Hansard -- Monday, April 26, 2004 a.m. -- Vol. 24, No. 3 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Private Members' Statements		10407
	Health care
	D. Hayer
	R. Hawes
	Math 44
	D. Jarvis
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Bridging the digital divide in the Kootenays
	B. Suffredine
	B. Bennett
	Mining is good for the environment
	D. MacKay
	Hon. P. Bell

Motions on Notice		10415
	Working land base (Motion 46) (continued)
	D. MacKay
	J. Bray
	B. Bennett
	L. Mayencourt
	Hon. G. Abbott
	R. Hawes

D. Hayer: Health care, Mr. Speaker, is the single most important issue that this government deals with. It consumes 42 cents of every dollar of revenue that this government takes in. Everything else that government provides for — transportation infrastructure, education, social assistance — must come out of the remainder.

It is stunning that since this government was elected three years ago, health care spending has increased by more than $2 billion, yet there are still problems with the system. That tells me that things must be done differently, because simply spending more money isn't working, isn't the answer. We need to do a better job of identifying and cutting waste out of the system — even more than we have been doing — and ensuring that operations are efficient so that we can reduce waiting time for surgeries, cut lineups and provide a smoother approach to health care delivery.

We must also press our federal government to provide our fair share of federal health care dollars. Over the past decade or so, the federal government has slashed its financial health care contribution to this province from 50 percent to a mere 15 percent. That is outrageous. We must become more forceful in our demands for the federal government to return a much larger portion of our tax dollars for health care to British Columbia.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I have had some considerable experience with British Columbia's health care system over the past year and more. While the reason that my family needed the health care system was unfortunate, I was impressed with the care my family members received. I was impressed by the expertise and the delivery of service in our hospitals. My son's battle with leukemia was a high-risk situation that I am proud to say was efficiently and effectively dealt with in our health care system.

Our high-risk situations are also attended to with care — just another indication of the high calibre of professionals we have in our province. We have some of the highest-paid nurses in the country. We have the best-paid doctors in the country. We have a health care system that is among the best in the world.

However, the waiting lists are still too long. We need to be directing the new dollars directly into patient care to reduce waiting times and to improve the lot of the patient. In fact, only last week I learned that spending was increased by 14 percent for hip replacement surgeries, and knee replacement surgery spending has increased by 11 percent. That is good news for those suffering from arthritis. That is good news for seniors whose joints are wearing out. It improves their quality of life and allows them to remain independent for a much longer period of time.

Under the guidance of our current Minister of Health Services, we are achieving a level of sustainability that will serve those in need of health care for many years to come. I know what he has done with our health care system over the past few years. I know it is working, because I have personally experienced it. I am proud that my area hospital is Surrey Memorial Hospital. I have experienced many good things about the way my family and my constituents are treated at that hospital.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Surrey Memorial Hospital also serves as a regional hospital for much of the Fraser Valley. It has one of the busiest emergency departments in Canada. It has recently received a $1.5 million expansion to further serve patients requiring renal dialysis. Close by, in Newton, another $1.2 million was spent to create a community renal dialysis unit in that part of Surrey. We have also doubled the number of stations available for hemodialysis in Newton and Surrey Memorial, expanding from 16 to 33 stations. We will also be expanding the emergency department at Surrey Memorial Hospital by building a new emergency ward in a short period of time.

Soon access to patient care at the Surrey Hospital will increase when the new Fraser Valley Regional Hospital in Abbotsford is constructed. This major, new, 300-bed facility, plus a regional cancer centre, will take some of the load off Surrey Memorial Hospital and will definitely improve access to acute care services for the entire valley. I know it will be a few years before Abbotsford's new hospital comes on line, but in the meantime my constituents and those of my fellow Surrey MLAs are being well served at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

That said, one constant concern for a number of my constituents is that while Surrey has a very ethnically diverse population, there are not enough health care workers who speak anything other than English. It would be very beneficial to see more languages and translation skills available in our hospitals, particularly in Surrey Memorial, as it has a very diverse population base that it serves.

Otherwise, from our family's experience, I can assure you that the best care is being delivered there. I want to credit the doctors, nurses and support staff for exceptional service. However, much credit also goes to the volunteers who give their precious time to help make a superb hospital, along with the hospital foundation auxiliary who do an outstanding job supporting the fundraising effort for equipment and other needs. The hospital is a community success because many people work very hard to make it happen.

I know, as a government with our current resources, we are doing the right thing with the Health ministry. I know we are doing our best to serve all ages, all patients, all seniors with the best health care possible. I know that we will continue to do so, because we are developing and providing a health care system

that gives British Columbians the highest quality of care and that will be sustainable for generations to come.

R. Hawes: Thank you to the member for Surrey-Tynehead for both his words and the opportunity that he has given me to respond.

First and foremost, I would like to mention the funding shortage in the transfer from the federal government. The member is absolutely right when he talks about the drain of money from the federal government, which used to pay us about 50 percent of the cost of health care and has now dropped to the mid-teens. That has left us critically short of dollars. Very clearly, at the first ministers' meetings that are held frequently, health is the number one issue. In every single province they're suffering the same fate as we are suffering here in British Columbia, and that is a desperate underfunding from the federal government and the fight to get a restoration of the funding as it was before or even an increase in what they have been giving us.

Over the last few years — over the last several decades, in fact — it is very evident that health care costs have been climbing out of control and that health care, frankly, is not sustainable the way it has been operated, particularly when one looks at the demographics and the advancing army of baby-boomers that is soon going to be reaching the most expensive time of their lives in health care. There is no chance that our children and our grandchildren can sustain health care the way that we have known it in the past. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we restructure health care.

