Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call estimates for the Ministry of Energy. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of Environment. Once those are completed, it will be followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

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

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

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

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

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

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Chair, for this opportunity. I would like to thank the minister and congratulate her on her new appointment. I would like to thank the staff on both sides. It’s a lot of resources here, and it takes a lot of coordinated effort and time to do what we’re doing here today, so I appreciate all that.

[2:55 p.m.]

First of all, a bit of a disclaimer. My scruffy appearance is in no way a sign of disrespect to the House. It’s my sad attempt to bring awareness to prostate cancer — Movember. It actually might be appropriate, because I maybe look like a mining prospector from the late 1900s.

I know time is valuable. We’ve been allotted about 10½ hours for this. I was thinking of doing about three hours here with mining, another three hours with oil and gas, and then we’ll finish off tomorrow with the B.C. Hydro file, with about four hours. I’ll also be bringing in a few colleagues intermittently throughout the estimates. They’ll have some questions pertaining to their ridings.

I’m very honoured, once again, to be looking after this file. It’s a huge driver to our economy — energy and mines. Mining obviously builds communities, and my region of Kootenay East is no different. The minister herself represents a region that was built on mining: Silver King, in Nelson, and all around Kootenay Lake — communities that have been built on mining.

Up north, where some communities have some of the highest unemployment in the province, they’re getting a boost to mining right now. They’re getting employment fulfilled, and they’re getting skills training that’s necessary in these communities. Some of the communities have high double-digit unemployment rates — 30, 40, 50 percent. Actually, in some cases, some of these First Nations communities have 80 percent unemployment. But I’m happy to say that mining is there to give them a new lease on life, so to speak, and give training where the training is required.

I guess that’s probably a good place to start. We’ll start with the mandate letter. To get a flavour of which way this ministry is going to promote mining in the province, let’s start with the Premier’s message and mandate letter: “…to make life more affordable” and build a strong, stable economy and “ensure that people from every background have the opportunity to reach their full potential.”

In my preamble, I alluded to some of these communities — high unemployment, low skill levels — that are being revitalized with the mining industry. I guess the first question would be: what can the minister do to keep these vulnerable people employed in the short term?

Hon. M. Mungall: We are just getting settled in over on our side here. While we do that, I first want to acknowledge the people who are with me in the room right now. We have the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Dave Nikolejsin. We have Wes Boyd, who I know has an official title, probably more official than what I’m about to give him right now, which is all things finances.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mungall: Assistant deputy minister of numerous natural resource ministries. That’s why I just shortened it up to all things finances. We also have Peter Robb here, who’s the assistant deputy minister responsible for mining.

I also want to take this opportunity to just offer a few opening words as well and start by thanking the many people who have stepped forward over the last few months to provide me and this ministry with support. We have Melissa Sanderson and James McNish, who are my two ministerial assistants. They are absolutely stellar and doing a fantastic job.

We have Lucy Hansen, who is my administrative coordinator. My executive assistant is Robert Hill, who recently started his position out of my Nelson community office in, oh my goodness, mid September. So it’s been a month already. We also have a lovely young woman who anybody will see when they walk into the office. Her name is Samantha, and she’s a fabulous young woman who’s just getting started here, working with government. I’m sure she’s going to be going very far.

Over the course of the next couple of days, we’ll see other ministry staff move in and out so that we can best answer the member opposite’s and his colleagues’ questions.

I also want to say that I take my mandate letter very seriously, and I’m very excited to be moving ahead on many of the programs. The one that I will highlight in reference to the member opposite’s question is actually the mining jobs task force. As we know, we don’t need to just create good, family-supporting jobs in industries all across this province; we need to make sure that we’re keeping those jobs.

[3:00 p.m.]

The mining sector, as the member noted, is subject to the rise and fall of commodity pricing and, therefore, is subject to their ability to invest in British Columbia based on that commodity pricing. We want to make sure that we’re creating sustainability with the jobs that they are able to develop and already have.

The member comes from Kootenay East. I’ve already been in his part of the world, not just as his neighbour MLA but as the minister, recently touring the Line Creek operations up in the Elk Valley. Teck alone employs roughly about 4,000 people in British Columbia alone. When you just think of those types of job numbers and how important they are to B.C…. And that’s just one company out of the many companies that are involved with the mining sector here in British Columbia, one of the oldest sectors, in fact.

I know that I could take up a lot of time talking about how long the mining sector has been here and my own personal ancestral relationship with the mining sector in this province. I think the member might have actually mentioned North Star silver mine. The prospector who struck the first claim for that mine was my ancestor.

These jobs are very, very important — always have been and always will be — to British Columbia. So we want to hunker down, sharpen our pencils and make sure that we are retaining those jobs, not just creating them. That’s exactly why we’re going to be pulling a task force together to do just that, looking at a variety of issues. I already mentioned commodity pricing but also environmental sustainability.

We know what happened with the Mount Polley mine, for example, where the breach of the dam caused incredible environmental damage. Had we done a better job of ensuring that we had compliance and enforcement, would that even have happened? When it did, of course, it put a lot of jobs at risk.

That’s one of the other items that he will see in my mandate letter — specifically, in terms of ensuring that we have an independent body that is enhancing our compliance and enforcement component of this ministry, of mining. We are ensuring that we have enough boots on the ground — maybe that’s the best way to say it — doing that compliance and enforcement. We are working with industries so that they are getting the supports that they need so that the communities and First Nations are also getting the supports that they need so that we can keep those jobs well, well into the future.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for the response. You mentioned the task force. Yes, we need to make sure everything is balanced, and we need to make sure processes are followed and compliance and enforcement is in place. I think that’s what we have been doing.

However, does the minister anticipate any interruption to jobs while this review or this task force is being created? Any interruption of jobs, obviously, is detrimental to people that work in those industries. Their families are affected. Lots of people are negatively affected financially by interruptions to their work. So does the minister anticipate any interruptions to the jobs while they go through this task force review?

Hon. M. Mungall: A mining jobs task force would have absolutely no decision-making power over whether an industry, a company, might have to shut down for whatever reason while we are doing our due diligence and our work. I hope that commodity prices continue to do well and that that has a positive influence, just as it’s doing right now.

[3:05 p.m.]

For example, we have two new mine restarts here on Vancouver Island. Myra Falls and Quinsam coal are just restarting right now because commodity prices are working in their favour. As we know, here in British Columbia, we are mining for metallurgical coal, which builds the steel that you might find in your stainless steel pots and pans or your stainless steel appliances or the windmills that fire up a lot of energy all around the world in terms of wind farms. That’s the type of mining that’s going on for coal here in British Columbia.

To the member’s question: do we anticipate any job loss during the time that this task force is operating? That, again, would not be something that government can directly influence or not influence. In terms of the commodity pricing, that would be the determining factor for industry.

T. Shypitka: What the minister is saying is that commodity prices would be the only variable that would affect job stalling, job loss or a temporary hiatus of jobs in the province. It’s commodity-based only.

Hon. M. Mungall: I mean, already into this…. I don’t know if the member opposite is trying to say that we’re going to do a jobs task force, and in the meantime, as that jobs task force takes place, there’s going to be all this job loss as a direct result of this government. That’s kind of ridiculous. I hope that’s not what the member opposite is trying to insinuate.

I hope what he’s trying to get at is just some concern in terms of what influences the industry. As I mentioned, commodity pricing is one of those factors. There are a whole host of factors. If he would like to get a whole list of what those all are, he’d be best to talk to, for example, the Mining Association of B.C. or the association of mineral explorers, both of whom I meet with on a regular basis.

T. Shypitka: I have spoken to the MABC. I’ve spoken to the AME as well. I’m just trying to get a flavour here. That’s all I’m trying to do.

The minister is saying that commodity pricing fluctuates. That’s one of the hard things that mining associations go through — commodity prices. It’s an unstable, unknown environment.

What I’m trying to get to here is if that’s what the minister is saying — that commodity prices are the only things that affect jobs here in B.C. in the mining sector. There are compliance and enforcement issues. There are a lot of variables, and there are a lot of processes that the mining industry goes through that can and will affect jobs in this province. That’s all I’m really trying to get to, but I’ll leave that for now.

I’m glad the minister mentioned Teck Coal. I’m very, very proud of Teck Coal. They’re part of my region. They’ve got five of the top nine mines in the province, and they’ve done really good work. I’m glad she went up to Line Creek and checked out the facility up there. She knows the people from Teck Coal now, obviously, which is great.

In those meetings, does the minister recognize that Teck Coal is a responsible corporate citizen in their mining practices?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

T. Shypitka: I just want to get a little bit more narrowed here and maybe ask the minister if she can name the coal and metal mines that opened in B.C. since 2011.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: In terms of the coal mines, there are Brule, and that’s in Tumbler Ridge; Wolverine, also in Tumbler Ridge. Then we have a copper-gold-silver mine in Mount Milligan, copper and gold at Red Chris, and gold and silver at Brucejack. There have been a couple others that have opened, but one is actually closed.

T. Shypitka: New Afton, Red Chris might be some of those as well. I’m glad the minister acknowledged some of those mines. We had a jobs plan in 2011 to open up some mines here in B.C. That’s something we were fairly proud of, as the B.C. Liberals were concerned — having an aggressive benchmark on opening new mines. We set the bar fairly high, and we’re happy with some of these mines that the minister has mentioned.

Speaking to benchmarks and goals, can the minister give me her benchmarks or her goals on how many new mines she would like to see open in her four years of office?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think the member opposite is referring to the previous Liberal government’s jobs plan that saw that government would be opening eight mines. While they achieved that eight, the member opposite should know that several of them — three, actually — closed, as well, under their tenure.

What we have been doing in terms of working with industry and what we want to be able to do with our jobs task force is look at competitiveness so that we’re not just having these numbered targets and saying: “Yay, photo-op. Hey, we look great in front of this picture.” We actually want to have sustainability as part of our overall goal, and the sustainability component is that competitiveness. That’s something this government is very much dedicated to.

