It's a sad day in BC with the Greens and NDP joing up.

[hobbyguy]

I agree Queen, but the flip side, not being sensational, is rarely reported.

Years ago I attended the auction to sell off the redundant assets of the Equity Silver mine, south of Houston BC. I was quite impressed with site remediation that already been done, it included several measures to reduce and control leechates, including an outfall from the the system going into a pond where trout were grown (partly as a "canary in the coal mine"). A permanent environmental monitoring station and staff were in place, and funded by a trust. All other buildings, their foundations, the equipment of all types were to be removed and the remaining work site area remediated.

I have checked periodically, and there have been no reported pollution issues. I also looked at the site recently on google earth, and it was very difficult to find - the remediation has it almost completely blended into the surroundings.

[hobbyguy]

I just checked on what is being done at a more recent mine closure in BC: http://www.trcr.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2010-Kemess-South-Mine-Reclamation-and-Closure.pdf

That one is a copper mine.

[Queen K]

Question remains: would site remediation be done if it hadn't been for environmentalists raising the issues?

[hobbyguy]

I can tell you that there was no environmental activism surrounding the Equity Silver Mine closure in 1992.

The funding for the mediation and environmental monitoring was provided by bonds that were required by the provincial government, and to be formulaic contributions during the operating period of the mine. The mine opened in 1980. To this day, there are an average of 4 people employed at the former mine site to monitor the environment.

Note that Houston BC is hardly a hotbed of environmental activism.

My bet is many environmental activists don't even know of the existence of Houston BC, nor the existence of the former open pit mine site.

Every mine operating in BC is required to contribute such formulaic bonds for remediation and monitoring. There is, however, some question as to whether the formula has indeed kept up with both inflation and current standards. Some have forecast that there is a significant shortfall, however, that is an issue that I have not researched. I do know that the BC government became aware of that issue in last couple of years, but don't know if it has gone anywhere.

There are indeed some old mines in BC where no such funding exists as they operated and closed before such funding was required. Britannia mines was one such https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Beach that had to be dealt with utilizing public funds.

[rustled]

Question remains: would site remediation be done if it hadn't been for environmentalists raising the issues?

The issue was raised through the 70s and the 80s and the 90s. Various governments responded with new measures. Industry came around.

Same thing happened with logging operations. We saw a great deal of improvement in resource development, with a much greater awareness of impacts and how to mitigate them (and, in some cases such as the overgrowth due to forest fire suppression, actually leave areas better off than we'd found them).

It's interesting how today's environmentalists think they are so cutting edge for promoting recycling and solar and wind and trying to shut down any and all resource development. It's never a bad thing to have watchdogs, as long as the watchdogs aren't calling wolf, or worse: turning into snarling packs and running amok, doing more harm than good.

The pendulum hath swung so far.

Strange to think some folk firmly believe pro-industry means anti-environment, or vice versa. Doesn't seem to me the NDP is likely to take much better care of the environment, and the only industry they'll truly support will be very much at our (and the environment's) expense. And the Greens? With Weaver at the helm, they sure seem to be in it for themselves.

[Urbane]

Andrew Weaver is very disappointed in Christy Clark. As far as he's concerned she has a duty to make sure that the Liberals supply a speaker for the Green-DP government:

“If they do that she’s playing politics, and frankly, I think the electorate will punish the BC Liberals for that because that is just trying to play games,” said Weaver.

“Tradition is the Speaker is appointed at the beginning of parliamentary sitting for the entire term of that parliament. And it is entirely not tradition to have a speaker resign.”
http://globalnews.ca/news/3525111/saga- ... continues/

Andrew Weaver told us during the election campaign that by tradition the party with more seats than any other had the first chance to govern. Weaver threw out that tradition by striking a deal with John Horgan and now he expects Christy Clark to make it work by supplying a speaker for him. That was his plan to make this fragile Green-DP government work??? Hilarious!

[Veovis]

So far the NDP and Greens have declared that while losing the election they really did get a majority mandate (they didn't) and now would like the people they plan to blame for their poor abilities should be nice and help them take over without actually having been election, having a platform or a budget (they shouldn't).

I think that Weaver had every right to throw in with either party as he was given the kingmaker position, but what he has done with it so far has made his credibility evaporate.

I'm not sure where a new election ends up, but, I can bet the Greens disappear in it.

[rustled]

Boy, he's sure grasping at straws. Typical politician: can't admit he made a mistake or a tactical error, so he resorts to finger-pointing, blame and nonsense.

Does he really expect us to believe there's a firm tradition around this?

B.C. doesn't have much of a history of minority governments unseated by quasi-coalitions through sleazy backroom deals, so exactly what was he hanging his hopes on? Was he simply so blinded by his thirst for power, he (gasp!) failed to think things through?

Some interesting reading about speakers at the federal level here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_o ... ns_(Canada)

Opposition Speakers
The Speaker usually comes from among MPs of the governing party. But because he or she cannot vote unless his or her vote would break a tie and by convention must vote to maintain the status quo (which includes voting confidence in the government), a minority government can slightly weaken the opposition's power by electing an opposition speaker.