This government is committed to doing that, and we are committed to doing it with the dollars that we have available, because we can't count on the federal government. It has been my privilege to serve as the chair of the Government Caucus Committee on Health, along with the member for Surrey-Tynehead. Very difficult and very complicated problems within health care come before our committee and government on a regular basis, and we have to find solutions.

Sometimes with the public, these things are not always popular because no one likes change, but I think the public should know that we are working towards a sustainable health care system that will deliver health care where you need it and when you need it. We are approaching that. There is a plan put together, but it is going to take some time. With change, often there is some pain associated, and there will be some pain in this. I know some have experienced the pain as we shift and as we find new ways to deliver health care.

In the end, the absolute key to being able to provide health care in a sustainable fashion to the numbers of baby-boomers that are going to require health care over the next little while is in the area of prevention. Health care prevention is where we have not spent any time or money in the past. In fact, in my experience over many years with hospital boards and with the old community health councils, it was abundantly clear to me that the first thing cut in any budget is any money dedicated towards prevention, because you don't see the results till somewhere far down the road. We've been too busy fighting crisis after crisis. Finding ways to make people accountable for the lifestyle choices that they make and putting prevention at the head of the list — that is one of the key ways we're going to build a sustainable health care system.

I'm very pleased that the member raised the new MSA Hospital in Abbotsford. For us in the Fraser Valley, this is going to take a tremendous, tremendous load off a system that is really falling apart right now in the acute care sector. It is going to serve my community, Mission. It will serve Surrey, Abbotsford and Chilliwack, and it will be a magnet hospital for specialists.

I'd just like to close with one very interesting article that was in the Globe and Mail last week. It said that in Ontario they're facing a huge problem because British Columbia is attracting specialists far faster than they can produce them — from Ontario to British Columbia. Because of the wage rates that are paid, specialists can earn more money here, and they have access to more equipment and a broader diversity of opportunity.

All is not well in health care in this country. Those who would have the public believe that all is doom and gloom in British Columbia need to look around the rest of the world. We, in fact, in many areas are leading the world, but we are nationally and internationally facing a health care crisis.

I can tell you that I get up every day and I thank God that we have a government here that is looking at the problem in a very serious way, dealing with it in a realistic way and not promising all things to all people. I think, Mr. Speaker, you yourself know that no government can deliver everything and be a friend to everyone. We are, in fact, doing what's responsible and right, and we will be building a health care system that is sustainable. Thank you to the member for Surrey-Tynehead for bringing this topic.

D. Hayer: I want to thank my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission for his comments on health care. He has done all the research in it, he is always passionate about it, and he talks about it all the time at our GCC on health. I know his community of Mission has been working very hard to preserve its excellent Mission Memorial Hospital, and I understand it will soon become an integral part of the diverse delivery of care that the new Fraser Valley regional hospital in Abbotsford will provide.

Each of us in this House and in our ridings realizes the challenges facing health care. As the baby-boomer generation ages, as the people live longer, as the new technologies come on line and as breakthroughs in research and new medicine reach the marketplace — which are very expensive — the demand on health care spending will only increase. That is why this government and all governments succeeding it must have to

spend money differently. They will have to spend it efficiently, will have to ensure that the bulk of the health care dollars is spent directly on the well-being of the patients, directly on the patients.

I also ask that everyone in this House join me in demanding a return of a greater share of our costs of the health care funding from the federal government. We send so much money to Ottawa that we want to bring some more money back here to us.

D. Jarvis: I rise this morning to do a little bragging about the school system in my riding. North Vancouver school district 44 has always been in the forefront when it comes to new and innovative ways of teaching our students. Among the already nationally recognized programs, including the North Shore bands and strings, reading 44, firm foundations and Artists For Kids Trust, I would like to tell you about an exciting math program that has now been developed and is being implemented in North Vancouver school district 44.

I can remember that in my day, math was a subject that many would say you're either good at or not. There was no in-between. Certainly those who were not good at the subject were happy to report that our parents were bad at math too, so it must be genetic.

However, the teaching professionals in my school district could not disagree more. They believe that math is best learned when a student can relate to it and experience what they have already had — get away from what they refer to as the skill-and-drill way of teaching and look at it in a new way. This new program is called math 44 and is dedicated to all teachers who work to improve students' mathematical proficiency. North Vancouver math 44 is a tool or guide for the curriculum. It is a freer way of teaching, one that encourages dialogue and conversation around math. Teachers can translate math proficiency into ten math habits, and the teacher can assess students individually and then decide how to guide them.

The ten basic habits of this math 44 are as follows: (1) I explore and investigate the math ideas. (2) I connect new math ideas to what I already know. (3) I figure out the big ideas in math. (4) I do computations quickly and accurately. (5) I make reasonable estimates. (6) I use mental math. (7) I make sense of problems. (8) I use a variety of strategies to solve math problems. (9) I explain and then give reasons for my math thinking. (10) I work hard at math.

Each of these habits can be practised individually, and the teacher can choose an activity to reinforce that particular habit for each particular child. This program steers away from the "teach, test and move on" method by not expecting every student to do the same activity the same way every time.

