way that people are going to negatively be affected.

One would think that it would only be right, one would think that it would only be fair to actually go out as a province and hear what those impacts and effects are going to be. Then you’re able to do two things: (1) you’re able to speak from a more informed point from the provincial perspective as to what the impacts are going to be on British Columbia; and (2) you are able to have an informed and engaged discussion and a better understanding that if, for example, it were to be signed and were to become the law of the land, the measures that the government has said would be there would, in fact, be the right measures to have in place. Instead, the government is not interested in that. They’re not interested in that at all.

They talk, as well, about issues around a diverse economy and the growth of the knowledge economy, when we hear from many in the tech sector that they have real
[ Page 12221 ]
concerns. Again, one would think that a government that was committed to openness and transparency and to hearing what people have to say would want hearings, from the provincial perspective, about the impacts.

Again, you’d then have the information to be able to say: “You know what? Yes, these are issues that need to be addressed. These are issues that are going to cause problems.” Either you have the ability as a province to deal with them through the mechanisms and the tools that are available to a provincial government, or you don’t, and you say that either we need those tools or the federal government has to be able to deal with the issues and the concerns that have been raised.

[1110]

Again, it’s unfortunate that this government has decided that they’re not interested in what British Columbians have to say, that as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the Premier knows best. The Premier knows what’s good for all of us.

Well, guess what. British Columbians have a different point of view. British Columbians want to have their say.

It reminds me, going back to some other issues, of where this government decided, or the Premier decided, or a Premier decided: “You know what? I know best. I don’t need to listen to the little people. I don’t need to listen to the public, because I know best.” That was the HST. Remember that? “We need an HST, we’re getting an HST, we’re doing an HST, and we don’t care what you have to say, and we’re not interested in….” You didn’t do public hearings, you didn’t go out and talk with people, and we know how that ended up. We know exactly how that ended up.

If a government is truly committed to ensuring that the interests of this province are protected, if they’re truly committed to understanding the issues in British Columbia, then one would have expected they would have held hearings in the same way that the federal Liberal government, in Ottawa, is holding hearings that are going to be — as they want — robust and transparent, and people have the opportunity for input. They have the opportunity to say what it is they want.

It saddens me that the government has not taken that choice. It just saddens me that the government has not taken that path. I know that the minister across the way was a little concerned that I may have quoted the Agriculture Minister out of context, so for the Minister of Advanced Education, I actually happen to have the full quote of the Minister of Agriculture that I will read for him out of Hansard, the official record of this chamber.

The Minister of Agriculture stated yesterday — and as I said, okay, this isn’t me:

“As history has shown us through the decades, through the millennia, at some point in the future, mankind will find some way of causing another world war, or some pestilence will hit us, or something will happen where we’ll see our borders close. We want to make sure” — so get this; world war is out there, and the minister wants to make sure — “that we continue to grow agrifoods right here in B.C. so that…if ever that day comes, we’ll be…stronger in feeding ourselves.”

The idea that we need the TPP because there will be, someday, a world war, as the Minister of Agriculture states, is just…. It makes one speechless.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Well, when you hear a statement like that, I come about as close to being speechless as one could become.

This government had a choice. They could have followed the open, transparent way that has been put forward by the federal government — a federal Liberal government, I might add — or they could have chosen the…. I’ll use this term because I think that’s how most people in this province, in this country, felt at the results of the last federal election, which was that a cloak of darkness had been lifted off the country. Mordor was no more.

This government had the choice of openness and transparency or the path of following the Conservatives, and they chose that path. And that’s unfortunate for two reasons. One, the public of British Columbia lose out on an opportunity to put their views forward on what is, clearly, an important document. At the same time, the province loses out on the ability to put forward a point of view from British Columbia that recognizes all points of view, not just the point of view of the Premier.

[1115]

With that, I will take my place, because I know that there are other members who also wish to express opinions on this important issue.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise not to speak in support but to speak in opposition to the motion we have before us.

As I mentioned yesterday, the TPP is fundamentally bad for British Columbians. The TPP was signed by 12 Pacific nations — Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, United States, Singapore and Vietnam — in New Zealand on February 3, 2016.

We heard a lot about trade agreements with China and South Korea yesterday from members opposite, but this has nothing to do with trade agreements with China, South Korea, India or others, despite what members opposite might think.

That takes us to the point that this motion was brought to us and the Legislature before the text of the TPP was even available. How cynical is that? How cynical is it for a government to make its mind up on an agreement that it has not even got the text of to determine whether or not they support the agreement? It’s very cynical.

We know, in this Legislature, the singular reason that they’re bringing the motion forward now is because they’re trying to make hay on the fact the federal NDP
[ Page 12222 ]
passed support for looking at the Leap Manifesto. It was rather an odd decision, mind you, but they passed support to go forward with that and study it for two years.

This is a good opportunity the government can take to actually make hay by trying to make the official opposition look bad in a substanceless debate — a debate that stoops to such levels as discussing what will happen to food security when we have outbreaks of disease and pestilence and world war.

Can you believe this — that the Minister of Agriculture is arguing for TPP; that we need to enter into free trade agreements, which have indemnity clauses in there that protect the rights of multinational corporations over the rights of the British Columbians and Canadians; that we somehow should sign this agreement in case world war breaks out?

You can’t make this stuff up. Not only does it not make sense, but if this agreement were signed and war broke out, according to the agreement, we’d be liable to ensure that food still went elsewhere. It’s exactly the opposite, which shows me, clearly, how intently and intensely members of government have actually looked at the agreement. I don’t think they have. Well, I know that they haven’t.

I’m willing to wager that if there is one person in this Legislature, in this House, who’s actually read the agreement, it is the member for Surrey-Whalley. Nobody else, including me, has read all 6,000 pages. I’ve read a bunch of the pages, but not 6,000.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Again, as identified just there in the heckle is someone, or two, from members opposite who said: “Are you sure you read 6,000?” That’s after I just said: “I didn’t read all 6,000.” This shows exactly the level of understanding this government has of the actual document before us.

The TPP, as I outlined, contains investor-state provisions that give foreign corporations — an investor, so-called — the ability to sue the Canadian government, the so-called state, in secret tribunals over any legislation which would hurt their profits further, such as regulations defending human health, labour safety or the environment. In case we have world war breaking out, and we want to protect our agrifood industry for local consumption, in fact we can’t, despite what the Minister of Agriculture might say.

[1120]

We have some high-profile cases under NAFTA, an agreement where rulings have gone against Canada because of unfair restrictions. I could, for example, talk about the arbitration panel ruling “against Canada after a U.S. company argued a joint federal-provincial environmental review board decision to disallow a quarry in the small fishing community of Digby Neck, Nova Scotia, imposed unfair trade sanctions. The U.S. company is now seeking $300 million in damages.”

We’ve got another. A NAFTA panel recently ordered Canada to pay Exxon Mobil Corporation and Murphy Oil $17.3 million after Newfoundland and Labrador required offshore oil producers to have money allocated to research. We’ve got TransCanada, a Canadian example, behind Keystone XL, launching a $15 billion lawsuit against the U.S. under NAFTA.