[3:15 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: So the minister doesn’t have any goals set for opening new mines. Yes, we did set some aggressive goals, as B.C. Liberals. We had eight. That was our target, eight. We did lose a couple. But I think it’s this type of goal-setting that sets us apart. This is what a responsible, go-getting type attitude is all about.

I’m not sure if the minister knows a person called Benjamin E. Mays. He was an American civil rights leader in the United States in the ’50s and ’60s. He said: “It must be borne in mind that the tragedy of life doesn’t lie in reaching your goals. The tragedy lies in having no goals to reach.”

Although we did not get to the accomplished goal that we had set out, we set goals, nonetheless. I think industry looks to that. I think industry looks to see an aggressive goal stance on how we open new mines, how we do things. They look to government for that leadership. They look to government to see that they’re on side.

Once again, maybe just set a low bar. Set something that is very obtainable. Try not to use any of the ones that we’ve set in progress already. Would the minister please reconsider on maybe setting some sort of goal here on opening new mines?

Hon. M. Mungall: From my conversations with industry, and as I said in my previous response to this member, industry’s focus is not on hard numbers and hard goals.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: I see that there are some members opposite who are quite disappointed in not being involved with those types of meetings with industry anymore. Oh well.

Back to my answer to the member, what industry is telling us is what they want to see is the sustainability. They want to see that if they’re going to open something up, they’re going to be able to stay open. That competitiveness component is what their priority is. They’re not really interested in these hard and fast numbers that previous governments have put forward and then weren’t able to sustainably deliver on, which is exactly what happened under the previous Liberal government.

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

Hon. M. Mungall: The member ought to know that this is currently in a statutory decision-making process. It’s going to be coming to the final statutory decision-makers, which is myself and the Minister of Environment. I believe November 14 is the date. I will be following that process and the law accordingly. That means that I will not be stating a pro or con view of Ajax mine.

T. Shypitka: The minister may be familiar with the Auditor General report on compliance and enforcement activities within the ministry and the Ministry of Environment. It was mentioned in the report: “Legislative framework…that drives compliance and enforcement activities and not the organizational structure.” Does the minister believe this to be true?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s interesting in the big House, doing estimates…. I’m so used to doing it in the little House, where you can actually hear each other so much better. Of course, I’m over here, and you’re way at the other end. So please don’t mind if we ask you to repeat your question, if we need to. But I think we got it.

I’ll just say that of the Auditor General’s recommendations, we’ve accepted all of them. We’re working on delivering on those right now, and you’ll know that in my mandate letter one of the things that we’ve identified specifically is the compliance and enforcement component for the mining section of the ministry. We are also working on that as well.

T. Shypitka: Yeah, we are corner to corner here.

It was mentioned in the report: “It is the legislative framework…that drives compliance and enforcement activities, not the organizational structure.” Does the minister agree with that statement?

Hon. M. Mungall: I believe that what the member opposite is quoting from is actually the ministry’s formal response to the Auditor General’s report, not the actual Auditor General’s report. He’s nodding his head. So that is correct.

On that note, in the Auditor General report, as I mentioned, there were several recommendations. We’ve accepted those recommendations. I think that, going forward, he points out in terms of the legislative response. I agree that there needs to be a legislative response. I also believe that there needs to be an organizational response. That’s why my mandate letter is clear in terms of identifying a way that we can do compliance and enforcement so that it has a greater sense of independence than it does now.

I guess my fulsome answer to the member opposite is that there would be both a legislative and an organizational response to dealing with these issues highlighted by the Auditor General.

T. Shypitka: Thank you for the answer, Minister. Speaking of this separated unit from compliance and enforcement out of the ministry, can the minister describe what C and E will look like — just a brief description — and what it looks like and where it’s going? Is it going to Environment? Is it going to FLNRO? Is it stand-alone? How many employees, maybe? Perhaps what expertise will they have? That kind of thing.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Critically, I didn’t say that it would be out of the ministry. That’s a critical component. What we’re looking at right now are different models around the country, and most other jurisdictions don’t have the people who are permitting also doing compliance and enforcement. That’s what B.C. has had for quite some time, and that’s exactly the issue that we’re trying to deal with — so that the people who are doing the permitting are not the same who are doing the compliance and enforcement.

I guess you could say we want that sober second thought. We want a different set of eyes looking at the compliance and enforcement component. Whether that is independent…. This is not definitive. Don’t run with this. Whether it’s something like the Oil and Gas Commission that is independent as a Crown corporation, arm’s length from government, from the ministry itself, or whether it’s a different unit within the ministry, these are different possibilities that we’re reviewing right now.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister. So nothing definitive yet. It’s being reviewed, I’d imagine, and seeing where this subset of the ministry would go, if it’s going to stay within the ministry or not — maybe somewhat like the Oil and Gas Commission, perhaps. Does the minister have any timelines on when they’ll actually have a decision on what this compliance and enforcement will look like? When will we know?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I mentioned, we’re reviewing this component of ministry activity right now, and we’re reviewing it in detail. We want to make sure that we get this right because, often, when we create these structures, they are the structure that’s in place for quite some time. So we want to make sure that we’re getting it right and that we’re also costing it out. I know that as a B.C. Liberal member, he will appreciate that we always have to make sure that we’re crunching the numbers appropriately. So we want to make sure that we’re costing that out.

We also want to make sure that we’re consulting with the communities and industry who are going to be most impacted. We don’t want to leave people out of these types of decision-making because, at the end of the day, we want this new structure to work, and we want any new legislation to work when it’s on the ground, not just in a theoretical realm. We want it to be practical.

Of course, that consultation is key to ensuring that we’re meeting our goals for competitiveness — that we want to be the top competitive jurisdiction in North America. So we have to bring all of this together and do this review appropriately.

[3:30 p.m.]

I will say, though, that we don’t want to drag our heels as we do it either. We do need to do it expeditiously. We do need to make sure that we are adhering to the recommendations from the Auditor General’s report in a timely manner, not only because that provides certainty and that sustainability that the industry is looking for, but for communities as well.

T. Shypitka: What we don’t know, I guess, obviously…. We don’t know where it’s going. We want to do it expeditiously. So wait and see. But it’s got to be timely. All right.

What we do know, I guess, is that it will be removed from the Energy and Mines Ministry…. Or no, you said you don’t know yet. I’m sorry.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

What we do know is how many inspectors. We’ve got some really smart people on your side there that have seen how many inspectors we’ve had in the past in compliance and enforcement. We must have a roundabout idea of what that subsection of the ministry looks like — compliance and enforcement. How many bodies do we need? What kind of pay grade, as far as how many full-time employees are concerned? A little bit more detail on….

We know it’s going to be isolated from Energy and Mines. It may sit inside it. But it might sit outside it. Whatever it is, there must be an idea of how many full-time employees it will take and more detail on what it looks like. So a little bit more of an idea on that.

Hon. M. Mungall: The very issue that the member highlights is precisely what we’re doing right now. It’s step one. We’re looking at those. So I don’t have some concrete numbers for him this budget cycle, but that’s exactly what we’re looking at.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister. We’ll switch topics a little bit here.

The former government established a working group with the state of Alaska. That was to build trust and understanding between the two territories. A statement of cooperation was signed between the two jurisdictions. It was a bilateral technical working group. It was established to work on water monitoring, environmental assessments and to share information on mining activities — so a very collaborative approach to the two jurisdictions. It was well received, and I think some really good things came out of it.

I guess the first question is: is the ministry now still embracing that ideology about working together with Alaska?

Hon. M. Mungall: That is a very timely question, because I actually met with the Lieutenant-Governor of Alaska this morning on these very issues. Our commitment to be working collaboratively on transboundary issues absolutely remains. It would just be ridiculous to break that strong relationship.

T. Shypitka: Were the deputy ministers there? Was it just the minister herself? What is the minister going to do to advance these negotiations?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’ve moved beyond negotiations. The agreements have been signed, and we are well into implementation phase. That was actually some of the topic of conversation that we had earlier today.

I was in attendance. Obviously, the Lieutenant-Governor was in attendance, and he had several people joining him. I did as well, including my deputy minister here; as well as my assistant deputy minister, Peter Robb, as I already mentioned; as well as a fabulous staff person within my ministry, Kathy Eichenberger, who has been one of the technical people working on this collaboration for quite some time.

[3:35 p.m.]

I would just maybe offer this up to the member as well. The deputies, both on the Alaskan side as well as ours, have regular meetings. Then the assistant deputy ministers provide the technical support and then deliver on the actual technical work that results from those meetings.

T. Shypitka: Thanks, Minister. That’s a very good initiative. I’m glad to see it continue.

We’ll switch into exploration for a bit here. In regards to mining, can the minister tell me if there is any net change to the budget for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources from last year’s budget, as far as exploration is concerned?

Hon. M. Mungall: Clarification: there’s actually, technically, no exploration budget. Is the member opposite referring to the geological survey or to Geoscience B.C. or some of that other information-gathering work?

T. Shypitka: Let’s start with Geoscience B.C. The province provided $7.17 million since 2005. Then more recently there was a $10 million bump and another $5 million for 2017-2018 and I think another one for 2018-2019. Does the minister expect to see this funding going forward past 2018-2019?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m going to do my best to explain what’s gone on with the budgetary cycle for Geoscience B.C. I want to, first, acknowledge that we highly value their work. The more knowledge we have about what’s going on in the ground, the better that we are able to attract industry to ensure that we’re able to extract our resources and build a strong economy as a result.

That said, what Geoscience did is they wanted to have a larger sum up front, so that is what government did in March 2017 — gave them $10 million. Essentially, that $10 million was the $5 million that was allocated in the 2017-18 and the 2018-19 budgets. They got a larger amount of dollars all in one lump sum so that they could do some of the work that they’re looking to do right away.

