BCWF calls for more oversight .................

[J_T]

Just compare BC's track record, net present value of natural resource extraction, and incident rate to the global rate. You can even bring developing world countries into the mix.

You will find BC is doing an extremely poor job of managing natural resources, particularly non-renewables. At least from an economics perspective.

Are we talking about economics? Or environmental risk?

"I will find" Is your judgement. Not a collective opinion of an unbiased third party. I'm not sure you can compare BC to other jurisdictions. What I would say about 'track record' is that we document far more than most jurisdictions and that information is more available on social media than most other countries. This leads to greater and more critical judgements like yours. Until all countries operate on the same set of standards under the "Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative" one jurisdiction's performance can not be compared to another. What is acceptable in Latin America, is likely not acceptable here. Yet our practice might be better.

I don't disagree we can do a better job, I'm just not sure that acting like any other 'anti' group out there is the way to go about it.

If we look at industrial activity in other jurisdictions relative to BC regulations, these other countries need to clean up their laws with respect to social inclusion and environmental regulations. BC is way ahead in terms of operational practice.

FYI, In most countries, Inspectors are hired by the company, paid by the company and know they will be out of work if they don't give a favourable report. In BC we do need more inspectors but at least these are neutral Government Inspectors.

[GoatGuy]

Are we talking about economics? Or environmental risk?

"I will find" Is your judgement. Not a collective opinion of an unbiased third party. I'm not sure you can compare BC to other jurisdictions. What I would say about 'track record' is that we document far more than most jurisdictions and that information is more available on social media than most other countries. This leads to greater and more critical judgements like yours. Until all countries operate on the same set of standards under the "Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative" one jurisdiction's performance can not be compared to another. What is acceptable in Latin America, is likely not acceptable here. Yet our practice might be better.

I don't disagree we can do a better job, I'm just not sure that acting like any other 'anti' group out there is the way to go about it.

If we look at industrial activity in other jurisdictions relative to BC regulations, these other countries need to clean up their laws with respect to social inclusion and environmental regulations. BC is way ahead in terms of operational practice.

FYI, In most countries, Inspectors are hired by the company, paid by the company and know they will be out of work if they don't give a favourable report. In BC we do need more inspectors but at least these are neutral Government Inspectors.

Tailing ponds failures and leaks compared to other jurisdictions or to the global rate.

Cost/benefit environmental economics incorporate risks and costs.

[J_T]

Hey, I'm not going to fight with you on this. I worked in Peru for a joint Canada Peru mission from 1998 - 2002. Tailings ponds for mine waste did not even compare. Not even close. What I saw there looked what we might have seen here 100 years ago. In fact, creating new environmental standards was entirely our objective. As you know, I've been working in Colombia the past year on precisely the same thing. If you look at worker safety, worker compensation there is no comparison. If you look at the environmental approval process, you can't compare because other jurisdictions don't have one. All you have to do in these other jurisdictions is make sure the Mayor of the local community is on your side. That's all.

"Global rate" What is that? Some sort of double standard? There is no global rate. Even the Fraser Institute is bias. Most jurisdictions don't have a mechanism to report and don't report. How can you compare that which is not reported other than to say, zero reports.

Cost benefit? How do you measure that? How many lives are lost? Or how many leaks we have?

[Avalanche123]

Well said J_T.

[J_T]

As an example FARC, a recognized terrorist organization by force took over a community killed (killed dead) opposition to the takeover and are now running a mine. And selling to US companies. Your Sony products and others are made from this. That mine isnt even on any controls. Im quite certain that isnt happening here.

[GoatGuy]

Hey, I'm not going to fight with you on this. I worked in Peru for a joint Canada Peru mission from 1998 - 2002. Tailings ponds for mine waste did not even compare. Not even close. What I saw there looked what we might have seen here 100 years ago. In fact, creating new environmental standards was entirely our objective. As you know, I've been working in Colombia the past year on precisely the same thing. If you look at worker safety, worker compensation there is no comparison. If you look at the environmental approval process, you can't compare because other jurisdictions don't have one. All you have to do in these other jurisdictions is make sure the Mayor of the local community is on your side. That's all.

"Global rate" What is that? Some sort of double standard? There is no global rate. Even the Fraser Institute is bias. Most jurisdictions don't have a mechanism to report and don't report. How can you compare that which is not reported other than to say, zero reports.

Cost benefit? How do you measure that? How many lives are lost? Or how many leaks we have?

Mostly about economic benefits.

BC lives with a resource curse and manages it poorly. Same as Alberta. The "today" approach is short-sighted and expensive in the long-run.

Not interested in the fight either, enough of those to go around lol.

[forestwalker]

I agree that the practices currently in place are not working and something needs to be done. Creating another committee to oversee all natural resource operations makes sense only because everything is encompassed and judged under the framework of the one committee. I would only see it working if this committee was the one and only shaping the guidelines and regulations for the province. The hope would be uniform/set guidelines, no loopholes and direct accountability. Professional Reliance is a good concept and would work marvelously, except it seems that the government has no use for professional advice or scientific approach if it stands in the way of economic growth. Maybe BRNO 22F can give some insight into how much a Registered Professional Foresters voice and credentials weigh in terms of government decisions in forestry these days, I for one would like to know.
An interesting topic nonetheless.
Cheers
Rick

[albravo2]

Well said J_T.

x2. Nice to see someone with relevant experience commenting.

[J_T]

I guess my position is we dont need more committees, meetings and time to make something better.
From an operational perspective, Id prefer to look at other ways for input. MOE are already using online consultation for hunting regulations. Just expand the questions online to include input from you/us on other matters on the land.

For rights acquisition (chattel interest) I believe the best method to consider input from all user groups is e-consultation. I believe this is ocurring now in many business processes.

[Sitkaspruce]

You cannot put ETHICS and PROFITS in the same sentence. And with PR, it is one or the other.

PR can work, but when the pressure is on to make $$$, the ethics and/or responsibility to the people of BC can either go right out the door, or be dummied down to fit.

Sadly, the way the Gov allows PR to work does not always "fit" what the public would like to see.

And I am one of those guys with the letters after my name.......

Cheers

SS