In and of itself, these are examples, but what we have under NAFTA, of course, is the ability as a nation to withdraw from NAFTA, with appropriate notice. With TPP, we’re signing away our life and future generations, as the substance of exit clauses is unknown.

I come back to the Tufts University report that I cited yesterday. Why I thought that was important to come back to is I want to touch upon the conclusions of this report, which fundamentally underline why this is a bad agreement for British Columbia. It says as follows: “In the main existing assessments, the TPP is projected to generate small gains in GDP in most participating economies. However, these projections are based on an economic model that assumes full employment and invariant income distribution, thereby excluding, from the outset, some of the most serious risks of trade liberalization.”

As I mentioned, yesterday I gave an example of the assumption using cars. The fact that this model that was used to make one or two…. The models that the government is relying on assumes full employment. Full employment is a poor assumption in a trade deal that’s talking about the creation of jobs. In fact, when more realistic assumptions are used, the TPP is projected to cost 58,000 job losses in Canada — not job gains, job losses. Full employment is not guaranteed, because a company will not just pay workers lower and lower amounts; they’ll move elsewhere and shut the factory down.

The article’s concluding remarks continue. “Projecting the effects of the TPP with a different economic model, based on the realistic assumptions about economic adjustment and income distribution, leads to different results. We project that the TPP will lead to contraction of the GDP in the United States and in Japan and negligible income gains in other countries.” It’s one of the reasons why the U.S. is actually talking about not ratifying this agreement. They’re talking about not ratifying this agreement because the agreement actually will lead to a contraction in U.S. GDP.

“We also project job losses,” it says, “and higher inequality in all participating economies.” That includes B.C. “In the face of negligible or negative income gains, the costs of the TPP are projected to fall asymmetrically on labour.”

“Furthermore,” it says, “when analyzed with a model that recognizes the risks of trade liberalization, the TPP appears to only marginally change competitiveness
[ Page 12223 ]
among participating countries. Most gains are therefore obtained at the expense of non-TPP countries.”

It says, finally: “Globally, the TPP favours competition on labour costs and remuneration of capital.” Let me reiterate that, please. The “TPP favours competition on labour costs.”

How do we translate that into the Canadian economy? How do we reconcile with that with the projected 58,000 job losses in Canada? It’s quite simple. As I said, again, TPP favours competition on labour costs. Declining labour costs are not going to benefit British Columbians. It’s not going to benefit Canadians, and the reason why is clear. We have a certain standard of living here in British Columbia that we ensure with minimum wages, benefits, etc., that people who work here enjoy.

[1125]

Now, if I’m going to dig up a mine somewhere, I’m going to consider one of the following. Should I go into British Columbia and make a mine here, where we have an expectation of environmental standards being met, an expectation that we’re going to have to work in partnership with First Nations, an expectation that we’re going to have to pay union wages? Or should I open up a mine now in Indonesia, which is well known for far less stringent environmental concerns, paying far cheaper wages and also geologic formations that match British Columbia and elsewhere?

The choice is quite simple for a multinational corporation that is beholden to shareholders that are not residents of the region that you’re employing but are globally around the world — some of whom have interesting Panama bank accounts. When you are accountable to your shareholders, you are — in essence, without any internalizing of social or environmental costs — trying to race to the bottom. You are looking for the cheapest way of digging that rock out of the ground and bringing it to market.

The cheapest way means the non-B.C. way. The cheapest way means the non-Canadian way. The cheapest way means find the most despotic nation in the world that has zero environmental standards, no labour standards and build your mine there because your costs of doing it are minimal. That is why the TPP will create job losses in Canada.

I cannot believe that member after member opposite stood up and blindly said: “This is going to create job opportunities for British Columbia.” I don’t think they’ve even read the analysis of the TPP. Frankly, I don’t think they know what the TPP is.

Let me give some more examples. Michael Geist, the Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of British Columbia, took a 50-day analysis of the TPP. Every day he was putting something else out. I’m not going to read all 50 of them because we’d be here all day. They are fascinating. They are insightful. Let me just outline some of the critiques for members opposite.

The first one was that Canada was at a negotiating disadvantage from the start, because Canada was a latecomer to the agreement and had to plead to get in and gave concessions to get in, particularly with copyright and other laws. “Intellectual property rules lack balance,” according to Mr. Geist. Copyright costs, term extension, criminal liability and digital locks are of concern. “The TPP copyright provisions,” he said, “will require significant changes to Canadian law and limit Canada’s ability to implement future reforms.”

Does that sound like a benefit for British Columbia? I’m not so confident.

More IP changes — patents, trademarks, trade secrets and geographic indicators — is another area of concern. Here he says: “The concerns with the TPP’s intellectual property chapter extend well beyond copyright.” He talks about patent term adjustment rules. He talks about protection for the next generation of pharmaceuticals. This is certainly to the benefit of multinational corporations looking to maximize profits for the wealthy few and certainly not in the interest of the workers in the factories producing these products.

He talks about the risk of privacy — privacy risk. I’ll come back to that. He talks about — which I’m going to expand upon for most of the rest of my time here — how this is a step backward for the Internet and technology.

Before I go into that cost, let me just say that there are risks. He argues about risks from investor-state dispute settlement provisions, health costs and regulation risks and restrictions on Canadian cultural policy.

Let’s come back to the tech issue. We all know in British Columbia that nobody thought this government was going to become elected in 2013 — nobody, including government themselves. So they dreamed up a strategy, an LNG strategy that was selling a bill of goods to Canadians. “We’re going to have a $1 trillion increase in GDP, a $100 billion prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs, a debt-free B.C. and thriving schools and hospitals.” Wow. Who would not want to vote for that?

But it was nothing more than fiction, a fictional dream offered to British Columbians as a form of a Hail Mary pass of hope that was caught because British Columbians believed — shame on them for believing — the government. Clearly, the evidence is that we should not believe what the government is saying. They believed them, and they ticked the wrong box. A few too many of them got elected, them being the collective B.C. Liberals.

[1130]

Here we are in a situation where we have a reckless management of our province, reckless economic trajectory of our province and a government that now realizes it can’t deliver on LNG.

What it’s not saying, while it’s trying to actually pin the NDP as being anti–trade deals…. It’s really interesting if you go through Hansard and look. They’re not saying another one of the key reasons why they like this agreement.
[ Page 12224 ]
It’s because they’re desperate to deliver on Petronas, a company based in Malaysia, a signatory of TPP, reducing investment in infrastructure, likely not going to go anywhere in northern British Columbia. It doesn’t have a supply gap to fill any time soon.

They’re desperate. Give it away some more. Let’s just send them a signal that TPP is actually going to be good for us, because then it’s actually good for Petronas.