[3:40 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. I guess the question continues. Does the government, this ministry, plan on continuing this same type of funding for geoscience in the second part of the next term of the minister’s tenure? I guess that would be 2019-2020.

Hon. M. Mungall: I am aware that Geoscience B.C. is looking for sustainable funding. The reason that they’re looking for sustainable funding is that under the previous government, they would basically get year-end funding, so it was never consistent, one year to the next. My understanding is that the previous minister was tasked with finding ways to ensure that they had sustainable funding. Unfortunately, that did not occur.

Going forward, I think this is a worthwhile issue for us to look into, and we’ll be doing that.

T. Shypitka: Geoscience is an amazing sector of the mining industry — no doubt about it. It was explained to me once that the prospectors and the exploration junior mining companies found the needle in the haystack, and it was up to geoscience to find the haystack.

They’re doing it really well with some really cutting-edge technologies. We saw the spectrometer demonstration at UBCM, identifying greenhouse gases in oil lines and pipelines and things like that. Really exciting stuff with geoscience.

If the Chair would allow, I have a colleague of mine that would like to ask a couple of questions.

D. Barnett: I have a couple of questions, as I live in a region that has a bit of controversy. My first question is: will there be any change to the process which mining companies now adhere to, to obtain permits for exploration?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: From a policy perspective internally right now, we are not contemplating any changes to the exploration permits. That being said, I don’t want to preclude any suggestions that may come forward from the mining jobs task force. If something does, we will definitely be considering it, as would be appropriate to do, as it is the mining jobs task force looking to ensure the sustainability of our mining jobs.

D. Barnett: I may have missed it, but who is on your task force?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member may note that there’s been no announcement, that it is merely an item that is in my mandate letter and that I’ve committed to working towards.

D. Barnett: Will the new government be issuing exploration permits to mining companies in the West Chilcotin?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’ll let the member know that it’s actually statutory decision–makers, not the minister, who make decisions on any permits. That process is continuing on as it always has.

T. Shypitka: We’ll go back to geoscience or exploration a little bit. The minister may be aware that when the NDP were last in government, investment in mining crashed in 2001. That was the year they lost 77 of the 79 seats. Only $25 million was invested in mineral exploration in B.C. — $25 million. Today there’s close to ten times that. I believe, actually, that in 2016, it was about $272 million.

So a fairly simple question. What will the minister do to ensure that exploration investment and confidence — which is a big thing — does not plummet like it did in the 1990s?

Hon. M. Mungall: I know that the members opposite do like to talk about the 1990s an awful lot. I was not even allowed to vote for the majority of that decade. I’m no spring chicken anymore, so I think we can move beyond that decade to talk about today.

We are continuing to fund and support the geological survey branch in the ministry. I already talked about looking for Geoscience B.C. in terms of that sustainable funding model that they’ve been requesting for many, many years, that has been promised to them for many, many years but that the previous government failed to deliver on.

I already talked about the mining jobs task force that I’m very much looking forward to.

The member opposite will also take note, in my mandate letter, very, very clearly: “Develop an improved and properly resourced approvals process to assess mining applications and increase industry safety by establishing,” as I mentioned, “an independent oversight unit.”

We want to make sure that we are funding our permitting process sufficiently so we’re able to get these mining permits approved through the appropriate regulatory mechanism in a timely manner so that we can keep things flowing and make sure it’s not government that is holding industry back.

[3:50 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Yeah. Absolutely, we’ve got to move forward. There’s no doubt about it. I was just indicating actual statistics. We want to move forward, the way we have been for the last 16 years.

We talk about the task force. We don’t know who’s on it. We don’t know if compliance and enforcement are going to be in or outside the ministry. We don’t know when it’s going to happen, but it’s got to be timely. It doesn’t seem there are a lot of answers to some of my questions here, but we’ll give you some more time on it.

I think I missed the answer — before I went to the break, there, with my colleague — on geoscience and funding. We’ve indicated that there was a $10 million bump. It was to be split up over the two years, like you said.

Is there an actual, firm commitment to keep that funding in place? You have just stated that we have to move forward, and we have to fund, and we have to make things right. Is there a firm commitment on funding geoscience in the future?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re 110 days in. The idea that we’d have everything done from a platform is kind of silly. I mean, they had 16 years to deliver on at least four platforms. As I mentioned already, around geoscience, it was a promise by a previous minister’s mandate letter that they would actually have some type of sustainable funding source that would be more predictable every year instead of the year-end funding that they got. They still didn’t deliver on that. So this type of suggestion coming from the member opposite…. I hope he sets that aside.

That being said, Geoscience B.C. already has that $10 million I spoke of. They have that. That has been disbursed. They are now able to spend that accordingly over the next couple of budget cycles.

As I mentioned earlier, we’re committed to making sure that the type of work that Geoscience B.C. does takes place. We want to look at this issue that they have around some predictability in their funding. Rather than having to come to government every now and again at the end of a year and ask for whatever’s left over, we want to have some more front-end predictability, and we’re looking into that.

T. Shypitka: So what the minister is saying is that this government will not be interested in funding year to year in the mining sector. They will come up in the budget in February and, I guess, give a full range of funding throughout the whole sector in a four-year plan, I would imagine. It wouldn’t be year to year. Is that what I’m hearing?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Can the member rephrase his question? I’m not really too sure what he’s asking. I feel like he might have extrapolated something I said into a realm that I was not intending. If he could maybe rephrase his question.

T. Shypitka: I thought I heard the minister say that funding year to year was something they weren’t interested in. It was something that only the B.C. Liberal government was doing in regards to geoscience. I could be wrong on that.

My question earlier was: will they continue the funding to geoscience, be it year by year, or be it in a four-year term or whatever? I want to see some kind of commitment by the ministry that geoscience will be kept funded past the 2018-2019 year, when the $10 million runs out.

Hon. M. Mungall: So from what I’m hearing from the member opposite, I’m a little bit concerned that he might be blurring geoscientific work that the ministry does out of the geological survey branch with Geoscience B.C. — suggesting that the ministry is somehow going to discontinue this type of work if we don’t have some type of long-term, predetermined funding for Geoscience B.C.

I want to state for the record that this government and this ministry remain committed to that geoscientific work. It needs to be done. It’s imperative for the overall benefit of our province, in terms of creating that knowledge base of what is in the ground.

That being said, I feel like I’ve answered the member’s question several times in terms of where we’re going to be going with the funding approach that we have for Geoscience B.C., which is a non-profit organization that is not within government but rather is funded by government — I believe exclusively funded, actually, by government. What we intend to do is to take a look at their request for more predictable, sustainable funding. This is a request that they’ve had for many years, a request that was assigned to previous ministers to look into and to deliver on, and they failed to do that.

This government wants to stop with that approach, and we want to actually take this request very seriously and look into it.

T. Shypitka: I’m not quite sure if I got an answer or not. It was a simple question. It was just whether we can depend — geoscience can depend — on funding. A hard number would be a great answer. That would be something we’d really be happy with.

The previous government had hard numbers. They gave them…. It was $10 million. It was $71½ million since 2005. It was a well-funded sector of the mining industry.

We just want to know an answer on a hard number going past 2018-2019. If this will continue, give us an answer on how much that is. We’d like to know if there’s an actual…. Somewhere in the plan over there, there must be some allotment to keep geoscience moving. It’s a great industry, as the minister has indicated. We’d like to know a hard number, a target, on how this funding is going to proceed — fairly simple.

Hon. M. Mungall: The member ought to know that under the B.C. Liberal government, there was actually never a budgeted line item for Geoscience B.C. They only received money at the end of the year. Any number that you look at from the past, that was a response at the end of the fiscal year to Geoscience B.C.’s request.

[4:00 p.m.]

To suggest that his government somehow provided advanced budgeting for Geoscience B.C.... That’s just not how it was done. They received money at the end of the year. So if he’s looking for hard numbers from a government, not even his own party delivered on that.

T. Shypitka: Well, I believe I heard there was a hard number. It was $10 million. It was an advance for two years. It was $10 million over two years. So that was a hard number, but we’ll leave that for now.

We’ll go into tax incentives for a minute. I might have some other colleagues join me here fairly shortly.

Mineral exploration in B.C. depends heavily on the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit program. This program ends in a little over a month; I believe it’s December 27. Investors from around the world are deciding now whether or not to bring their money to B.C.

Will your government extend this essential program, or will you fail to take action and let these job creation and economic development opportunities escape, as your government did some time ago? Will the tax credits still remain?

Hon. M. Mungall: All tax policy questions are better directed to the Minister of Finance and the Ministry of Finance during their budget estimates process, as that’s where these decisions are ultimately made.

That being said, the member may want to take note of what was said in the budget speech earlier in the session, which would see that the mining exploration tax credit program will be expanded under this government to include costs incurred for environmental studies and community consultations.

T. Shypitka: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

We’ll go into the major mines office for a bit here. Will the minister commit to maintaining the major mines permitting office that was created by the last government?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The person sitting next to me, my deputy minister, is actually the person very much responsible for creating what I would say is probably a best practice. So absolutely, we’ll be continuing on with it.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister.

We’ll go into the Tahltan and Klappan issue. The former government worked closely with the Tahltan First Nation to protect the Klappan. The former government also worked hard with the Tahltan on an agreement between Imperial Metals and the First Nations about the operation of the Red Chris mine.

The next critical step that the Tahltan First Nation wants is a reconciliation agreement between the provinces and the Tahltan. Can the minister please tell the House what specific steps she has taken to ensure that the relationship between the Tahltan and the province advances through a reconciliation agreement?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member will know that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is the minister responsible for any type of reconciliation negotiations. He is taking the lead and has already begun to do so. He met with the Tahltan chiefs last week and is working with them going forward.

T. Shypitka: Here’s another simple question. Does the minister plan to make any changes to the requirements of companies proposing to build mines in B.C.?