Educators in all the other school districts who have implemented math 44 are aided by this 300-odd-page teaching tool. What I was holding up there was the grade 4 version. There is a booklet, just like this one, created for grades 1 through 9. North Vancouver math is based on research that to learn math comes from thinking math and then doing math. It is believed that a core understanding of a subject can be broken down into five areas. I will take the liberty of quoting from the material provided to me by school district 44:

(1) Conceptual understanding, which is where students learn to see the sense in math and are able to make connections between math and the real world and think through big math ideas.

(2) Procedural fluency — which is something that I bet we can all use as a refresher — in needing to use the facts and the computation and skills quickly, automatically and efficiently.

(3) Strategic competence, which is where students need to demonstrate their abilities to solve problems, apply strategies and represent solutions in creative and varied ways. No more one-way-fits-all solutions.

(4) Adaptive reasoning. Students need to reason, think and talk about math concepts, problems and processes in order to challenge and justify their solutions.

(5) Productive disposition. Students need to bring a positive attitude and a pronounced work ethic to math tasks, displaying a confident, creative and critical risk-taking approach to their math work.

All of this, which is no doubt much easier translated by teachers than myself, has them focusing on promoting understanding and reasoning as well as computational mastery and the basic facts. This means the students are working not just with pencil and paper but in groups discussing and collaborating to justify their math thinking. The benefits to the students are obvious; the benefits to the teachers are equally noticeable.

The workbook is organized in such a fashion to support the teacher in designing and planning each unit. They can adapt material and organize the learning environment to meet the needs of each of their students. The topic pages support teachers' practice and experience and provide additional material for the direct instructions and activities that they already use in the classroom.

I know that the team that has worked on this project is still going strong and is out there supporting the teachers in North Vancouver school district 44, along with the other districts that have wisely decided to invest in the program. At this point I look forward to the Minister of Education for his comments on this matter.

Hon. T. Christensen: I want to thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour both for his interest in education matters and, in particular, for highlighting some of the innovation and best practices that have been developed and are being pursued in school district 44.

I couldn't agree more with the member about the great work being done to improve student achievement throughout the North Vancouver school district. I actually had the opportunity earlier this year to visit

with trustees, students and teachers in the North Vancouver school district. I had an opportunity to have a round-table discussion — which involved the trustees, school district administration and representatives from parent groups, teachers, principals and vice-principals and support staff — and have a good discussion around what was going on in school district 44 and some of the very good things they're doing.

I also had an opportunity on that day to attend a DPAC–hosted workshop on parent advocacy. It was a really good opportunity for me as a parent to learn a bit more about parent advocacy but also to see firsthand some of the good work being done by BCCPAC in trying to ensure that parents can have a meaningful role in their child's education.

One of the highlights, I must say, of my trip to the North Vancouver school district was an opportunity to visit Queen Mary Elementary School. I was able to see there firsthand the innovative work being done in the classroom in school district 44. Queen Mary is a three-level, turn-of-the-century schoolhouse — the last century, Mr. Speaker — that they've designed almost as an evolution to signify children starting in kindergarten and moving their way through the school. The basement of the school has murals of caterpillars on the walls. As you move up through the school, the caterpillar ages, and then when you graduate in grade 7 in this beautiful library on the top floor of this school, they have big fabric butterflies up on the ceiling. It really signifies a sense of inclusiveness in this school and the fact that the school is embracing all the students who come to that place and providing them with a strong direction and a strong sense of self and inclusiveness as they move through this school and graduate.

There really is a focus on social responsibility and inclusiveness in that school. It came to light to me when I was presented with a book by Mrs. Zander's grade 4 class. It was a book that the children had actually written themselves. It was a very good book for, at that point, a brand-new Minister of Education. It was titled How to Keep All Your Friends and was full of all sorts of great advice to me as to how I might keep my friends as I fulfil this role. I'm sure that Queen Mary Elementary is only one example of the schools in school district 44 and the great work that's going on in all of those schools.

The member mentioned a number of programs — band and strings, reading 44, firm foundations and the Artists for Kids Trust. They're all excellent programs. While the Ministry of Education actually played a role in developing reading 44, math 44 is plainly and simply the result of hard work and dedication by educators — whether they be teachers, principals or school district administrators — in the North Vancouver school district.

It's that kind of dedication, combined with an innovative approach to education, that is happening in school districts right around the province. Really, learning about these kinds of programs is one of the main reasons that the Ministry of Education brought in district reviews. I'm pleased to say that school district 44 has just been subject to a district review and came away from that process with an absolutely glowing report. I think all of the parents who are sending their children to schools in school district 44 can be very confident that their children are being provided an excellent education. The residents that live in that area and certainly the member for North Vancouver–Seymour can be rightly proud of the work being done in that school district to ensure that the students in that community are receiving an absolutely excellent education.

I know that the Premier and, I think, all of us in this Legislative Assembly certainly applaud what the North Vancouver school district is doing and what school boards and educators throughout B.C. are doing to improve student achievement. These programs are coming about in large part because the government has given school boards more autonomy. We gave them the tools that they need to be innovative, and math 44 is a good example of a school district being innovative to better meet its students' needs. We need to encourage that type of innovation to develop programs that are relevant to students so that students can do their best in school. I applaud school district 44's efforts. I trust that they will continue those strong efforts to benefit their students.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for his comments. He can see now that we're not being superfluous when we come to ask for more money. It's for good reason that my district is continually trying to improve the education system. I want also to congratulate school district 44, from the superintendent down to the trustees and the teachers, for their continuing dedication to the excellence in their classrooms.