Nobody mentioned Petronas yesterday in the speech. They talked about agrifoods. They talked about cattle. They talked about sparkling wine. Okay. It may benefit the sparkling wine industry. But who they didn’t talk about, who it really benefits, are people like Petronas, the multinational based in other jurisdictions that they’re chasing to the bottom to try to develop a resource. The economics don’t even work. But this is them trying to desperately give away a resource, to say: “Look. Listen to us. We’re here. We’ve done what we said we’d do.”

What’s so ironic about this is in their fiscal folly over the last three years, what we have now in British Columbia are not natural gas plays anymore. We have legal plays now. Not natural gas plays, but legal plays. Companies investing in LNG in British Columbia are now seeing legal opportunities for settlements because of the reckless promises of this government and the inability to deliver to a market. So these are now becoming legal plays. At what cost?

The tech sector will be devastated by the TPP. I raise natural gas only because we see from government, as of last August, when they recognized, oops, LNG is going nowhere…. Staff were suddenly told: “You’d better hold a tech conference in Vancouver in January.” They scurried to hold a big tech conference to celebrate tech, a sector they’ve essentially given up on, let fall by the wayside for years, a clean tech sector that they’ve killed through the construction of Site C and a signal to market that it’s all about LNG or nothing in B.C.

They created this tech conference, but they don’t understand the tech sector. They don’t understand the tech sector because TPP is bad for the tech sector. Let me give you some examples.

More than 250 tech companies signed a letter demanding greater transparency from Congress back last year. They were decrying the broad regulatory language in leaked parts, at the time, of the TPP trade deal, the deal that was signed in secrecy — 250 tech companies in the U.S.

Coming back to Mr. David Wolfe, let me summarize what he said in the Globe and Mail a few weeks back. In fact, the actual date was March 26 of this year, so just a couple of weeks back. He said this.

“Canada’s problems are compounded by the bias against technology-based industries that exists in small, open economies. The barriers to entry associated with technological innovation disadvantage smaller firms to a greater extent than larger ones. At the same time, the domestic market does not provide an ecosystem for them to scale up. To the extent that these economies are home to a greater proportion of small, indigenous firms, the entire economy is placed at a disadvantage with respect to competition in high-technology industries. The public incentive to support those firms that compete in technologically intensive sectors is much greater for a small, open economy than for a larger one. Transforming the research and design base of firms in this economy and ensuring protection of their knowledge base is necessary for effective competition in the 21st century.”

Jim Balsillie, co-founder of Research in Motion, producer of BlackBerrys, said something about TPP that expands upon the words that I just read from Mr. David Wolfe. What Mr. Balsillie pointed out is as follows.

[1135]

“TPP raises the minimum global IP standards of the World Trade Organization by extending and enforcing the U.S. IP regime and interests to all TPP countries. Make no mistake: this is not your father’s trade agreement. TPP clearly demarks the shift in global value creation from tangible to intangible goods by providing unprecedented advantages to current large holders and producers of IP.”

This fellow should know what he’s talking about because, as I’ll show in a second, his company was one of only a few such Top 300 organizations granted U.S. patents.

How many Amazons are in Canada with central offices? How many eBays? How many of the global multinational corporations are based in B.C? We have Hootsuite struggling along. B.C. has created an environment where companies get so big, and then they move to the U.S. Now, with TPP, it will cripple even that incubator component of the tech sector in British Columbia.

Coming back to what Jim Balsillie said:

“Canada does not have the arsenal of valuable IP to benefit financially from such provisions. The Intellectual Property Owners Association’s most recent ranking of Top 300 Organizations Granted U.S. Patents lists BlackBerry as the only Canadian entry. In their Top 100 Worldwide Universities Granted U.S. Utility Patents, UBC was the only Canadian university, listed at 78th place, with 29 patents granted, compared with the University of California’s 453.

“Canadians create world-class innovations, but we fail to commercialize them. A recent Conference Board of Canada innovation report ranks Canada second to last on the ability to patent our ideas — a core aspect of ideas commercialization. With so few Canadian companies and universities positioned to benefit from TPP’s IP provisions, we are ill-prepared to compete with countries possessing hundreds of such wealth-generating entities.”

That’s from somebody who should know, Jim Balsillie, former co-founder of RIM, based in Waterloo.

It goes on. We have here another quote that says the following. This is from a law professor. The law professor in this particular case is Michael Geist again, an expert on Internet legal issues. “If things don’t go Canada’s way,” he says, in a CBC News piece in August of last year, “and on a lot of issues Canada is playing defence, is in the minority, then it’s going to require a major overhaul of our copyright law.”

He further said, and the article states: “Geist said a section of the draft text could even require Canadian Internet service providers to block access to websites that contain copyright-infringing material in response to court orders from somewhere else in the world.”
[ Page 12225 ]

Then he said this: “It’s something the government has consistently rejected through copyright reform process.”

It goes on and on. He talks about the fact that this is a made-in-America point. He says that when you look at the digital policies — things like copyright, intellectual policy, privacy rules, Internet and Internet governance rules — there’s some real harms that we find in this agreement. This is not good for B.C.’s tech sector.

Finally, on another topic of great concern, is the issue of privacy. Now, the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, FIPA, has raised concern, as pointed out in a Business in Vancouver piece, that TPP provisions could override B.C. law governing data storage. It’s not just FIPA that’s pointed it out. It’s others, as well, as I’ll come to.

In quoting this article in Business in Vancouver by Tyler Orton, published back in November of 2015, it says the following: “Victoria enacted laws requiring sensitive data to be kept within Canada after concerns arose in 2004 that B.C. health data could be subject to the U.S Patriot Act if stored outside the country. The TPP, however, states governments cannot require companies to use servers within their own borders as a condition of conducting business.”

To be very, very clear on this, article 14.13 of the TPP establishes a restriction on legal requirements to do so. Here is the quote: “No party shall require a covered person to use or locate computing facilities in that party’s territory as a condition for conducting business in that territory.”

[1140]

We blindly walk into this agreement. We blindly walk into this agreement in a cynical ploy to try to pin the NDP in British Columbia to their federal counterpoints who enacted a study for two years about the Leap Manifesto.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Counterparts.

A. Weaver: Counterparts. I recognize it’s the same party, but in their defence, there was not a single member of this party in this House on Sunday on the floor.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m just trying to correct Hansard. You said “counterpoints.”

A. Weaver: Did I say “counterpoints”? The Minister of Advanced Education so dutifully corrects me, and I am so very grateful for being corrected here as to using the word “counterpoint” for “counterpart.”

Thank you, hon. Minister. It’s such the appropriate ministry too — Advanced Education.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’ve been relegated to an A-minus. I had one A-minus, hon. Minister, when I was an undergraduate — only one in my time as an undergraduate, and now I’ve got my second. I’ve got a lot of A-pluses. I would be happy to share my undergraduate transcript with you. I did graduate with an 8.95 GPA, not a 9. I was crushed. I got that one A-minus, and my GPA was 8.95 — not 9.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The members opposite…. We’re having an ego battle back and forth, hon. Speaker. But he got the Rhodes Scholarship. I did not. I only got to the interview stage. The member opposite actually got the Rhodes Scholarship.