Hon. M. Mungall: A similar question to one that was asked by the member’s colleague, and what I told her is that at this stage, we’re not contemplating any changes to the permitting process. That being said, if the mining jobs task force should come forward with any proposed changes, we’ll be taking those into consideration, as would be the responsibility of the government to do with the work done by its task force.

T. Shypitka: Here’s another unrelated question, but somewhat related. Is the minister aware that mines are required to spend millions of dollars to process water from the minesite to a high level of purity, even when that same pure, expensive water is being discharged into highly turbid glacier waters that immediately negate the expensive water process paid for by the company?

A little bit of common sense here might be the order of the day. Would the minister review such practices, onerous types of enforcement issues on water purity to match what they’re being discharged into?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The guidelines for water discharge are done by the Ministry of Environment provincially and federally, and this province will be complying with those guidelines.

T. Shypitka: It is with the Ministry of Environment. The minister is correct. However, these regulations are what keep B.C. mines competitive — or not competitive, in this case.

Would the minister just commit to advocating for common sense on the issue of the receiving environment when it comes to discharge of water? Just common sense — would she advocate for that?

Hon. M. Mungall: Well, the member opposite’s common sense is not what defines an acceptable level of anything going into our water. It’s actually science-based. And all the technical people, First Nations, industry are around that table that is deciding what is an acceptable level of anything going into our water sources when industry is discharging their treated water — and how they treat it as well.

[4:15 p.m.]

I just want to say that I’m very glad that we live in a society that is making these decisions using science and that people are following the law, as they ought to be. I will also say that I’ve been able to tour several of the water treatment plants that are being invested in by various companies, and they are quite proud — they are very proud — to be doing such strong environmental activity and making sure that if H₂O comes out, H₂O is going back in.

T. Shypitka: So H₂O going out and in should be somewhat compatible. I would imagine that’s what the minister is saying. So given that mindset, all I’m asking is…. The water, the H₂O that’s going out…. Does it make much sense to the minister that the H₂O going out is purer than what it’s going into?

It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense that way. We do have to follow environmental guidelines, absolutely, 100 percent. But when you’re purifying water to such a degree that it’s ten times the purity of the water it’s going into, it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense sometimes. We’ll leave that for now.

Health and safety. A pretty easy question here. Do you agree that your ministry does an excellent job of keeping workers safe at minesites across B.C. and that mining is the safest industry in B.C.? I was just recently at the mine safety 100th anniversary in Fernie about a month ago. The work that these people do is absolutely amazing, and they are keeping people safe. Would the minister agree that, at minesites across B.C., mining is the safest heavy industry in B.C.?

Hon. M. Mungall: One of the things I often say, when I’m asked about my ministry, is that I definitely have the A-team. Another example of that is the fact that our mining industry is actually the safest heavy industry in B.C. And I want to give full credit not just to the industry and to the labour unions, but I want to give a lot of credit to my A-team in this ministry who are out there, boots on the ground, doing the job of making sure that our industry is safe.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister. Absolutely, I agree 100 percent. There’s a lot of good work that’s been done over the years by government and unions alike — lots of great workers out there that take it very seriously, keeping everybody safe. That’s good work between all parties, absolutely.

Is your government contemplating putting WorkSafe B.C. in charge of health and safety at B.C. mines?

Hon. M. Mungall: No.

T. Shypitka: So we’ll make a commitment here on record that you resist the idea vigorously if any colleagues of yours suggest anything other than that in the future?

Hon. M. Mungall: No one has suggested any changes whatsoever to the way in which we’re regulating mine safety.

T. Shypitka: So that’s a no. You will vigorously oppose those types of ideas in the future?

Hon. M. Mungall: I don’t want to prejudge anything that could happen in the future. I just think that’s irresponsible of anybody in government to do that sort of thing. If something very negative happens and somehow our safety rate is reduced, should government be responsible and take a look at that? Absolutely.

[4:20 p.m.]

As it stands right now, our number of days without accidents is the highest in terms of our mining industry. We’ve been doing a stellar job thus far. I already mentioned that we have the A-team ensuring that our mines are safe places to work — that when people get up in the morning and they go to work, their family and loved ones can expect them to come home.

That is something that, no matter what, will always be the driving factor. If something in our current system disallows that from continuing on, you better believe I’m going to be looking into it.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for the answers there.

If the Chair is okay with it, I’ve got a colleague at the end who would like to ask a few questions as well.

J. Rustad: Mining, of course, is an important component for my area, my riding of Nechako Lakes. There are a few operating mines in and around the area. There are a number of closed mines in and around the area. I wouldn’t mind following up on a few questions, starting off with the Endako mine.

Endako was a mine that was in operation for many, many, many years, into the decades — 45-plus years. It is currently under care maintenance, I believe, with regards to low molybdenum prices. Having said that, the tailings pond is one…. There are no tailings going into it at the moment, coming out of it. There are periods where the tailings ponds will get quite dry, and there will be dust that comes off of the tailings pond.

What I’m wondering is: does the Minister of Energy and Mines…? Are you looking at a plan or thinking about how to work with the company that owns the former Endako mine with regards to resolving this issue of potential dust or other things coming off of the tailings pond area?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for bringing up a local community concern. Unfortunately, we don’t have the exact information for him right now. There is quite a bit of technical information that I’d like to get the member at a future date, if I may.

What I do know is…. My ADM did mention that the ministry does work regularly with Endako. He has staff that was just meeting with them last week on some of these technical details. If I may, I’ll get the member opposite some of those details from the meeting.

J. Rustad: Thanks. That would be much appreciated. I didn’t think that a detailed question like that would be something you might have on hand, but it’s one that needed to be asked, obviously, for my riding and for the folks in my riding, in particular, that are concerned about the conditions at that particular operation.

Moving onto some of the other operations that are in the area, AuRico Gold is proposing an underground mine, formerly known as Kemess North. I believe it enjoys First Nations support for that mine going forward. It’s done a significant amount of engagement. I think it’s got all the permits that it needs, in terms of going forward.

[4:25 p.m.]

What I’m wondering about, in particular…. When you see a mine like this that hasn’t been built yet but wants to be built, that’s got support, does the minister see any changes to agreements in place, or conditions, operating a mine, taking into consideration UNDRIP?

Hon. M. Mungall: From our perspective, we don’t see any problems or any issues coming up. In fact, what First Nations who are involved told me just a couple of weeks ago…. Two weeks feels like two years sometimes. I’m sure you remember this. What they were saying to me is that they felt the process they’ve been engaged with to date for the Kemess project is UNDRIP in action. They just really felt like it was exactly the way — how it should be going.

They have their environmental assessment certificate. They’re moving along, and we don’t anticipate any reason why they wouldn’t be able to continue.

[4:30 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. That’s good news to hear with regards to that project.

It raises an interesting idea, though — or question, I guess. As the First Nations have said, UNDRIP, or the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples…. We like to use acronyms in this place. We all know what those acronyms are. But for the many, many watchers, they may not know what….

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Well, I might have a couple on my side, too. The minister mentioned there may be two or three on her side that might be watching. In any case, for the people watching, it’s important to maybe spell those sorts of things out.

That was one of the projects that, as former minister responsible for what’s now known as Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, of course, we did a lot of engagement around. I’m glad to hear that’s what their perspective is.

That leads to the question. Is that going to be the ministry’s approach in engaging First Nations on all projects with regards to meeting the goals and recommendations, or the desires, laid out under the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples?

Hon. M. Mungall: I feel like I could talk quite a bit about this. The reason is that I think moving into an era of reconciliation and the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples…. Moving away from some of those acronyms — I’m hoping that maybe that will increase the viewership. Moving into an era of reconciliation and ensuring that UNDRIP isn’t like a ticky box on a thing to do…. It’s a process. As the former minister will know, it’s a process. When First Nations come back and say, “This is what it meant. We felt included. We felt like we were meaningful partners,” to me, that’s the test that we want to be able to meet.

I have to say that I’ve been just continuously impressed in the last 110 days at the work that this ministry has been doing, particularly around mining, in terms of leading what that process would look like to ensure that First Nations are meaningful partners in our industries. That said, recognizing that consultation is very imperative, it also can be costly. So that’s one of the reasons that we’ve acknowledged that in this budget update just announced a couple of months ago, where we said that community consultations will also be part of an expanded mining flow-through share tax credit. I think I got all of the words in that acronym.

Recognizing that consultations are a must in an era of reconciliation and that to put the time needed to them requires costs. We don’t want those costs to be a reason or a barrier to not do that effective consultation, so we’ve acknowledged that in this budget as well.

[4:35 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that response. So just going a step further with regards to UNDRIP, or the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and engagement — the process, of course, that went on with AuRico Gold in their project, and Kemess Underground — I guess the question that I’m thinking about is….

There were a number of manuals that were produced a few years ago. They’ve always been updated on a regular basis to show the changes and expectations that government has of industry when they engage with First Nations — the mining industry in particular, since we’re obviously here talking about the estimates for Mines. What I’m wondering is: will the ministry be providing a guideline with regards to how those consultations should be undertaken or potentially could be undertaken?

The reason for asking this question, of course, is that in the case of AuRico Gold, you’ve got a company that reached out, that did the work. You’ve got First Nations that were engaged and interested. You’re not always going to have those scenarios, so you may end up with a situation where there are some challenges. And there may be some court challenges, as we have seen on other projects.

I guess the question is: will the ministry be updating what those expectations are in terms of engagement? Is the ministry goal, in a statutory decision–maker, to have some level of cooperation or agreement achieved before a mining project can proceed?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is responsible for any update, any guidelines, and so on and so forth. That being said, I think the example from his own constituency that the member provided, with AuRico Metals and the Kemess Underground project, in terms of…. They took the initiative, and they went and started consulting with First Nations before being required to do so specifically by government.

They were able to achieve an impact-and-benefits agreement — or an IBA, as we all say for short — before even approaching government for all of its permits and so on. Then you have communities that are very happy with that process and turning around and feeling like they’re full partners in the project. While that’s not a requirement by this government to go that type of route, I will acknowledge that that was a very smart process, very smart approach that AuRico took.