Our superintendent, Dr. Robin Brayne, describes math 44 as the umbrella for the focus of instruction in mathematics. It is a professional program written by teachers for the use of teachers in the classroom. It is a balanced and research-based approach for children in kindergarten through grade 9. It assists students in achieving mathematical proficiency. The program features methods for developing math habits to create strategies of problem-solving. Math 44 has gone through a three-year period of development with rigorous testing to achieve its final form in 2003. At present it has been implemented up to grade 9, with full implementation in all grades by June of '05.

Early intervention using the strategies of math 44 is believed to be essential, as it identifies those students who are at risk for significant difficulties in the subject of mathematics. The research in the education field has shown that early intervention is crucial. A better knowledge of math will then result. North Vancouver district 44, through this new approach for teaching math, believes the method will lead to ongoing significant achievements for all of its students. It is based on the premise that learning math comes from thinking math and then doing math. Perhaps we may see this program provincewide in the near future.

To sum up, I again compliment my school district for their continuous search to provide the students in my area an all-around education program. I only wish that I had some of those tools and opportunities when I went through that education system in British Columbia. Finally, to sum up, I want to make some acknowledgments on math 44 to the teachers who developed and wrote the program: Jenny Hilder, Gowa Kong, Joan Martins, Patti Stewart, Cathy Molinski, Janey Cameron, Karen Harrop, Susannah Howick, Shannon Sharp, Christie Blaker, Thomas Falkenberg, Marilyn McVey and Melisse Adams — and Audrey Hobbs-Johnson and Larry Johnson, who contributed the guidance and support through the development of math 44. Thank you very much.

B. Suffredine: I want to speak today about our efforts to bridge the digital divide. Now, in the Kootenays — and I'm not sure how many people realize this — getting things like Internet access, cell service and those kinds of things is much more difficult in steep terrain with mountains. They require line-of-sight types of technology that broadcast.

When I was elected in 2001, one of the commitments that we made as a party in the New Era document was to work to extend high-speed broadband Internet access to every community in British Columbia through wireless technology, cable, phone lines and fibre optics. Our goal was to use public assets and our bargaining power as government to encourage expansion of Internet connectivity to all of British Columbia.

Many people know the value of high-speed connections, but there are still many people who actually struggle with things like e-mail and computers in general. I know many people — my wife included, I think — who don't know why it's so valuable to a small community, and they don't understand why a high-speed connection makes a difference. Communities in the heartlands often feel left out of the mainstream for many reasons. Major businesses like manufacturers often choose locations in larger centres simply because they're able to operate in those larger centres where they can connect with other people and other large businesses. People like writers, architects, engineers and consultants also have traditionally found that they need to be in those large centres in order to be able to do the work they do and to stay in touch with their employers.

The age of technology lets people like professionals do their work from home on a contract basis. For example, an engineer can design a bridge and send that work in on a disk or take it in and present it. The overhead is low when you work from home, and the presentation can be sent electronically or taken in and presented in person. Now, professionals like that, if they do work on that basis, can actually have a nicer lifestyle and can make a higher profit. Because they do their work on a contract, it takes into account the heavy costs they would otherwise have had. They can save the people they traditionally would have worked for the high overhead of a downtown office tower. People like artists have always found that marketing their products is difficult, because they need to be in a major centre in order to promote their work or spend huge amounts on advertising. Production and sale of an individual piece of art has never really been very practical, and it's difficult to spend that kind of marketing money.

The Internet makes a change to all of that. Creating a webpage can be done for a relatively modest cost. Products for sale can be posted easily by a picture on the Net and without high cost. People searching the World Wide Web only need to type in the product name they're looking for, and they can find it almost anywhere in the world. There are plenty of examples of businesses run from small communities. Typically in my region, I know, bed-and-breakfasts and back-country tour operators already run them — and artistic works, restaurants, campgrounds and those sorts of things.

You can buy almost anything on the Net these days. You can buy a car, or you can buy stocks, airplanes, pumps, parts and electronics — just to name a few. One of the unique things that's actually running in my riding is in a place called Crescent Valley. Many people may not know where it is. It's halfway between Nelson and Castlegar. There's a little company that makes casket furniture. This may sound a little morbid, but they actually make things like tables and chairs and other things that work on a theme of all being similar to caskets. They market that internationally on the Net. I don't know exactly what their sales are, but it's interesting that a unique little business like that is running in a small community.

B. Suffredine: It's a dying business, as my friend from the East Kootenay says.

There's somebody up in the Edgewood area that makes herbal medicines. At this point, they aren't going to be able to market that on the Net very easily, but they will soon. The mayor's wife in Creston is starting to sell, over the Net, the custom-made porcelain dolls that she's making.

We began to expand access through schools with a concept called PLNet, and that actually didn't work out as well as we wanted. We developed a new strategy, and that was designed to say that we as government should aggregate the demand and have government be the purchaser of a number of connections. We do the contract to purchase connectivity, and we supply a public point of access in a number of communities around the province. Now, the idea is that members of the public can use that access, and local groups can then buy access through it and distribute the access they get.

On April 16 a new partnership was announced, and as a result, we have agreement from Telus to provide

11 new points of access to communities in the Kootenays. From those points of access, local community access providers like the Columbia Mountain Open Network will be able to build those last-mile solutions. This is the first step to full access for people in small communities. It will take time to complete the information highway, but we're getting the roadbed in place so people can build their access to it. Little places like Kaslo, Edgewood and Wynndel are just a few examples of places that are going to love to have that access.

Bridging the digital divide is extremely important to the Kootenays. I hope all members will continue to support those efforts.