Anyway, I digress. I digress.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’ve just completely had my legs cut out from me by the Minister of Advanced Education in this debate. He wins. Sorry.

In conclusion, this deal is a bad deal for British Columbia. This deal is a bad deal for Canadians. This motion should not pass. This government should be ashamed of itself for bringing this cynical motion forward at a time when they hadn’t even got the agreement to actually explore the details of it. Thank you.

G. Heyman: Well, it’s been an interesting week this week. There have been many interesting weeks in this Legislature, but I have to say that if I came here with some thought that we would see, introduced by the government, motions or proposals that led to reasoned, thoughtful discourse, engagement of the public, collaboration on good, sound policy in the interests of British Columbians, that idea got a stake right through its heart this week.

Here we have a motion, Motion 11, introduced by the government before there was even a text to read. It says this government, without seeing the terms of a trade deal…. It’s a 6,000-page document with many details which subsequently have been criticized and called into question in terms of their best-interest value to Canadians or British Columbians.

It’s a 6,000-page document. This government, when it finally gets around to debating the motion — presuming, which I doubt very much, that every member opposite has perused the 6,000 pages…. Or perhaps the Minister of International Trade has perused the 6,000 pages. Or perhaps the Minister of Finance or any member of cabinet has perused the 6,000 pages. This government uses this motion as part of its cheap political narrative to try to say: “See, we support economic development, and nobody else in this House does.”

Trade deals are important because they’re legal documents that bind Canada to terms and conditions that may be in our best interests or may not be in our best
[ Page 12226 ]
interests or could be in our best interests if we looked at them carefully, redesigned them, addressed issues that were problematic — which many critics have raised. But we’re getting none of that from this government.

[1145]

Instead, we have, even in the face…. We understand that ultimately, this is a federal government responsibility. The federal government has said they will review it in committee. We proposed, in an amendment to the motion, to refer this motion to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to review and report.

The federal government will review the TPP in committee. The federal government will hold public hearings. But notwithstanding the fact that there is going to be nine months before there is any action by the federal government on this trade deal, will this government actually take the time to review the deal in detail, to involve members of this Legislature on both sides of the aisle in talking about the benefits or the problems in the deal?

No, because they have no interest in whether this deal is good for British Columbians. The only thing they want to do is get gotcha moments that they can use in their ongoing political campaign that’s devoid of any sane analysis of what’s in the best economic interests of Canadians and British Columbians. British Columbians deserve better than that.

Let’s just take a brief look at what some of the objections have been. I realize the hour is moving on toward adjournment.

The federal minister has said: “Just as it is too soon to endorse the TPP, it is also too soon to close the door.” That’s why she went on to say: “Further, I have written to the Government and Opposition House Leaders as well as the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to convey my strong belief in the merits of a robust and transparent examination of the TPP. In particular, this should include extensive non-partisan consideration, analysis and testimony from all regions, sectors and backgrounds. Most importantly, this process will be fully public.”

That sounds reasonable. That sounds respectful of the role of parliament. That sounds respectful of Canadians. But apparently, for this government, the only robust examination they’re interested in is their ongoing election platform and any measure they can take, any cheap political motion, to try to tell the people of British Columbia: “Because we say yes to anything at all, whether we’ve read it, whether we’ve analyzed it, whether we’ve talked about it publicly, whether we’ve referred it to committee, whether we’ve involved your elected parliamentarians, we know best. We support economic development, and nobody else does.”

That is patently false. It is patently ridiculous, and British Columbians deserve better than that.

When Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the TPP is the worst trade deal ever, when Joseph Stiglitz goes on to say that Canada should use its influence to begin a renegotiation of the TPP to make it an agreement that advances the interests of Canadian citizens, we should listen. We should have some discussion about that.

But no, not for the government of British Columbia. The government of British Columbia will have none of that. They’ll have no consultation with British Columbians. They’ll have no consultation with parliamentarians, because they know best.

I see the hour is moving on. Let me simply close my remarks by saying that on this side of the House, when we see a trade deal, as we have, that doesn’t entrench investor rights over the rights of Canadians and British Columbians, we will and have supported it. When we see a trade deal with flaws that undercut the sovereignty of Canada and British Columbians, we demand that it be debated, demand that it be exposed to public scrutiny, demand that British Columbians and Canadians have an opportunity to make it better in our interest, and that is clearly not what this government is interested in.

I take my place.

[1150]

Hon. S. Anton: I am so pleased and proud to be on this side of the House with a government that believes in trade, with a government that believes in prosperity for British Columbians and with a government that believes in taking a stand on issues.

We could be a government that chooses something like the Leap Manifesto, which crushes the dreams of resource workers across the country. We could be a government that chooses “no” on things. No to this. No to that. No to all the list of things that various members of this House like to talk about over the days and years. No on everything.

We could be a government that chooses to flip-flop: “Yes to LNG. Oh, no. Oh, maybe. Oh, no. Yes, no. Yes, no.” What is it? We’re not a government that does that. We are a government that believes in taking a stand. We ran in the last election — yes, we did — on liquefied natural gas, and we are a government that continues to believe in liquefied natural gas and works hard on that. You know what our position is, and the citizens of British Columbia know what our position is.

We’re a government that supports the Site C dam. What does the other side of the House say? “Send it off to some non-elected group so that they can make a decision.” What are we elected for? We are elected to make decisions. We’re not elected to send things off to other entities to make decisions.

We are a government that believes in trade. That’s why we believe in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That’s why we believe in trade agreements. Because they contribute to the prosperity of British Columbians.

We have a balanced budget, as the members opposite may possibly know. We’re coming into reporting on
[ Page 12227 ]
our third surplus in a row. We’ve got the highest rate of growth in Canada. We’ve got the greatest rate of growth in jobs. We do this so that we can continually improve our social programs, so that we can improve our education in British Columbia and so that our families can prosper. That’s what we stand for on this side of the House.

British Columbia has a big geography, a small population and big goals. Being open and receptive and eager for trade with our trading partners — in this case, trading partners around the Pacific — is what we stand for. That is what brings us prosperity in British Columbia.

Thank goodness there’s a government where people know what the government stands for, as opposed to those on the other side of the House, who change their minds every five minutes. Our government stands for prosperity for our citizens, for our businesses and for our province.

With that, I call for the vote on the motion.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

[1155-1200]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is Motion 11.

Motion approved on the following division:

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, 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 12:02 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:02 a.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $25,912,000 (continued).

N. Macdonald: Since last year’s estimates, we have the investigation report of the chief inspector of mines. It was released November 30, 2015. It’s a report on the failure of the dam enclosing the tailings storage facility at Mount Polley mine, which — as everyone, I think, knows — is a copper-gold mine near Likely, B.C. Over the 16-hour period, between 21 million and 25 million cubic metres of mine waste and water poured down into Polley Lake, then backed up on itself down Hazeltine into a pristine lake, Quesnel Lake.