I think that as we all move into an era of reconciliation — not just government but industry as well — we’re going to see industry doing more of that. As I have talk to industry around the province, whether it’s oil and gas, whether it’s mining, whether it’s renewable energies, the desire by industry to be working proactively with First Nations, to truly be working in a meaningful partnership with them, is growing. I think that’s great.

J. Rustad: I’m in agreement there in terms of the engagement. I think that’s a positive thing in terms of how industry has changed over time. There’s no question that’s a plus. It creates, in my mind, a project that is sustainable, supports communities and brings about some of the goals and objectives that I think both sides of this House would like to see.

Moving to the next project that I’d like to spend just a little bit of time talking about….

Maybe just one quick side-note from the minister’s answer. I’m assuming that the Ministry of Energy and Mines is guiding. I know that MIRR, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, has the responsibility for those documents. But it is led, obviously, by individual ministries that write the components that go into it. So I’m assuming that your ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, would be undertaking that work. I see that the minister nodding, so that’s good to know.

On to the next project I wanted to just ask quickly about, which is the Blackwater project, New Gold’s project. If I remember correctly, it was on the verge of being able to receive an environmental certificate back last spring. I’m wondering if the minister could provide me with an update with regards to where that permitting process is.

Hon. M. Mungall: New Gold. Where they are at is that they’re still in their environmental assessment process. They’re working with both the province, the environmental assessment office, as well as the federal government on mitigating caribou issues. Until that time, there’s not much that I can comment on, because eventually it’ll come to me for decision-making and I’ll need to be looking at that very objectively. But to answer your question that’s where they’re at.

J. Rustad: Just curious in terms of the caribou issue. Is that more to do with road access or the actual mine operation itself?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: It would be both. The minesite does overlay some of the caribou habitat as well.

J. Rustad: The nations that are engaged directly on that…. There are a number of nations peripherally as well. But Ulkatcho and Lhoosk’uz Dene — or Kluskus, as it’s known — are supportive of the project. They’re working through an IBA, a benefit agreement, or whatever it’s called, with New Gold.

Obviously, the province is engaged in negotiations around trying to include an agreement. One of the things that the nations were looking for was access, direct access, to the minesite across the Blackwater and, as well, coming around the back side for the folks coming up from the Anahim area to be able to access for jobs, etc.

That’s something that I know a number of ministries are working on, but ultimately, it will be a key component as to whether or not this mine proceeds. So I’m wondering if the minister can provide an update with regards to the discussions and potential for those components to be moving forward.

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for bringing this up. I actually recall having this very discussion with an interested First Nations at the First Nations leadership gathering. Where things are at on this is that the Ministry of Transportation has earmarked the budget required for this to go ahead. But I guess that the decision-making on it, being able to go ahead, is within the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. We just didn’t think that acronym was long enough when we became government, so we thought that we’d add a couple more letters there.

That ministry is watching how things go with the environmental assessment certificate. If it is approved, the rest of government is ready to move ahead.

J. Rustad: Just on a side note, I rather enjoyed…. I tried to get business cards when I had both ministries put together, but I had to order so many cards that it just didn’t make sense to get a few. I thought that it would be fun having Forest, Lands, Natural Resource Operations, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation all as part of one title.

The Blackwater project represents, obviously, a significant work, a significant job opportunity for the local nations and for the communities in my riding and will be an economic driver potentially for many years to come.

[4:50 p.m.]

The caribou component that’s within the potential impact of the minesite…. I know that the company is responsible in terms of putting the plans forward with regards to that. Has the minister or have the minister’s colleagues been engaged with the federal ministry to find ways to be able to resolve some of those concerns and work in engaging with the company so that the company can find the right path forward to be able to see this mine advance, taking care, obviously, of that important component of wildlife?

Hon. M. Mungall: To answer the member’s question, in short, it would be yes. As the member can imagine, we have multiple staff and multiple ministries who are engaged on this very issue with the federal government and with Blackwater as well.

J. Rustad: One follow-up, related and unrelated, is the work that Geoscience B.C. is doing. Geoscience B.C. has done some flyovers and some of the technical work throughout my riding — several passes going — and some of the targets and expansion opportunities around Blackwater were part of the results of Geoscience B.C. In terms of that work, it’s identified, obviously, some other interesting targets that we’re hopeful, for the folks in Nechako Lakes, will lead to other potential mining opportunities.

Previous, the ministry has been advocating for resources to go into geoscience to carry on the important work that it’s doing. I was curious about the minister’s perspective on Geoscience B.C. and whether or not the ministry will be working with Finance to try to find additional funding for that organization going forward.

Hon. M. Mungall: Maybe the member wasn’t here, but we’ve actually been canvassing this issue quite a bit in these budget estimates.

Around Geoscience B.C. Obviously, they have huge value throughout this province in ensuring that we all have good information, science-based information, about what is in the ground. As the member opposite pointed out, once we have that knowledge, we’re able to determine and industry is able to determine what opportunities exist for economic development.

We also do a lot of that work within the ministry as well — not just externally with the non-profit Geoscience B.C. but through the geological survey branch within the ministry as well. There’s no doubt about it. There are a lot of rocks to bang. There’s a lot of earth to look around and see what kind of minerals exist underneath the ground. So a lot of work needs to be done for sure.

The way Geoscience B.C. was budgeted for in the past was that they would get year-end funding. As the ministry had extra dollars available, they would give that to Geoscience B.C. to the point where Geoscience B.C. was exclusively funded by the provincial government. So in past years…. For example, in 2007-2008, it was $11.7 million. But in 2013-14, it was $3 million.

In this last budget cycle, 2016-2017, they received $10 million. Part of that $10 million was actually budgeted for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 years. So they were actually given all of that in advance because they wanted to get ahead on some of the work that they were doing. So that’s what the government of the day negotiated with them.

At this stage, what Geoscience B.C. is looking for and what they’ve requested for many years — not just from this government but from previous B.C. Liberal governments as well — is more predictability. Rather than just getting what is available at the end of the year, could they be more involved in the budgetary process in advance — perhaps multi-year, whatever it is — just so that they’d have that predictable, sustainable funding source?

It was a promise that that would happen under the previous government — twice, I believe, in the previous Minister of Energy and Mine’s mandate letters. Unfortunately, that wasn’t delivered on. So what we’re committed to doing is looking into that request with Geoscience B.C.

J. Rustad: Thank you for your patience in terms of answering the question again. Geoscience, as I said, is an important component within my riding — and welcome work that they have been doing.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’m curious, though. I want to go back to the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, as it is in all of the mandate letters to various ministries. I believe that it’s in all of them.

The two examples that I gave, in my riding, of great companies working with First Nations, working through issues, projects going forward. In a situation where First Nations are not in agreement with the company, even though a company has done significant engagement with the First Nation and met all of the requirements, how does UNDRIP change the decision process — or does UNDRIP change the decision process by the ministry, in terms of the approval process of various permits?

Hon. M. Mungall: I just need to correct something I said a little while ago. I said that geoscience is exclusively funded by government. That is not the case. There have been instances where industry does provide funding for specific projects. So I just wanted to correct that for the record.

The question that the member posed was — and correct me if I misheard you: should First Nations not agree with a project, what happens then? In an era of reconciliation, with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, what happens then? Well, what I was saying earlier is that UNDRIP isn’t a tick box where you can say: “Okay, this was done. Moving along.” It’s a process, and what that process is, is evolving as we move into, I would say, the beginning of the era of reconciliation with First Nations.

As we define that process with First Nations, we’re trying to understand how best we can ensure that they are meaningful partners in every project. Now, there’s jurisprudence that will guide us in terms of what the consultation process ought to look like and what is required, but we want to move beyond just the courts. We want to make sure that we’re being proactive as well.

Going forward, I don’t know that I have a definitive tick box kind of answer for the member, and I don’t think that’s what the member was looking for either. It’s just a sense of where we’re all going as a society on this. I think we’re all moving there together. What industry is identifying themselves — and I already addressed this — is that when they engage with First Nations as meaningful partners, their business does better, and they’re able to deliver on a better project.

J. Rustad: I know the temptation is to be more conversational in estimates, and I do appreciate that. There’s a formality we need to follow, though, so I understand that entirely.

The reason why I’m asking particularly about UNDRIP is, obviously, there are some nations around the province that are accepting and engaging in mining and mining potential, and they would like to see projects. They need to be done right. They need to be done respectfully of First Nations and of the environment.

[5:00 p.m.]

They need to take in, obviously, rights and title and what is defined…. It’s not really defined, but the guidelines — I guess you could call them — or the human rights document, as the Minister for Indigenous Relations called the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

I would disagree with the minister’s statement that we are just beginning on it. For the last four years, in particular, the amount of steps that we took with First Nations was more than any other jurisdiction in Canada has ever done in our history. It’s remarkable how far it went. Now, there’s lots more to go, but there was a lot of groundwork that was done which will enable the next steps to come.

But the reason, in particular, why I’m asking this question is because there are some nations that are opposed to mining — maybe not to mining in general, but under mining with a company owning the rights. They might be willing to consider mining if they owned the subsurface rights or mineral rights.

The question, I guess…. If a company has gone through and has done everything they can in terms of engagement, provided opportunities for the nations, proceeded with all of the consultation, all of the requirements to the best of their ability, and a nation just doesn’t want to engage because there’s a fundamental challenge or issue, does that company have a hope, in British Columbia, to be able to proceed with the project?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I just want to say that I don’t want to make it sound like any of my statements fail to recognize the work that was done by the previous Minister for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation or the previous government — well aware that a lot of the work for an era of reconciliation was started under the previous government. But when I say we’re at the beginning, I think he would agree that compared to the years of colonialism, we are still very much at the beginning of what reconciliation is truly going to mean going forward.