Speakers have been elected from opposition parties during the 1926 tenure of Arthur Meighen's Conservative ministry, the 1979 ministry of Progressive Conservative Joe Clark, and Stephen Harper's Conservative Ministry from 2006 to 2011. In the 39th Parliament, three opposition members, Peter Milliken, Diane Marleau and Marcel Proulx, ran for Speaker. In 1957, when John George Diefenbaker took power with a minority Progressive Conservative government, he offered the Speaker's chair to Stanley Knowles of the opposition Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (the precursor to the NDP), who declined. So far, every Speaker from an opposition party has been a Liberal.

[Jonrox]

NDP in, taxes up: study
https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-199367-3-.htm#199367

Changes proposed in B.C. by an NDP-Green alliance would increase the yearly tax burden for the average family by $594, a study by the Fraser Institute finds.

“An NDP-Green government in B.C. would result in a marked shift in tax policy in the province, including an increase in personal income taxes, carbon taxes and business taxes,” said Niels Veldhuis, president of the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report.

The study finds the increases would add $1.4 billion to the tax burden of British Columbians, assuming the carbon tax increase is fully implemented in 2017.

Using a tax simulator, the Fraser Institute determined the average B.C. family’s tax bill would increase by $594 under a NDP-Green government, led mainly by a $482 increase in fuel and carbon taxes.

Great news for middle class and low income British Columbians.

[MyPointofView]

Really? Doom and gloom from the Fraser Institute regarding NDP policy. Unbelievable. Maybe they should run the liberal's financial plan through their "tax simulator"'. Sarcasm off.

[Ub2]

Using a tax simulator, the Fraser Institute determined the average B.C. family’s tax bill would increase by $594 under a NDP-Green government, led mainly by a $482 increase in fuel and carbon taxes.

Great news for middle class and low income British Columbians.

Yep, and why am I not surprised . . . they're just getting warmed up.

Reminds me of the fable 'the scorpion and the turtle'.

[erinmore3775]

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/fact-checker
"University of Victoria economist Rob Gillezeau said he saw the NDP balanced budget as “doable.”

Even if they missed some revenue targets or spending increased somewhat, the $750-million cushion already built into this year’s budget and $550-million cushions in the next two years, means they can reach their targets, he said.

[i]"Paul Kershaw, a professor in the school of population and public health at the University of B.C., said he could see no reason why the NDP could not deliver the balanced budget, noting the two-per-cent increase in revenue required was modest and covered by moderate tax increases."

The Liberals did, indeed, reduce taxes from 16.8 per cent to 14.7 per cent for everyone making more than $150,000 a year in 2015. This affected the top two per cent of earners and meant $250 million less annually for provincial coffers.

When the NDP says it would bring an extra $1 billion into government coffers by reinstating this levy, that is the sum that would be collected over its four-year term — not every year in power."

When considering the effect of the increased Carbon Tax on BC taxpayers, The Fraser Institute appears to use the the BC average Family income of about $72,000. It is true that the Carbon Tax rebate would have no effect on families earning this amount, it would affect families earning $50,000 or less. Also families earning $50,000 or less would be paying significantly less in MSP fees (if cancelled). Unfortunately, the Fraser Institute did not provide a complete cost saving comparison.

However, it is unlikely that it will matter. Since it is likely that no party or coalition will be able to form a working government. The Greens wasted their chance at influence and power. They would have been better off allowing the Liberals to form a government, elect a Speaker, and then proppose legislation. The passage of that legislation would have been totally dependent on their support. Their influence would have then been greater and more efficient. Now, their influence will be lost in the next election. I predict that in the summer election, the Liberals will win a slim majority. (Liberals 45, NDP 41, & Green 1).

[lasnomadas]

It's a sad day in B.C. when we find that the BC Liberals still have a fan club.

[hobbyguy]

The Green party platform specifically abandoned the idea of "revenue neutral" for the carbon tax increases. The carbon tax regime has already slipped to slightly less than revenue neutral.

I also find that the analysis that the NDP balanced budget is "doable" to be a joke. The MSP premium promise alone will drop revenues by $2.5 billion. $1 billion of that being corporate tax money. That number alone makes the $550 million - $750 million surplus projections look puny.

Then start adding in all the "you can have everything you want for free" NDP promises, and you have a massive black hole.

It gets deeper when you start to consider that delaying site C, let alone cancelling, will chop up one of those $550 million surplus numbers.

It gets deeper still when you remove the bridge tolls, freeze BC Hydro rates, freeze ICBC rates, give renters a $400 cheque, and the list goes on....

The NDP platform wasn't ever costed, wasn't ever budgeted, and contained no taxation plan. The Green platform projected a significant deficit, and significant tax increases.

[Queen K]

It's a sadder day when one realizes no one in BC is winning.