Now, the mine inspector report says that a tailings beach was supposed to be maintained at all times. I don’t think this is new. We spent a lot of time in estimates last year because it was identified with the expert panel. That was on page 3 of this report. On page 5, the report highlights surplus water — in this case, ten million cubic metres of water in a facility not built as a water dam. That’s not new. On page 6, the chief mine inspector talks about the unstable glaciolacustrine layer as well as oversteepened downstream slope of the dam.

I don’t think anything in there is new. I will say that, just with the expert panel’s report and this report, my job is to look at it with a skeptical view, and I did. I saw nothing but very, very good work. I think there’s no question that it is comprehensive and detailed work.

[1105]

What is new here is something that I didn’t see very much in the expert panel report but that, I think it’s fair to say, the mine inspector focused on more. It was the excavation at the toe in the area that had a collapse. That is something that the mine inspector says affected the factor of safety of the slope. So this is already a precarious slope, and we have activity there.

I want to ask a question about that. We have very limited time, and I will get to that in a few minutes. But I want to focus on finding 12 on page 7 of the Mount Polley Mining Corp. It says Mount Polley Mining Corp. has a responsibility “to maintain a safe structure,” and Mount Polley corporation did not meet that responsibility.

Given that conclusion — this is the first thing that puzzled me at the time, and still I don’t understand — why is it that the Ministry of Mines made no attempt to lay charges under the Mines Act? Why was a report not even forwarded to Crown counsel? That’s what I understood, from the report, has taken place. If that is the case, why was there no attempt to lay charges here and have somebody responsible for what is clearly a failure?

Hon. B. Bennett: This is my first opportunity in these estimates to just provide some context for the particular question asked and basically all of the other questions that will be asked about what happened at Mount Polley.

When you read the independent panel report that was done by the three geotechnical experts, when you read the chief inspector of mines’ report, it’s pretty obvious that there were some practices on that minesite that were not what you’d characterize as best practices. The independent report and the chief inspector of mines’ report identify one of the factors that the member just mentioned, I think — beaches. The beaches are, of course, inside the tailings storage facility.

Dry land up against the edge of the dam that prevents the water from going up against the edge of the dam; abutments on the outside of the dam, which is usually rock placed at the toe of the dam that decreases the slope and increases the factor of safety; and then the slope itself, the steepness of the bank — these three factors are mentioned in the independent report. They’re mentioned a lot in the chief inspector of mines’ report.

The issue for the chief inspector of mines and his investigative staff is one that is very much dependent on what the engineers have said is appropriate. If an engineer who is responsible for that dam states that the factor of safety is appropriate, that the dam is substantially in conformance with the design that was approved, then the inspectors can make suggestions around best practices, which they did in this case. But, again, if the engineer has signed off on a particular lift, the particular implementation of a design, then the chief mines inspector is essentially relying on that engineer in terms of that engineer’s opinion.

A couple of points that are important that I think deserve to be on the public record…. That reliance on engineers is substantially the same today as it was 25 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago. It has not really changed much in the last 50 years. That’s not true of the forest industry. There were a lot of changes around professional reliance in the forest industry. Not nearly as much…. In fact, I wouldn’t say none, but very few changes in terms of the reliance on engineers in the mining industry and in the Mines Ministry. It’s pretty much the same as it was, or very close to.

[1110]

What you end up with is an engineer of record who signs off on the design of the lift of the dam. That means that that engineer is satisfied with the factor of safety that’s built into the design and is satisfied with the actual implementation by the company.

Then you switch over to something that’s known as best practices. All mines are supposed to be employing best practices that they get from the Canadian Dam Association, that they get from the Canadian association of mining and that they get from the Professional Association of Engineers and Geoscientists.

I’ve said this before, and it’s worth saying again. I think that, ultimately, litigation will determine whether this is correct or not, but it appears that although the lifts were signed off by engineers, there were practices on the site that did not contravene or constitute a clear contravention of the Mines Act or the code but were less than best practices. Our response to that, in the review of the code that’s going on today, is to identify where those best practices were perhaps not adhered to by the company and to prescribe those into the code so that we are sure that this sort of thing doesn’t happen again.

That’s the long way around to the answer to the member. The chief inspector of mines has to have a clear contravention of some part of the code before he can recommend charges. Now, he doesn’t do this in a case like this that’s so important to the province and to the people of the province without first talking to the Justice Ministry. He and his staff worked fairly closely with the Justice Ministry, and had there been an opportunity to put this in front of a prosecutor, I can assure the member that it would have been put in front of a prosecutor.

The last thing I would say is that I think one of the things that’s happened around the Mount Polley case is that the lines have been blurred a little bit between what MEM is responsible for through its legislation and what the Ministry of Environment is responsible for through its legislation.

I’m certainly not suggesting that MEM is not responsible for escapes of deleterious substances, contaminated water and tailings into the natural environment. We are. But the Ministry of Environment has legislation that goes to negative impact on the environment in a far more comprehensive and concise way than our legislation does, which deals with health and safety and geotechnical standards.
[ Page 12229 ]

I just would remind the member that although no charges were laid as a result of the chief inspector of mines’ report, the Ministry of Environment is doing its report. At some point, when they are satisfied that they have done everything they need to do, they will announce whether there are charges under the environmental legislation or not.

N. Macdonald: I know that there’s an investigation going on. I know that the profession is looking at what’s going on, but so far, a year later — I was asked to wait on this, and I’ve waited patiently — you have the sense that nothing has happened, and I think the public has that sense too.

It is the biggest structural failure in B.C. mining history. It’s a structural failure that was not an accident. It was not an accident. It was a predictable outcome of what people in the employ of Mount Polley Mining were doing at Mount Polley. It was predictable. They were playing, in their own words, in the “danger zone,” right? They were playing in the danger zone. The expert panel says that clearly. So far, no person or group is held accountable. It’s not the head of government. It’s not the minister. It’s not the company. It’s not professional engineers. Nobody is held accountable.

So how does professional reliance work? I mean, that’s the question that most would ask. The ministry is blind, to a disturbing degree, to what actually happens on sites and certainly blind to what was going on at Mount Polley. The minister acknowledges that. We didn’t even have staff that would be able to look at these things. We didn’t have the geotechnical staff that we should have had for a period of time.

[1115]

When asked about the fact that in May of 2014, the dam that eventually failed mere weeks later nearly overtopped, the minister’s defence…. I believe him. He said he didn’t know. The ministry didn’t know.

Last year in estimates, as well as in question period, I read an email exchange between two engineers working at Mount Polley, and this is what Andrew Witte, this professional engineer, wrote to his colleague Dmitri Ostritchenko. This is what they are saying just prior to the failure.

“If they are not removing water, then they’re operating in direct contravention of the EPP that the ministry expects. That’s a dangerous game to play, and we need to make sure that our” — in this case, to paraphrase — “butts are covered by telling them to pump water out of the tailings storage facility. We cannot blankly support the ‘keep operating in the danger zone’ attitude. Remember, if they lose the dam, then they can’t operate the mines anyway.”