To answer his question, though, in terms of if there’s disagreement between First Nations and industry in a project, I wouldn’t say that there’s a hard-and-fast rule of what happens in that situation. I would say that statutory decision-makers are going to be reviewing what happened, what kind of negotiation took place — was it in good faith? — and so on and so forth. They’re going to be reviewing that and taking that into consideration.

As I mentioned, UNDRIP and working with First Nations is a process rather than just a tick box. But I think what the member is trying to get at is wondering that if there’s disagreement, does that equal a veto? I think that everybody has agreed…. The Minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation as well as the Premier have said this regularly, and we’ve heard it regularly said by many members in this House that those types of agreements don’t result in a veto, but they are considered when statutory decision-makers are making their decisions.

How those decisions are made…. There is quite a considerable amount of jurisprudence that has led us up to now in defining what is appropriate and inappropriate consultation.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for the conversation and the quick responses. It’s much appreciated. I think I might disagree with the minister a little bit that jurisprudence has been well defined. It’s why stuff still goes to court, unfortunately, with regards to that.

[5:05 p.m.]

Having said that, the reason I’m asking the question, in particular, about it is because of the Ike project, which is in the southernmost end of the Tsilhqot’in territory, overlapping with other First Nations as well. It’s further south than what was defined as being title or rights for the Tsilhqot’in people.

It’s been rumoured, to say, but I’m sure…. I haven’t seen drill results myself, personally, but the results are showing that it has the potential to be the next Highland Valley Copper. It has a very large deposit over a wide area.

The Tsilhqot’in are opposed to this. There has been a tremendous amount of work that has been done by the company to engage with them. There’s been a fair bit of work done by government to engage with regards to this. Yet the challenge still goes on. There have been permits that have been issued. There have been challenges that have come from the First Nation.

The reason for asking this question is because this project has so much potential for the Cariboo and, really, throughout that entire area, even up into my riding, in terms of supporting jobs and activity as it develops. If it proves out to be of the quality, obviously, that I think the company’s hoping it will be, it will create a definite challenge and an issue, given the position of the nations.

In order to prove that out, it’s going to require a number of permits. Permits have been issued. More permits will be coming up. How will the ministry adjudicate those kinds of permits when you’re in a situation where the nation is not engaging with the company in a process to allow for the exploration and the work to be able to carry on?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate that the member is trying to get a better understanding of what might happen for a particular project in B.C. near his area. That being said, my answer doesn’t really change, particularly because the project that he’s talking about is not in the title area for the Tsilhqot’in Nation, but it’s in the acclaimed area for the Tsilhqot’in Nation, which has different legal definitions and therefore different legal requirements by the statutory decision-maker.

Again, that statutory decision-maker will be looking at the process in full and recognizing attempts by the company, any back-and-forth that they may have had with First Nations, and looking at that big picture as they make their decisions.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for the answers. I’m actually going to give a couple of easy ones, just on a local perspective. Cognizant of the time here, we’re going to try to move things along really quickly.

As the minister knows, Tumbler Ridge, up in my riding, of course, has some of the largest metallurgical coal deposits. Unfortunately, because of the geographical location, they are quite susceptible to world-market pricing and to having the feasibility studies in order to make sure that they’re economic. But we’re fortunate right now, because we have Conuma Coal, which has taken over two of the sites and is operating, employing a couple of hundred people.

They are running into some — and the minister should be aware of this — issues dealing with exporting of the product through CN Rail. There have been discussions ongoing for about the last half-a-dozen-plus months. I’m just curious if the minister could update me, for the people in the area. I’ve talked with the company recently as well, and they’re still having a few issues to try to be able to remove the product out of the area to the coast.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: For the viewers at home who might be curious about some of the backstory to the member’s question…. There are two minesites that were having their metallurgical coal shipped out of the region, out of Tumbler Ridge region, via CN Rail. Both of them were trucking their coal to the rail line until recently. The rail line to one of those sites has been fixed. The other site, though, is needing to truck their metallurgical coal to the rail line.

My understanding is that this is actually with the environmental assessment office, because their environmental assessment certificate required the trucking to happen on one specific road, and that is not working for those operations. My understanding is that the EAO is actually working with the company on amending that EA certificate so that they’re able to use more than just the one road that’s been going in and out.

M. Bernier: To the minister, I appreciate that the overall issue, obviously, is with the CN Rail, and the fact that we’re trying to find a band-aid in the short term to allow the company to not stop operations and to allow them to continue trucking in the meantime, which I appreciate.

Of course, we need to continue, and this is an ongoing issue that’s happened in the region. It’s tens of millions of dollars of upgrading that needs to happen to the CN Rail line after it had been utilized for a couple of decades for the mines up in that area. Of course, the business case for CN sometimes is not accommodating when only a few of the possible operating mines are open, so that’s creating a little bit of an issue.

[5:15 p.m.]

I appreciate the position at the time that we have. Do we just want to flag that one and make sure we continue those discussions, where possible, through the ministry? It’s not just the existing mines. It will also possibly restrict, as coal prices rebound and be more stable, other mines in the area from considering timing for their openings if we don’t have the opportunity to have the CN Rail.

The only other question that I’ll ask, geographically, for that area, is on the minister’s discussions that she has or has not had as far as HD Mining. Of course, we had the opportunity with the longwall mine there. It’s my understanding they did do a core sample that has been finished. They’re probably in a slowdown right now waiting for the results of that core sample to come back. Of course, it’s a different form of mining in that area under longwalling rather than open pit. Because of that, it takes technical, different trades, but it’s also a completely different type of mining.

With the coal prices where they’re at, I’m just curious if the minister has had discussions with them and where we’re at, possibly, on the reopening of that mine?

Hon. M. Mungall: Personally, I met with HD Mining when I met with the broader Mining Association of B.C. I attended one of their board meetings and met with everybody there. Following from that meeting, HD Mining did have some specific questions about this and some of their other projects. My assistant deputy minister, who has all of the technical knowledge, followed up just last Friday, actually, and had a three-hour meeting with them. So they’re meeting, and we’re having conversations with HD Mining on a regular basis.

T. Shypitka: We’ve got only a few minutes left here for my end of it, but I just wanted to do a couple more questions. Now, during the break, I had a few colleagues ask me about some questions that were asked earlier. They just want some clarifications, so I’m sure this will go really quick.

Just in regards to the special task force and compliance and enforcement, I know the minister was asked, but just for some clarification: can the minister tell us when she intends to strike this task force?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re hoping to do it in the early new year.

T. Shypitka: Early in the year. Before April perhaps? First quarter? Second quarter? Third quarter? Sorry.

Hon. M. Mungall: First quarter.

T. Shypitka: Can the minister tell us who will be represented on this task force?

Hon. M. Mungall: I cannot at this time, in terms of the terms of reference. Who all will be involved with the task force has yet to receive cabinet approval, and until that time, it is not public.

T. Shypitka: Has work, like you said, already been done to establish the terms of reference?

Hon. M. Mungall: We are working on it in consultation with First Nations, in particular, as well as industry groups.

[5:20 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Just a couple more, then.

Can the minister tell me how many operating mines there are in British Columbia right now?

Hon. M. Mungall: As it stands right now, there are 15 major mines. In a couple of weeks, it will be 16. In terms of smaller mining operations as well as placer mining operations, there are several dozen. If the member wants an exact number, we’d be happy to get that for him later.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister. I understand there are a lot of placer mines out there, and yeah, I would like to see…. When you have time to send me the list, that would be great.

Can the minister tell us what pressures are currently on mining operations to stay open right now?

Hon. M. Mungall: Earlier I mentioned to the member that if he wanted to get a more fulsome idea of all the things that are impacting mining operations, he’d be best to speak to the very industry representatives who deal with this issue on a regular basis — the Mining Association of B.C. and the Association for Mineral Exploration.

I can tell the member what my conversations yield. Commodity pricing will always be number one. Some of the other things that drive their profitability and their ability to succeed are access to electricity, always a big issue; costs of electricity, another issue that’s important to them; and labour costs. Obviously, these are often very labour-intensive operations.

As an example, at one of the major mines that I mentioned in a previous answer, in the member’s own riding, in Elkford, Fording River, 1,135 people are working there right now. So as he’ll know, labour costs are always very important.

[5:25 p.m.]

Carbon pricing. It was a former Liberal government that actually started the carbon tax, and now other jurisdictions in the world are also coming on board with the carbon tax. We’ve made commitments to meet our federal targets sooner. When I talk with industry, they’re looking at how they reduce their carbon emissions so that, overall, they’re not paying as much tax on the carbon pricing.

Those are some of the issues that they’re definitely bringing up with me in my regular conversations and meetings with them.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister. And thank you for recognizing a former government’s advances on carbon tax pricing in Canada. We were the first, and we were proud of that.

How many mines are currently in the permitting phase in British Columbia right now, be it through the Mines Act permitting or EA permitting?

Hon. M. Mungall: In terms of answering the member’s question, there are currently 24 mines that are undergoing either the EA process or the major mines permitting office. Those are major mines, though, the 24. If the member is interested in terms of the sand and gravel operations, he’ll know that there are hundreds of those going on at any given time.

I’ll just also give the member an example. One of the mines that is currently in the EA process — I was mentioning it earlier to the member for Nechako Lakes — is Blackwater gold. Should they be successful, we would see, as the member for Nechako Lakes pointed out, about 495 FTEs.

T. Shypitka: Good news. Thank you, Minister.

What hurdles do these mines currently face to get through permitting?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member is asking for…. I don’t know if he knows this, this being his first estimates. What he’s essentially asking for are some details around each project and where they are at in terms of their environmental assessment or their permitting process.

When he says “hurdles,” well, each project has its own set of issues that they’re working through, in terms of their permitting process with government. Regardless of who government is, most of these decisions are made by statutory decision–makers. If he wants an elaborate, detailed rendition of all 24 projects, I have that here, but I’m guessing that’s not how he was hoping to use his time. So I won’t go through all of that, and we’ll let him ask his next question.