B. Bennett: Thanks to my colleague from Nelson-Creston. The Kootenay-Boundary region has been in a position to exploit the opportunity that the province has helped us obtain, along with the assistance of Telus, partly because we have a unique organization that helps us in this area, called CMON. That's the acronym, which stands for Columbia Mountain Open Network.

Columbia Mountain Open Network is an organization that's funded from the Columbia Basin Trust, and again, we're fortunate in the Kootenay area to have the Columbia Basin Trust. I suppose we get those benefits because in our region, many years ago, they flooded many of our most fertile valleys so that B.C. could have the electricity that we need to power our economy and provide the services to all British Columbians that we all want. Some of the benefits from that flooding and the creation of those hydroelectric developments flow back to the region, and we think that's fair and that's a good thing. Some of those resources have been used to fund Columbia Mountain Open Network, or CMON as they like to be called.

Between the Premier, in particular, the Minister of Management Services, the Kootenay caucus and also the regional districts and the mayors, over the last three years and in particular over the last two months we've been able to put together a program that my colleague talked about in some detail. I won't talk about it in detail. It's a program that's going to deliver 11 hubs, essentially, to our communities in the Kootenays and provide the fibre backbone right up to the edge of these communities from which CMON and the communities will then develop the last mile — or the community networks — to take the service into homes, businesses, hospitals and schools.

There are a number of ways our communities will make use of this opportunity. Again, my colleague has talked about some of the commercial opportunities. I wanted to just mention that in terms of health care, we will have more opportunity for telehealth in our hospitals. We have one telehealth project right now in the East Kootenay Regional Hospital that involves connecting the emergency room in the regional hospital in Cranbrook with VGH so that our physicians and nurses can take advantage of the specialized knowledge and expertise that exists at the Vancouver General Hospital.

We're also going to be able to read X-rays from remote locations. If you have an X-ray taken in a little clinic in Elkford or the clinic in Sparwood or Kimberley or in the hospital in Invermere, you'll be able to — with this high-speed broadband Internet — read the X-ray picture at the regional hospital and have the specialists there help with the diagnosis. So it has real practical and positive impact.

Education is another area that will be able to exploit this opportunity to use this high-speed broadband Internet. I know that in some of my communities and the communities of my colleague in the West Kootenay, we have some fairly small high schools, and yet there are some excellent students. Sparwood, for example, often leads the Kootenays in terms of their performance at that high school. But the classes are small because the population is small.

What this high-speed broadband would be able to do is allow some of the students, some of the smaller classes — let's say grade 12 physics that might not have so many students in it — to actually take the grade 12 physics class from either one of the schools in Cranbrook or possibly someplace else in the Okanagan or wherever — wonderful opportunities to use this technology.

The third thing I just want to mention briefly is that we have many attractive communities in the Kootenays. In fact, all of our communities are very attractive in the Kootenays, and people from around the world have discovered them and would like to live there. But one of the limitations, basically, is that you don't have the technology there to connect with the rest of the world. This high-speed Internet broadband service will allow someone from Europe or from the States or from other places in Canada to locate to a small community like Fernie or Nelson, or even a smaller community like Slocan or Jaffray, and basically connect with the rest of the world and do their business right from one of the most beautiful areas on the face of the earth.

So, again, it is my pleasure to support the member's statement on this matter, and I want to thank the staff at Management Services for all the work that they did — the Premier, the minister. And I want to thank Telus for bending over backwards to help us make this happen as well.

B. Suffredine: I want to thank the member for his remarks and for his efforts in all of this. One of the things that was initiated after we began was something called the Kootenay caucus, and my friend sits as the chair of that. I know he has worked hard on many of the things that have been brought forward. It's been remarkable that as the Kootenay caucus…. There have been a number of successes that come from the fact that when you get members of the Legislature from four different ridings in the province that can all agree on where the priorities lie and how to achieve them, how effective you can be over trying to be competitive and trying to be parochial from town to town.

There has been a great deal of progress made on major projects like trying to get expansion to the Cranbrook Airport, the digital divide and a number of others around the region. I'm looking forward to perhaps some success on some transportation issues like the Needles bridge in the near future. All of those result solely from the efforts of people working together and under the leadership of the chair. It's been very good.

My friend mentioned the opportunities in telehealth. Those are great opportunities, and they're going to bring specialized medicine right into small communities. But there are also opportunities, as he said, for schools. In addition to small schools, the ability of streaming video…. Of course, people might say: "Well, you can see things on television. What's the difference between television and the streaming video you get off the Net?" The difference is the interactive nature of being able to actually participate in a lecture that might be going on in some place like Toronto or Vancouver or anywhere else in the world, and having students be able to put in questions and get answers directly from people that are some of the best experts in the world.

Participating in those specialized educational opportunities can benefit all the schools all around the region from high schools to places like Selkirk College, College of the Rockies, Kootenay School of the Arts. All those efforts are a little step forward, one step at a time, because of the steady efforts of all the members from all around our region.

Thank you to the member for his kind thoughts. I thank him, as well, for his continued efforts, which I know are going to continue until every mile of the Internet highway is in place.

D. MacKay: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. People who know me know that I'm not an avid reader. However, every now and again I see a couple of phrases that catch my attention. One of the phrases that caught my attention some time ago was that the very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision. That's exactly what this government has. We have a vision under the leadership of our Premier. We know what has to be done, and we know how we're going to get there.

This is also evident in the mining industry — a vision of what has to be done to protect the environment. The mining industry is actually doing things in areas that may surprise members of this chamber and people in the province.