Those are the two people responsible as engineers, as professionals, talking about how they’re operating that facility. It’s appalling. Actually, both reports are appalling. The minister agreed with me. He said he was extremely shocked and disappointed, and we share that view. But a year later, it’s not clear that anything has changed.

The premise of professional reliance is that there are real consequences for failure — if these professionals and the companies who employ them are doing something that’s wrong, which we all agree they were. But there are no consequences. None at all. There have never, in the term of this government — to be fair, in previous governments — been charges under the Mines Act — never. It has never happened.

“These Mount Polley employees should have told the regulator.” That is what the minister said. “It is shocking and disappointing they did not.” That’s what the minister said. But the end result is that there is no penalty from this ministry. Why should the minister expect any mining company in the future to tell the regulator about a problem when there is no consequence if they don’t?

It is possible that the minister, with the code review, has tools that are different than the ones I’ve seen, but what assurance can the minister give that something has changed? It’s not, in any way, evident to me.

I’ll just put the context again to the minister. I was the Forest critic with Burns Lake. We were fair and waited, and we had another explosion. There are these facilities all over the place, in the minister’s own riding. He will know it better than me. There are people that live beneath these facilities. They have no way of judging. They depend upon us to make sure that there is not another failure.

So far, I can’t see how you make sure that the people that are supposed to be following rules and letting government know…. How does it work? It doesn’t seem obvious to me.

There’s a lot there, and I know it’s mainly rhetorical, but the minister understands what I’m saying, and I look forward to his answer.

Hon. B. Bennett: A lot of what the member says about the danger, the risk to public safety and the risk to the environment — I couldn’t agree with him more. I mean, what happened at Mount Polley is not acceptable. It’s not acceptable to government. It’s not acceptable to the public. It’s certainly not acceptable to First Nations people who live in the area.

It is also important for me to say, however, that it’s not acceptable to the mining industry, either. We’re changing our rules, and I’ll tell the member about that a bit more in a second. Before I do, I do want to make the point about how important it is to the mining industry that this sort of thing doesn’t ever happen again. It can’t happen.

The mining industry in Canada will not survive more Mount Polleys. They will not survive. They will be shut down by the public if this sort of thing happens on any kind of, even periodic, basis. The member is correct to point out that the risk is profound, and the need to take steps to reduce that risk is also profound.
[ Page 12230 ]

The member suggested that nothing has happened. Maybe what he meant was that no charges have been laid yet. That’s true, but a lot has been done. I would just remind the member, for example, that most recently we changed our legislation to enable administrative penalties.

[1120]

I think it’s legitimate criticism of the ministry and of government that we have not had the capacity for administrative penalties in the field of mining until now. Our enforcement process, I think, could be described as somewhat cumbersome. You issue orders; they comply. If you issue orders and they don’t comply, then you have to find ways to get them to comply. Ultimately, your options are take them to court — which, as everyone knows, is not that practical, in most cases, and takes a long time and costs lots of money — or shut them down.

We have shut a couple of mines down. I know that since I was appointed three years ago, we shut the Bralorne mine down, and we shut Banks Island down. So we do it. We do shut mines down. But that’s, as I said a second ago, a blunt instrument — not very flexible, not very nimble.

Now we have administrative penalties. When you see a practice that’s happening on the minesite, even if you have an engineer who has signed off on a particular design for a lift and the construction of that design, you’ll be able to issue an administrative fine immediately, right on the spot, or do a warning first to fix it — 24 hours, a week, however long the inspector thinks it should reasonably take to get into conformance — and then fine them. That will, I think, be an important tool going forward.

I don’t want to take up a whole bunch of the member’s time, but if you go back to the Mount Polley accident, within a very short period of time we had ordered mines in the province — every single mining company that has a tailings storage facility — to expedite their annual dam safety inspection, do it within a very short period of time, and then to hire an independent engineering firm to oversee that annual dam safety inspection. We then ordered every single mining company that has a TSF to investigate the soils around their TSF to determine whether they had the kinds of soils that exist at the Mount Polley dam. Then if they do, are they satisfied that the design of their TSF and the dam is such that we don’t have to worry about the presence of those kinds of soils that have the potential to be unstable?

We also announced that we were going to require companies with significant TSFs, which is pretty much all the major mines in the province, to establish an independent engineering panel that would oversee the engineer of record on that minesite.

We’ve also changed the environmental assessment process in significant ways, to require companies to show the environmental assessment office and my ministry that not only have they chosen a model for tailings management and storage, but they have looked seriously and figured out what the absolute best way to manage those tailings would be on that particular site given the climate, given the soils, given the location, given whether it’s acid rock or not — all those kinds of things. We did that before. We’ve put a lot more focus on that and are requiring companies to do a lot more work on that.

Those are some of the things that we have done in response to Mount Polley, and there’s a lot more to come. So it’s certainly not accurate to suggest that nothing has been done, but it is accurate to say that a lot needs to be done so that it never happens again. On that point, I absolutely agree with the member.

N. Macdonald: Of course, companies have an interest and the mining industry has an interest in things run well, but companies can only look after their own area.

Imperial actually has a good reputation. They have a very good reputation. This is not a rogue company. But companies are under pressure.

It is only the government that can look after the public interest. That is the only group that is there for us, right? There are other pressures on industry, on all the other groups at the table. It is only government that is there for us, and there has to be accountability.

[1125]

It is one of the reasons that, when it happened, I asked for the minister’s resignation — not because I actually thought that he was responsible or that he didn’t know the file. It’s just the accountability, so that whenever he goes into a meeting, that person responsible for the file — fair or not — takes the hit. That was the reason for it. With this, too, there has to be somebody that’s accountable.

We have engineers. It may turn out that, in the process, these professionals will be held accountable in some way. So far, we have people that are playing in the danger zone, and we don’t know if it’s still happening in other locations. We actually do not know.

Here’s another question, something that stuck out. On page 138 of the expert panel report, it says clearly that if a buttress that was planned to sit at the base of the dam that breached had been in place, it would have prevented the slip at the base. They also noted that the over-steepened embankment of the dam was a factor.

What I don’t understand — maybe the minister can explain to me the difference; maybe the chief mines inspector can explain to me the difference — is that the expert panel did not highlight, to any great extent, the excavation at the base of the dam where it collapsed.

In the mines inspector’s report, we are told that there was an excavation at the base of the dam where it failed. The excavation was up to three metres down. It was 20 metres wide. It seems significant to me, and clearly, it was significant to the chief mines inspector.

Just for the minister, I don’t want to argue the point about what the cause was or anything like this. My question is more to the point that the chief mines inspector
[ Page 12231 ]
made. On page 87, he indicated that that work was done without proper engineering. I just need to be corrected if that’s wrong.

My understanding, on page 87, is that work done at the base was not done with proper engineering. It was, in fact, not permitted. It was, in fact, not documented. The chief mines inspector had to look at pictures to get a sense of where that work actually was. Now, when I went to the site…. Imperial was very good about taking me on the site right away. Anecdotally, people were talking about the work that was done there.