T. Shypitka: No, not detailed, but if you could maybe give your top four, top five, that you feel are hurdles through permitting.

[5:30 p.m.]

You’ve probably had conversations with many mines offices and mining companies. What do they see as being a hurdle? Like, maybe your top four or five.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m sorry. In terms of the member’s question, we’re talking about specific projects. Each one of them goes through the permitting processes and deals with the details of their projects.

Like I said, if he wants to go through each one and where they are at in terms of their permitting process and what they’re dealing with, we can do that. Right now the industry as a whole isn’t saying, “Hey, these are our five issues,” because they each know — every industry and company knows — that when they go through a permitting process, it’s all about the details of their actual project.

That’s what we’re dealing with when we talk about permitting.

T. Shypitka: If the minister would be inclined to do so, I’d like to get that in writing. If I could get those details, that would be great.

Last question. Of those mines that are going through permitting, through either the Mines Act or the environmental assessment, how many have First Nations support?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I was saying to the member for Nechako Lakes, UNDRIP isn’t a ticky box. First Nations consultation isn’t a ticky box. It is a process. Each one of these 24 projects that are in the application phase is going through those types of processes with First Nations — often multiple First Nations, not just one.

In terms of their support for a project, they are in that process. It would be just wholly inappropriate for me to attempt to speak on behalf of First Nations.

T. Shypitka: I guess I’ll pass it off to my colleague, here, from Skeena.

E. Ross: Congratulations to the minister on your new appointment.

My first question to the minister is…. I’d like to know if she understands how many LNG projects there currently are in B.C., and does she support all of them?

Hon. M. Mungall: I wasn’t too sure if the member was asking about actual LNG projects that are currently producing LNG or if he meant just: what are some of the projects that are currently on the books, so to speak, in terms of different stages of the application process?

There are 18 of those. Then there is one at Tilbury, which is FortisBC, that is actually actively producing LNG, but that’s for domestic purposes. The 18 that I was speaking of earlier are for export.

E. Ross: Do you have an idea of the total amount of proposed investment that 18 of these proposed projects entail?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: We don’t have the exact number right here at our fingertips. But just for the member’s knowledge.... I’m sure he knows this, actually, but for those who might be watching at home or other members in the House, LNG Canada is at a $40 billion proposed investment. Kitimat LNG is at a $25 billion proposed investment. Woodfibre is at $2.5 billion.

I just want to highlight those three. Those are, I would guess, further along in terms of the development phase. It just goes to show the range of the potential LNG investment.

E. Ross: So with just the three projects out of 18 projects, it’s safe to say we’ve got about $67.5 billion worth of proposed investment for B.C. Some of that’s already on the ground. It’s already been invested.

Sorry to combine my questions there previously. Does the minister now support LNG, meaning all 18 proposed projects in B.C.?

Hon. M. Mungall: The ones that are not currently requiring any statutory decision–making.... I can comment on that. Those that do, I can’t, because I need to be objective in any type of statutory decision–making process.

That being said, LNG Canada, Kitimat LNG and Woodfibre LNG — so all of the projects I mentioned earlier — have met all of their requirements. They’ve completely completed the regulatory processes that they must go under, and now it’s about a final investment decision. We’ve been working very actively with them to see a successful final investment decision so that they can get some shovels in the ground.

E. Ross: I do understand the sensitivities around statutory decision–making, so I’ll try to rephrase the question. In terms of support, will the minister provide full support when it comes to international markets that are looking to acquire B.C. LNG?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think what the member opposite is trying to gauge is in terms of where this government is going to be going with LNG. No doubt he’s read my mandate letter. My mandate letter on the LNG file isn’t any different than what the New Democratic Party’s position has been for the last five years.

We’ve always had four conditions. That is so that British Columbians are realizing a fair rate of return for their resources; that we have training and job opportunities first and foremost for British Columbians; that First Nations are meaningful partners in any development; and that we’re protecting our air, land and water and also meeting our greenhouse gas emission targets.

[5:40 p.m.]

I have to say that as I work with LNG companies, they — like me, and like this government — view those four conditions not as roadblocks but road maps. They are actually conditions that they have put on themselves and that they have been meeting as well.

I think the member opposite knows, for example, the work that both Kitimat LNG and LNG Canada have been doing with First Nations is just second to none. I’m continually impressed at the meaningful relationships that they have developed with the Haisla Nation and other First Nations that they have been working with.

That being said, as we move forward with this industry, we see it as an opportunity. When I go around British Columbia and I talk about the opportunities for us to help reduce carbon emissions, our goal to reduce carbon emissions here at home, as we can help jurisdictions like Alberta, maybe Saskatchewan, the Pacific Northwest, California, reduce their carbon emissions…. But it goes beyond that. It goes right around the world. Right now, there are 1,600 coal-fired plants being planned in 62 countries, most of them in Asian countries. If we have the opportunity to stop the co-firing and move to natural gas, we’re reducing greenhouse gas emissions by half.

That opportunity — it sounds vaguely familiar to members, because we’ve actually been saying this for over five years — exists for British Columbia. I hope that we’ll be able to realize that opportunity, with projects like LNG Canada, like Kitimat LNG, like Woodfibre and any others that successfully meet the regulatory approvals.

E. Ross: Yes, I’m trying to gauge where this government is going because I haven’t really seen any substantial change to the budget in terms of LNG. In fact, if anything, I’ve seen the opposite.

I don’t understand the comment saying that industry actually proposed or imposed some of its own conditions on its own industry, because I don’t think industry proposed the carbon tax hikes. I don’t think they proposed more studies on their pipelines. Apart from that, you’re right. I’m trying to gauge support on where the B.C. government stands in relation to international markets, especially Asia, because that’s where everybody’s going after. That’s where the market is.

In terms of the support, the last B.C. LNG conference was cancelled. Are there any plans to hold future events in a similar fashion?

Hon. M. Mungall: There are a few aspects in the member’s question, so let me start first with Asian markets. One of the very first meetings I had was with JOGMEC, which is the Japanese government’s investment wing — in energy, specifically. They are very keen to make sure that this government is supportive of the LNG industry. So to summarize an hour’s meeting for the member opposite, they left very, very happy and very pleased that we were determined to make sure that our LNG industry was moving ahead.

One of the things that we’re doing on that front is something that the previous government did not do. While they were busy holding conferences for photo ops for the previous Premier, what they failed to do was acknowledge some of the difficult competitiveness issues that British Columbia had so that we could actually have a successful market. Because they failed to do that, that is one of the reasons why we did not see an LNG facility in the time frame that they proposed.

[5:45 p.m.]

There are significant competitiveness issues that always exist in British Columbia — for example, the pipeline that was going to have to be built in response because we did not have that infrastructure. That was one issue. The lack of brownfields and the need to look at greenfields for potential facilities.

These are very expensive endeavours, because at the end of the day, the bottom line is very important. That the previous government failed to do that, I think, is one of the major contributors to why they were not able to get those FIDs in the timely fashion that we all, all of us in British Columbia, were promised.

So what are we doing now? Well, we’re looking at that competitiveness. We take this very seriously. We want B.C.’s LNG industry to succeed, and that’s why we are working at the highest level with the LNG industry to look at some of B.C.’s competitive challenges, how we can meet those challenges and make sure we get those final investment decisions.

E. Ross: I don’t know if there are any plans to hold future events similar to the LNG conference that your government cancelled.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

Members.

Please continue.

E. Ross: I don’t know if that’s the answer to whether or not your government will plan to hold future events similar to the one that was just cancelled by your government. But in terms of the cancelled event, did the government forfeit any sunk costs? If so, can the minister tell us what those costs were?

Hon. M. Mungall: What happened with this conference is that following the election and during that transitional period between the minority government under the B.C. Liberals and the current minority government under the NDP, staff did not have direction or authority to move forward with planning the conference other than just this website. By the time we came into government, there was just not enough time to actually pull this conference off with any professionalism, as much as we would perhaps try.

In terms of sunk costs, yes, there were. There was the Vancouver Convention Centre at $65,000, Vancouver hotels at $81,000 and Pace Communications at $148,000. So the total is $295,000.

I think what’s very important going forward, and I think the member was going to be coming to this in his questions, is: what’s more important? Is it addressing competitiveness, doing what is needed to get to FID, or are photo ops more important? I will land on competitiveness and working with industry every time.

E. Ross: Yes, I understand how important the LNG opportunity is. I lived it for 13 years. I went to every one of these conferences to be there on a panel or as a speaker. I never went for a photo op. I was actually doing it and proved it on how I could improve lives back in Kitimat — Kitimat townsite and Kitamaat Village. So I know full well how important it is.

Can we get back to the previous question, then, in relation to that? Are there plans to hold future events — specifically, bring back the B.C. LNG conference?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m not going to close the door on what may occur in the future, but I’m more inclined to sponsor conferences in partnership with other organizations, such as we do with renewable energies, rather than to solely host it ourselves. I think there’s more value when you bring in multiple partners myself. So going forward, if that opportunity presented itself, we’d certainly consider it.

E. Ross: In terms of B.C. sponsoring an event or being the main sponsor and driving a conference, there will be no future event unless somebody else brings it to you, and then you’ll consider it. Is that the answer?

Hon. M. Mungall: That’s absolutely not what I said. What I said is that I’m not going to prejudge any future decisions and opportunities. What I’m more inclined to say is that we are working in partnership, which is a word we’ve used very often on this side of the House. We’re more interested in working in partnership with industry, as we do with the renewable industry, on their conferences.

E. Ross: I’ve heard, I guess, that this government now supports LNG. I’m assuming that this government will pursue it aggressively with the Asian markets. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Minister — through the Chair, of course — but my question is: are there any proposed trade missions to Asia to pursue Asian markets for LNG?

Hon. M. Mungall: This government, which has been in office for 110 days, has supported the LNG industry since day one. In terms of going to Asia and having any Asian trade missions, those are currently under discussion.