Before I get there, there is another quote that caught my attention one day, and that quote was: "Every person you meet knows something you don't. Learn from them." Well, during the week of April 16 to 18 at Smithers, we had Minerals North up there. The excitement that was evident from the people who attended that conference was certainly encouraging for me, given the fact that I happen to represent Bulkley Valley–Stikine and I live in Smithers.

When I saw the mining industry coming up there with the enthusiasm, I was very excited, so I listened and learned from some of the presentations from some of the presenters at that conference. I listened to the Red Chris mine people as they discussed the size and scope of the proposed mine, which should be in operation in 2006 — the fact that we would see 200-plus jobs and about 60 contractors result from that mine once it is up and open.

I heard from the people who have the Galore Creek property about the fact that they expect to spend anywhere from $8 million to $12 million on continued exploration on the site this year alone and that when that mine is in operation, 300 direct and approximately 60 contractor jobs will result from the opening of that mine. I listened to the people from Kemess Mines as they explained the problems they have as they try to find a way to dispose of their tailings which would allow them to open up the Kemess North pit and extend the life of that mine by another 20 years.

I listened with quite a bit of excitement to the Morrison property people, which is a small copper-gold property near the small village of Granisle, as they talked about moving through the process and getting closer to opening up that mine. But the one that really caught my attention and I think that of a lot of people who were present at that conference was a presentation by Dr. Greg Dipple from the University of British Columbia. He works with the mineral deposit research unit and has for the past 12 years.

By way of introduction, I would like to read Dr. Greg Dipple's bio. He says: "I am a geochemist and a petrologist with a research on fluid rock interactions. I have been a professor at UBC since 1992 and have worked with the mineral deposit research unit for most of the past 12 years. My research program is field-based but relies heavily on geochemical modelling and on analytical geochemistry."

Dr. Dipple came to Smithers and gave a presentation. I've just introduced Mr. Dipple to you. His presentation was entitled "Mining is Good for the Environment." His research into greenhouse gas sequestering is what I found most interesting as he presented to the 250 people that were present at the Minerals North Conference.

We always hear that mining is bad for the environment, that it destroy the landscape. It is bad generally. People who still believe that this is what mining is all about should actually attend a mining conference to get to the truth and see what, in fact, the mining industry is doing. The professor, Dr. Dipple, is a great example of what the mining industry is doing in concert with education. As I said, the title of his presentation was that mining is good for the environment.

His research is showing that rocks or tailings from mining, which is a by-product, that are exposed to the atmosphere are, in fact, acting as a carbon sink. The rocks that are exposed from open-pit mines and that are removed from the underground mines in the province are actually helping to remove carbon dioxide

from the atmosphere. That's great news for the mining industry. It is great news for the atmosphere in this province, because we all breathe the same air. It is great news for the people in the mining industry generally and for those people who rely on the mining industry for their employment.

Imagine saying that mining is good for the environment. I do not profess to understand the dynamics of his research, but I respect the work that he and his colleagues are doing. They are showing by scientific research the following, and I'm going to take a stab at trying to explain how this process works.

When rain falls from the air, it brings with it carbon dioxide, making the rain slightly acidic. When it lands on the exposed crushed rock, a chemical reaction takes place with the crushed rock, which is the waste rock from the mine. The reaction takes place with the acidic rock and the silicate minerals contained therein. The chemical reaction locks up the carbon dioxide in the resulting mineral carbonation. Mineral carbonation mimics natural weathering process and converts carbon dioxide into a geologically stable, solid mineral form.

A good example of this: a large, exposed mining pile of rock sees carbon dioxide naturally occurring at about a 5 percent fixation rate because it cannot reach down and react with the rest of the pile. Just the surface of the mining tailing area is reacting. A good example is that a pile of 20 million tonnes of tailings could sequester about one million tonnes of carbon dioxide if that fixation rate could be extended to the entire pile. I assume this could be reached by locking up the water as it percolates through the mine tailings, allowing a chemical reaction to take place.

A good example of this is in the Atlin area. Near the helicopter pad at the village of Atlin there is a large area, a white area that contains atmospheric-derived carbon dioxide. This CO2 has been locked up for at least 10,000 years, and that's been radiocarbonated.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield the floor to the Minister of State for Mining.

Hon. P. Bell: I'd like to thank the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. He has a real interest in the mining sector, and really, I think it is deserved. He has incredibly rich mineralization stretching throughout his riding, all the way from the southern portions of Smithers right up to the Yukon border. In fact, in his riding I think there is something in the order of about 32 different exploration projects taking place this year, which could all lead to mines in our province and in this member's particular riding, and they're very, very exciting opportunities.

There is an anthracite coal project in the member's riding, which is one of the highest-quality coals anywhere in the world and would lead, actually, to the opportunity for steel production with lower emissions and all kinds of different opportunities. These resources, these items that we produce from the minerals that we mine and the coal that we mine here in British Columbia, are used in virtually everything we do in our lives — whether it is the home that we live in, which the electricity and water is brought into with copper; whether it is in the automobile that we drive and the steel that is in that automobile; or whether it is the food that we grow and the machinery that is used to actually produce those products. Virtually everything we do in our lives relies on that.

I think it was a very interesting point that Dr. Dipple brought forward, and certainly not something that I was aware of. I am very aware of carbon sequestration and how that process works in our forests and how the carbon is sequestered through the process of vegetation growing. But it was very interesting and enlightening to see what the good doctor was suggesting — that carbon is sequestered through the process the member has described. I think it's a very interesting opportunity. There are different tailing sites throughout the province that we could take advantage of. In the world of Kyoto, where we need to be very cautious in how we proceed in terms of the environment, I think it makes a great deal of sense to do more work and research on Dr. Dipple's assertions. I look forward to that process as we move forward.