My question is this. If they are doing these things — they aren’t asking, they aren’t documenting, they’re not engineering, and there are no consequences — why would a company not do the same thing again? From the perspective of the only group that can actually protect the public interest, how do you know that another company wouldn’t do exactly the same thing? They’re not telling you. They’re not following the rules. They’re not engineering it. They’re digging at the bottom of a slope that actually slipped and collapsed, disturbing the factor of safety.

What has changed in the year and a bit since this has taken place that would actually prevent a company or dissuade them from doing exactly the same thing?

Hon. B. Bennett: What the member is asking about is the area of the perimeter embankment. This is a rectangular TSF, and the embankment that failed is the perimeter embankment.

Most of the independent panelists report and a lot of the chief inspector of mines report deals with the main embankment. Any expert…. Had you asked them two years ago if they had any concerns at all, it would have been the main embankment, not the perimeter embankment that failed.

In any case, the member is asking about the outside of the embankment, down at the foot, and why the company would have excavated there, and why we didn’t know about it.

N. Macdonald: That’s where it failed.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member points out that’s where it failed. That’s correct.

The company was asked to start constructing abutments on the main embankment and the perimeter embankment. When you construct an abutment, you first excavate and get all of the soils out of the way and try to get down to bedrock. Then you put your rock on top of the bedrock. So the excavation was generally in conformance with what the company had been asked to do.

[1130]

The ministry didn’t know. That’s true. Neither did their own engineers, both of which are a problem. The member…. I mean, I don’t disagree with him. That’s a problem — that the engineer of record didn’t know that excavation had taken place and that the company didn’t tell us either. The company, as I understand it — I’m advised, anyway — intended to start placing rock on that excavation. The snow flew. They just didn’t get to it before winter, and there it was the next summer.

The member is correct. That is roughly where the embankment — I’m trying to think of the right word — collapsed. When the chief inspector of mines discovered this…. And it was interesting that it was the chief inspector of mines that discovered this. The independent panel did not discover this. The chief inspector of mines examined 100,000 different documents in his examination of what happened there, and he did discover it and should be, I think, recognized for that.

He then had to determine…. Okay, so there was this excavation at the foot of the perimeter embankment. That’s where the collapse happened. How much of an influence over the ultimate collapse was that excavation? The chief inspector of mines and the geotechnical staff figured that it made about a 5 percent difference to the factor of safety at that embankment.

Would the mine have collapsed without the GLU? No, it wouldn’t have. The independent panel has said that. The chief inspector of mines has said that. Anybody with geotechnical experience who has looked at this — and this has now been studied by mining schools around the world, as I understand it, anyway — would say that the cause of the accident was the unknown glaciolacustrine layer under the perimeter embankment, which was missed when the mine was originally designed.

So yes, this was a problem. This was a fault. This was a mistake by the mining company. But it did not cause the collapse.

Where that takes me as the minister is…. Okay, this is another one of those examples of a bad practice. If you add up bad practices, and there are enough of them, and the engineers have done their calculation on what is an appropriate factor of safety…. Which they did in this case. Their opinion was that the factor of safety on the perimeter embankment was fine. It was safe. It was not going to collapse.

But what if there’s something that they don’t know about — which is the case here — like the GLU? They had a fairly narrow margin of risk in this case, because the bank was steep. There was a lot of water in the TSF. So there was a narrower margin of risk, even though engineers were quite certain and remain certain that if you set aside the GLU that nobody knew about, the factor of safety was acceptable. My layman’s approach to this and how I talk about it with my staff — and they understand this stuff way better than I do — is to talk in terms of that margin of risk.

You could have an unknown in this type of work. You could have an engineer make a mistake at some point. You could have a person on a mine site make a mistake
[ Page 12232 ]
at some point. Yes, we need to continue to accept the opinion of professional engineers in terms of what is an appropriate factor of safety. But I think what we have to do is we have to take that margin of risk and we have to make it a lot wider.

I think we do that by prescribing more in the Mines Act. We’re doing that. The member will see that in the not too distant future. And we have to make sure that the relationship between the engineer of record on the mine site and the inspection staff is such that what happened with that excavation just simply can’t happen. It’s partly to do with, I think, the powers that the inspection staff have. Their powers, I think, need to be increased and will be increased.

[1135]

It is also, in part, an issue that the member has raised on multiple occasions. I raised it myself in 2010. The resources in the ministry, the fact that there were years when we didn’t have a geotechnical manager, a geotechnical managing engineer on the staff of MEM — that’s just not acceptable, and it cannot happen again.

When you combine these things that I just talked about, there are rational responses to what happened and rational ways in which we can expand that margin of risk so that if there is this unknown factor that nobody is aware of, it’s still going to be okay. That mine got to the point where it was safe but not when there was something, a major factor, there that nobody knew about. That’s what we have to change.

N. Macdonald: To be clear, with the factor of safety, the engineers didn’t even have a chance to have a say on that. This is just going in and doing work. We had workers below where that 24 million cubic metres came out, digging around. They do not have instructions from the engineers. Government does not know about it.

I commend the chief mine inspector too. My understanding from reading it is that he looked at pictures and figured out exactly where it was. I heard anecdotally that they were digging around below there, but the chief mine inspector sleuthed out exactly what was going on. That’s the disturbing part. There is a lack of respect or fear that anything is going to happen from the ministry, in that they don’t bother to tell you. They don’t bother to engineer it. They dig around.

Now, it might not have been the cause. I accept the work of the expert panel that it was the slippage on that. But there are all sorts of practices here that are exposed. If that’s happening everywhere, then it’s hugely disturbing.

For me, I think I mentioned to the minister that when we first heard there was a failure, the person I talked to in Quesnel said: “Is it Gibraltar?” So it’s not as if this was identified necessarily as the mine with the most dangerous practices. There are concerns all over the place.

Here’s another example from the chief mine inspector’s report. It talks about the requirement to keep freeboard at 1.4 metres, so it nearly overtopped. It is requirement, absolute requirement that it not go to any higher than 1.4 metres. It almost overtopped. Now, we talked about that last estimates. What is new in the report is this, that the information that the mine gave to your ministry was that there was a freeboard of 0.7 metres.

That’s the information they provided to you, and what the chief mine inspector says is that that is impossible. If you look at the rain and all of the other factors that could bring the water up to where it’s overtopping in that day or two from when you reported the 0.7 metres, it’s impossible. That means that the information given to this ministry was falsified. It was not true.

Critical information where, however you describe overtopping…. I think that the minister corrected me. It’s not as if it was lapping over the top. Overtopping means something slightly different than that, right? When I first heard overtopping…. You have images of the water gushing over, and of course, it’s something slightly different than that.

But it’s disturbing, and it’s against the rules. When asked about what the state of water was in Mount Polley, instead of saying honestly, “Well, we’re almost overtopping,” the ministry gave incorrect information. The point I have is again like the last one. If there is no penalty, if there is no punishment for that, why would it not happen again and again and again?