E. Ross: From day one. When did day one start? When are you talking about — the support that came from the NDP? Or are you just talking about the support of the NDP government once you got in power?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member will know that we became government on July 18. So when I talk about this government, that would be the day that it started. In terms of NDP policy on the LNG industry, it is five years old, and it hasn’t changed in the last five years.

E. Ross: The policy, then. I’m not sure that it reflects…. The minister is a member, and the NDP party’s perspective toward LNG…. In your comments here previous to these, you were talking about the opportunity to reduce Asia’s emissions. But your comments earlier contradicted that.

We’re really talking about comments about non-support of LNG when it comes to emissions or when it comes to whether or not it’s good for B.C. So are the opinions and the policy of the government the same?

Hon. M. Mungall: Can the member please rephrase his question?

[5:55 p.m.]

E. Ross: Yeah. I’m just not quite sure — the statements talking about the policy. I’m really talking about consumer confidence, investor confidence, as well as competitiveness. I heard previous comments and talking about the ability to get Asia to reduce its emissions by using LNG. But you just got through stating that it’s been NDP policy for five years.

You were quoted earlier saying that cutting emissions to China and India was ridiculous: “Ridiculous. It’s still a fossil fuel.” Has the minister changed her train of thought on this? What has changed that train of thought?

Hon. M. Mungall: I thought I heard the member quoting something that he is attributing to me. If he is doing that, can he please read the quote in full and attribute the source of where he obtained that?

E. Ross: Sorry for that. I should have done that in the first place. By the way, I do agree with you. I’ve known for 13 years that that was the best way to get Asia to reduce its emissions. That’s one of the main reasons I was pushing it so hard.

The quote is: “Christy Clark reassures us that moving India and China away from coal-burning facilities to LNG facilities is the cleanest, greenest answer. I can’t believe how ridiculous that is. It’s still a fossil fuel.” That came from Michelle Mungall, from the Nelson Star, February 9, 2016.

The Chair: Reference by names of ridings and/or ministerial portfolios only.

E. Ross: Oh, okay. Thanks.

Hon. M. Mungall: The previous hyperbolic statements from the previous Premier, I think, are well documented and well known. To say that any fossil fuel was the cleanest, greenest way to energy source I don’t think is accurate, as we know that renewables offer a cleaner approach — right? — because they don’t produce GHG emissions.

[6:00 p.m.]

Now, as I said earlier, does LNG offer us an opportunity to reduce carbon emissions? Absolutely, it does.

E. Ross: Okay. Thank you for that.

Really, you’ve brought up competitiveness and the Asian markets, and that’s basically what the whole LNG industry is all about. Does the minister now believe that LNG, apart from being good to take Asia off of its emissions, is good for B.C., as well, in terms of the benefits and investment?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I said earlier, LNG offers a tremendous opportunity for British Columbia. It offers a tremendous opportunity for Asian markets, as well, to move away from their plans for coal-fired plants to produce electricity. India alone is looking like it’s going to be able to provide 100 percent electrical access by 2030. They’re doing that with a lot of coal-fired plants. If we can get them away from those coal-fired plants to natural gas, that’s an opportunity that I think is tremendous, not just for India in terms of reducing their air pollution but tremendous for B.C. as well.

We have hundreds of years’ worth of natural gas available. Getting that overseas requires the liquefaction process, so LNG is that opportunity for British Columbia, for Asian markets, for Asian communities and Asian households as well — and for all of us on this planet as we all collectively look to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

I hope that at some point in time, the B.C. Liberals will just stop mischaracterizing the B.C. NDP’s position on LNG and on natural gas production. I doubt that will be today.

E. Ross: Well, we’re talking about messaging, and investors see these messages. I’m just interested in the change of heart. That’s all I’m interested in.

I got, from the minister’s answer, that she believes that it’s now good for the people of British Columbia — the LNG opportunity. That contradicts the statement she made on July 14 and 15: “It ain’t good for anybody in this province.” So can I ask the minister, now that we know the rationale behind the emissions question: what changed her opinion for the benefits in terms of British Columbians?

Hon. M. Mungall: Can the member opposite please note the source of the so-called quote?

E. Ross: Hansard.

Hon. M. Mungall: What was the context?

E. Ross: I don’t have the context. I just have a quote. It just says: “It ain’t good for anybody in this province.” That’s July 14, 2015.

Hon. M. Mungall: I suggest that the member check with his research before he starts delivering these quotes out of context.

E. Ross: Okay. Thank you, Minister.

I can assume, then, that the minister is in full support of LNG now in terms of benefits that will flow to British Columbians.

Hon. M. Mungall: Yup, and the NDP’s position has been the same for the last five years. We want to see good projects developed for British Columbians.

E. Ross: Okay. I will get the context. Sorry about that, Minister.

But in that case there, does the minister deny making this quote in relation to LNG development?

Hon. M. Mungall: When that member gets the context of this quote, we will be able to discuss it. Until then, can we move on to something productive?

M. Bernier: I’m just going to remind the minister that we are actually in estimates, where we get to talk about LNG. We get to talk about the opportunities. We get to talk about the minister’s position. We get to talk about what the minister’s ideas and thoughts are, as we progress through, in the province, on this specific topic.

[6:05 p.m.]

It is part of her mandate, part of her portfolio. These questions actually are completely in line because we’re trying to gauge where the minister’s objectives are. The minister is on record. If she wants to stand up in the House and actually deny ever saying anything negative about LNG, I’d welcome her to stand up and say that. But in the meantime, while I’m waiting for her to actually do that, hopefully after I sit down, can she then say that she also disagrees, then, with quotes from the now Premier who said: “I will stop spending any time talking about an industry that is actually going nowhere in B.C. and instead, start looking at other areas of our economy that actually will work and thrive”?

It is a trend here that we’re just trying to say…. For the last few years, every time we’ve talked about LNG in the province of British Columbia, the opportunities not only for jobs but the opportunities to help other countries around the world to get off of fossil fuel, coal-powered generation…. We had great opportunities here that we were working towards. And it’s very unfortunate that the NDP when they were in opposition did everything possible to talk about why that wasn’t going to work, everything possible to say it was a pipe dream and unicorns and rainbows and everything that the minister and other people have been found having said.

All we’re asking is: when did the epiphany happen? When did she realize that what we were trying to do as a B.C. Liberal government, to move forward with LNG opportunities in B.C…? When did she actually decide that that actually was the right thing to do? Because you know what? We’re not arguing that it’s the right thing. We’re just kind of curious on when the minister decided she that agreed with us.

Hon. M. Mungall: Well, unlike the members opposite, I’ve actually found the context of that quote, and it wasn’t talking about the LNG industry. I wasn’t talking about any particular company that looks to invest in British Columbia. What I was talking about was a bill that was put forward by the B.C. Liberal government that was not good for British Columbians, and I stand by that.

M. Bernier: I’m assuming then, since the minister seems to be somewhat almost offended by this line of questioning…. Again, back to my original question. Will the minister stand here and say that now she, as the minister of this portfolio, is in favour of LNG and can admit, then, that the work that we were trying to accomplish as a government to move that industry forward was the right thing to do?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I have answered that member’s question from another member. We’ve been doing this for quite some time. If we want to just play political games, as the Liberals often do, we can do that for the next ten minutes. If they want to just play the quote game, we can start doing that too. But I imagine that there are some real issues around LNG that the critic opposite would probably like to get to, that actually impact the industry. I would be happy to answer questions about that.

M. Bernier: Actually, what impacts industry is certainty, a government that’s actually going to work with them, a government that’s actually going to set a tone for investment and climate in the province.

I think the minister’s actually finding that it’s pretty easy to be in opposition — she found for that time — where she could say whatever she wanted and thought she wasn’t accountable. Now she’s a minister of the Crown and actually has to make decisions — and tough decisions at that — and she has to be accountable for those decisions.

The answer that we did not get is from a very, very easy question. Now that she’s the minister in charge, is she now in support of LNG?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thanks for the mansplaining, but I’ve answered the question.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. We’ll get repetitive because I know the minister is trying to avoid answering this. Obviously, if she’s answered it, can she do that for me again?

There are projects in the province of British Columbia that are down the train to employ lots of people, to actually bring natural gas from northeast B.C. and export it off the coast. The longer we wait in the province here, the more opportunities for the United States and other jurisdictions in the world to actually have this.

We have some of the best natural gas, cleanest natural gas, globally. The minister has yet to stand up and say that she’s had this epiphany, now that she’s in charge of this file, and realizes that, yes, we need to be working with these companies. Yes, there are opportunities globally. Yes, we should be doing everything we can in the province to try to export our natural gas to other markets.

By her saying she’s answered that, I’m going to assume, if she stands up and gives the same answer, that everything I said, I just said on her behalf, and she agrees with me.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I have most definitively answered this question over and over again. If the member opposite wants to look at Hansard, if he’s confused, he may do so — absolutely. I’m wondering if this political game play that the B.C. Liberals are playing here in budget estimates, this approach that they’ve decided to take, is because they are in fact, indeed, quite bitter and upset with themselves for failing to deliver on their big promises around LNG for B.C.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

M. Bernier: Before I turn it over to my colleague, I’m going to reserve my right on a point of privilege.

The Chair: So noted.

Debate Continued

E. Ross: You know what? That was my priority, LNG, for 13 years, and for 13 years, I’ve had to watch the opposition and listen to the opposition of LNG. So I’m just trying to get a good understanding of where the government stands now in the support of LNG, given their opposition over the years.

Without quoting anything, can I ask the minister…? The minister opposed the legislation that set benchmarks on LNG, making the cleanest…. Why is she now in favour of these benchmarks and offsets?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member is referring to a particular vote that has taken place in this House at some point. Can he please be specific?

E. Ross: Yeah, we’ll have to get the researchers to get back on that. Basically, the minister opposed the legislation that set the…. We’ll get the exact information and dates and the legislation we’re talking about.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:19 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:20 p.m.