There are some other things I wanted to touch on from an environmental perspective as they relate to mining. Certainly, I think one of the most important ones is the realization that in this great province of ours, there is only 0.03 percent of the entire province that remains undisturbed as a result of mining. To put that in perspective, that is something less than 1/30 of 1 percent of the entire province. Now, how large is that? Well, it is actually much less than the size of the city of Vancouver and Burnaby combined. It is much smaller than that. In fact, most mine sites are much smaller than the Vancouver International Airport and the disturbed area by the Vancouver International Airport. I can tell you that the Vancouver International Airport produces a large amount of carbon dioxide on an ongoing basis as a result of the aircraft that come in and out of the airport.

There are many issues we're dealing with inside the ministry that are very relevant to ensuring that our environment is looked after. Certainly, the issues of acid rock leaching, metal leaching, acid rock generation are very important. The closed systems that we use now to protect ourselves, I think, are very productive. The notion of subaqueous submersion of acid-generating rocks is a very positive step. It actually ensures that lakes are protected by submerging potentially acid-generating rock. You eliminate the possibility of generating acid because you need two things to generate acid from these rocks: oxygen and water. When you submerge the rock, you take away the free oxygen molecule, which means you can't generate acid in that kind of environment. There are many excellent examples, including Myra Falls, of where that has taken place.

Mining is, in fact, an environmentally friendly process here in B.C. The industry is incredibly competitive. It is very diligent in the processes that it undertakes to ensure that it looks after the environment we live in. After all, miners live in this environment as well, and we're very concerned. In fact, most miners I know are

I'm proud of the industry that we have in B.C. There are many efficient mines. There is a graphite mine in the Kootenays that Ted Nunn operates. That graphite is being produced to be utilized in the Ballard energy system. There are many positive things, and I congratulate the member for taking his stance in terms of the environmental role for mining in B.C.

D. MacKay: I would like to thank the minister of state for his comments on mining and the value of mining in our province, what it does for the people of this province and how necessary mining is in our day-to-day lives.

The research being done at the University of British Columbia by Dr. Dipple — as well as the mining industry as they comply with the regulations that have been imposed on them by our society over the years — would suggest that they do, in fact, make mining a very safe, sustainable, job-creating opportunity for all of us in this province. It's certainly necessary that we continue to protect the environment and create employment opportunities.

The research Dr. Dipple is doing, which the minister of state touched on, is once again an example of what the mining industry has been telling the people for years and years, and that is that mining is absolutely necessary for our day-to-day lives. We wouldn't be standing in this chamber talking today if it wasn't for the mining industry. The mining industry does, in fact, create good-paying, long-term jobs, and that's critical for the employment opportunities for our young people. Mining is in fact the safest industrial job there is. Mining is in fact sustainable. We're now starting to find out, through people like Dr. Dipple and listening to the mining industry, that mining does not hurt the environment.

Mr. Speaker, there is good news coming from the mining industry. All the news that's coming from the mining industry is good news, and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to have expressed that this morning.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, pursuant to standing orders, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 46 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper. Shall leave be granted?

D. MacKay: Speaking to Motion 46, I would just like to make a few comments in relation to Motion 46 — that we recognize the economic and environmental importance of the working land base and the need to adopt a balanced approach to its use.

I was fortunate enough to have grown up as a young person, which is a few years ago now, in Jasper National Park. I grew up in the village of Jasper, where I attended high school, and later I left Jasper when I joined the RCMP. During my high school years in Jasper, I was exposed to a large amount of wildlife that was within the park because, as we all know, hunting within a park is not allowed. It was certainly not allowed in those days. The wildlife I was exposed to was quite enlightening.

When I left Jasper and started travelling around Canada, working in different parts of the province and in different provinces in Canada, I didn't really see a great deal of wildlife. Even now when I return to Jasper or when I drive through Banff National Park, the amount of wildlife I see is not always what I expect. When I go into a national park, I expect to see all sorts of wildlife. What I have discovered is, as I travelled throughout the province of Alberta — which is where I grew up…. I'd go up into some of the old coalmining towns and in particular a coalmining town called Luscar, which is a huge open-pit mine at the present time. The reclamation that has taken place — the time and effort that the mining industry is now putting back into reclamation, which is a requirement by today's mining companies — has actually created an atmosphere and environment that is very, very attractive to the wildlife that I used to see in Jasper National Park when I grew up.

When I drove up to Luscar or up to Cadomin last summer to attend a long-overdue reunion, I was absolutely amazed at the amount of wildlife I saw on the old reclamation from the coalmining that had taken place in this huge open-pit mine at Luscar. There were elk; there were sheep. They were all over the place. You actually had to chase them off the road as they walked across those areas that had gone through the reclamation process.

So it's critical that we continue to protect the environment and the land base not just for us but for the wildlife that has wandered these areas for years. They're actually being attracted back because of the new growth that is evident in the mine tailings themselves. We are seeing new grasslands coming up, and we're seeing new brush growing on these mine tailings — all part of the reclamation process necessary by today's mines.

This is a great motion the member brought forward — that we have to protect the environmental importance of the working land base and adopt a balanced approach — because the other side of it is that we also need jobs. The jobs that most of us had in the past, where the first dollar was generated, usually came from resource extraction — resource extraction

from the forest industry or the mining industry. We are doing a very good job of balancing this approach, and I'm pleased to stand here and support Motion 46 today.