There’s an economic pressure that the expert panel talks about to do these things. Dealing with water is expensive. All of these things companies have pressure to do. The only thing that stops them is fear of regulatory oversight.

That’s my question. Doesn’t it speak to a lack of rigour or a lack of intent to regulate when that is not punished?

[1140]

Hon. B. Bennett: Frankly, it’s a good line of questioning, because it goes to one of the many practices at that minesite that are concerning.

With respect to the overtopping in May of 2014, the member had said earlier, I think, that we didn’t know about it. We actually were told about it and were there with a helicopter the next day. I’m sure that must be on the record from last year’s estimates. Of course, inspectors were there and determined that the situation was safe — and it was, at that point. Nobody, of course, knew about the unknown GLU below the perimeter embankment.

To the member’s point about a company that just decides they’re not going to say anything about a near miss like that: it’s not acceptable. The member is absolutely correct. The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists are doing their own investigation. We shouldn’t forget about them, because they’re not incidental to this process and how we oversee mining in this province.
[ Page 12233 ]
They’re fundamental to how we oversee mining in this province.

The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. has a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that their members are acting in the best interests of the public. It’s a fundamental requirement of their members.

My comment relates both to this situation, where there was an overtopping and presumably…. I don’t want to guess whether engineers knew about it or not, but certainly some people at the company must have known about it, did know about it. Also, the emails that the member read out from a while ago between those two engineers — of course, we didn’t know about those emails until after the accident happened.

I’m not going to speak specifically to those engineers or any particular company. Engineers have a legal and ethical responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the public. If they see something that they think should be reported to the province, they have an ethical, legal obligation to do that. Time will tell.

The member says nothing has happened. A lot of stuff is going to happen. Over the next few years, there’s going to be lots of litigation, and this will all be sorted out at some point. But what I can say for now is that the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists is doing an investigation into Mount Polley to see whether their members acted appropriately or not, so we’ll figure that out.

I think I’ve answered the question. I think that’s probably enough. I’ll sit down and let the member ask another one.

The Chair: Member, before you begin your question, I just ask you to note the clock. This will be, potentially, the last question and answer in the session.

N. Macdonald: Okay. A couple of questions. First, there are two investigations that are going on. The conservation service — I have confidence that it’ll be an investigation that will be done properly by the civil servants that are there. I do have confidence in that. I have spoken to the professional association. I know that there’s an investigation there, and I have confidence in that. So there are things that are in the works.

The administrative penalties, I think, could be useful. As I pointed out to the minister when we looked at that bill, when you look at how it’s been used in other ministries, it’s been used very sparingly. Ninety percent of the penalties are under $500 and deal with campfires and things like that. So it would have to be a tool that is applied rigorously.

I know that the code is going on. As it stands, there is no longer, in perpetuity, 24 million cubic metres of mine tailings and wastewater that is the responsibility of Mount Polley Mining Corp. They’re not responsible for it. It’s in Quesnel Lake. It’s not their problem.

Instead of building the TSF, the tailings storage facility, higher and higher at tremendous cost, they’re actually applying a patch. They will have a huge facility that will be available to them to continue mining. So it is unclear how the company has been punished in any meaningful way for what is clearly a failure. Maybe it shouldn’t be them. Maybe it should be somebody else. But there is no accountability.

[1145]

There are two things that I’m interested in. I know there’s an investigation that is ongoing. There were, I think, about 100 papers that the expert panel said they thought should released at the same time that other papers were released.

Can they be released now that the chief mines inspector has finished his report, or is that being held for the conservation officer service? That’s the one question I have.

Then the second one is this. I look at the work that is being done by the Auditor General. I just see the list here. I see list No. 8. My understanding is that the Auditor General is doing an investigation of mine sector compliance and enforcement. My understanding is that the ministry has that and has responded. I’m just wondering when it’s going to be released. I think it’ll be an important document. I understand you’ve had it for a while. When are we going to see it?

That would be the two questions that I’ve put into one. Maybe we’ll get another question or maybe not, but we might as well get our full money’s worth here. We’ll see how we go with that.

Hon. B. Bennett: I guess, in reverse order. I don’t know when the Auditor General will decide to release their report. I understand it’s soon — soon as in the rough estimate is the next couple of months, I think. Nothing to do with me. It’s up to the Auditor General.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is asking me if the ministry has it. I guess he means the report. I’d love to answer the member. I really would. I’d love to answer the member, but I don’t think I should. It’s not respectful of the Auditor General’s process. But the report is coming.

The member is…. Again, there’s a theme here. “Oh boy, Mount Polley happened. Nobody is getting punished, and nothing is happening.” Again, it’s not true. Mount Polley did happen, and I’ve already talked about what our ministry is doing — and, to some limited extent, the Ministry of Environment — to change policy and to change regulations in response to what we’ve learned.

In addition to that, the member stated that the effluent that flowed into Quesnel Lake…. He’s correct about that. A beautiful, beautiful lake. Beautiful place. Horrible circumstances. But to suggest that the company is free and clear of what happened is inaccurate. The conservation
[ Page 12234 ]
officer service is doing its investigation under the terms of its legislation, and its legislation is pretty clear about damage to the environment. Let’s wait for them to decide who’s responsible for what.

I think it’s very much premature to say that the company is out of the woods with respect to what happened at Mount Polley and the impact on the natural environment. I also will reiterate my belief that there will be copious litigation going in every which direction over the next number of years around who was responsible for what and who’s going to pay.

Of course, in the meantime, Imperial Metals has spent — I don’t have today’s number or even this month’s number — somewhere between $70 million and $100 million to restore the creek and do as much as they can around the lake at this point in time. The company has paid in other ways.

[1150]

The accident happened on their minesite so, I guess, no particular sympathy from probably anybody. The company has a hard time raising money and has spent $70 million to $100 million. So to say that nothing has happened to them wouldn’t quite be accurate.

I want to also say that as the company works with government on the permits, they need to, first of all, repair the TSF; secondly, start to operate again by using the springer pit for their tailings; and, thirdly, get permits, if they’re fortunate enough to get those permits, to operate full-time in the future, which would include discharging potable water, water that meets the federal drinking water guidelines and also meets Ministry of Environment standards for aquatic organisms.

If they get those permits…. They will only get those permits after considerable time and effort by both my ministry and the Ministry of Environment and by federal Fisheries. The whole process has been extremely diligent. The two First Nations who reside closest to Mount Polley have been involved in the permitting process from day one. We’ve made sure that they have an opportunity to know what’s happening and to actually be involved in the discussion around new permits or extensions of permits at Mount Polley.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise….

The Chair: Minister, could we say that we hear no further questions, and I do call Vote 20, which now goes to you?

Interjection.

The Chair: I call the question?

I’m messing this up badly, Minister.

Hearing no further questions, I will now call Vote 20.

Vote 20: ministry operations, $25,912,000 — approved.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, and I mean that sincerely, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

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