J. Bray: I am pleased to rise in favour of the member for Nelson-Creston's motion: "Be it resolved that this House recognize the economic and environmental importance of the working land base and the need to adopt a balanced approach to its use." Now, I come from an urban centre, so we are one of those parts of the province that derives a huge benefit from the rest of the province that actually does most of the work on the land base. It is sometimes easy for us in urban centres to forget that 70 percent of our export business actually comes from the land base, comes from the natural resource sector and comes from small communities throughout the heartlands of the province.

I represent a riding that is particularly sensitive to environmental issues, and I'm constantly meeting with constituents on a variety of environmental issues. Currently, there is the proposed gypsy moth spraying that is going to be occurring in the Victoria area. I'm meeting with lots of constituents and working on that issue. But from time to time it is very good for us in places like Victoria to take a step back and recognize that a big chunk of this province actually makes their living off the land base.

You know, "working land bases" in the member's motion here does not just mean big mills, big mines, big dams, big activity. Tourism is on the land base. Adventure tourism, ecotourism and ski resorts are on the land base. Camping is on the land base. It's not just industrial work that happens on the land base. We make use of the land in a number of ways that allow us to create economic opportunities for working families throughout the province but also allow us to in fact enjoy the great environment that we live in, in this province. The multitude of environmental systems that we see — be they in the mountains, in alpine meadows, on the coast or along rivers and streams…. We actually see that we have an incredibly diverse environment.

There are lots of people who are concerned about the environment. They spend most of their working days concerned about the environment. They recognize the importance of their community's health in the environment. They recognize their children's future in the environment. They recognize the importance of our green spaces. Do you know who some of those people are? They're the people that work in our forest-dependent communities. They're people who work up and down our coast in the aquaculture industry. They're people who work in the Peace, in the oil and gas industry. They're ranchers. They're farmers. They're miners. We have had a great discussion in this House about the mining industry.

For groups that somehow think that somebody who works in, say, Kaslo, in the sponsoring member's riding, and who works in the forest isn't living there in part because they love the natural beauty of the Kootenays, isn't concerned about the health of the environment, isn't concerned about the future of their children in that area…. I just think it is disingenuous.

What is really shocking is that…. When the NDP and Carole James travel around the province, and Carole James flies into a town like Nelson and says, "We're not going to do any logging in here," and then gets on the plane and flies back out because she is only looking at half of the equation of this very motion — which is environment — she is, first of all, assuming that all those hard-working IWA members are anti-environment. I think that is insulting.

Second of all, she is not looking at the economic benefits of forestry to that very community. She is telling those families: "You don't have a future here. I don't want a future for you. Your children are going to have to move away." She is not staying long enough to tell those IWA members which 300 families should lose their jobs because of her policy stance there.

Terrace is an area that has been hit by Skeena Cellulose and other issues, and they are therefore doing some harvesting and transporting of logs. She goes up to Terrace and says, "I don't want any raw log exports at all. We're going to ban all of those things because of the environment," and then she leaves right away. Those families are left with the future, if she becomes Premier, that their entire town is out of work. Those children will have to move away, and all the people that operate small businesses will lose their mortgages on those businesses.

Why? Because the NDP don't recognize that there is an honest balance between the economy and the environment, and that the people who work and make their living on the land base are the staunchest environmentalists you are ever going to find. I sometimes get teased by colleagues of mine who come from the heartlands and talk about the fact that they hear from some of my constituents who are concerned about the environment as they're driving their SUVs to Starbucks to get their $5 coffee and suggesting how other parts of the province should operate.

I defend my constituents vigorously on that point, but it is true that families that choose to live in smaller communities choose it because of the environment. All we're saying in this motion is: let's work for that good balance between the environment that individual workers and their families live in and the economic opportunity they seek so that they can support themselves, their parents, their children and their community.

They will do the best at protecting their own environment; it's their back yard. They have the most at stake on the land base, not people from large urban centres who've already clearcut most of our neighbourhood. You know, we all have a car. We all have sewage dropping into various parts of Georgia strait. We have all these things happening. We've got a lot of work here in the urban centres to kind of clean up our own act and work on our environment. I bet you that the people of Kaslo can do a better job and are the most staunch supporters of their environment. The

fact that they happen to be miners or loggers or ecotourism or guide-outfitters does not mean that somebody else, like Carole James, has to come swooping in and dictate to them how they should operate.

A balanced approach, which this motion speaks to, is what everybody is looking for. This means that the market is no longer going to allow bad forestry practices to exist or bad mining practices to exist. Now it is time for groups like the Western Canada Wilderness Committee to stop their valley-by-valley attack on working families and come to the table and provide their input in a constructive way. Recognize that the working families of British Columbia will always be the staunchest defenders of our environment and that working families want a chance for their children, want a chance for their communities and want to work on environmental sustainability. We can learn a lot from the working families of this province to find the balanced approach that the member for Nelson-Creston talks about.

I can tell you that when I've travelled around the province several times and have listened to ordinary working families come and present at the Finance Committee or other committees that I've been on, they talk with passion about their communities, they talk with passion about nature, and they talk with passion about their children's future. This motion says that we must tap into that passion, that we must work with those communities and let them have local control and local say on issues.

Carole James already has all the answers, and she's telling those communities that they doesn't have a future. Well, this government says that if you care about your environment, your communities and this province, you have a future right where you're living now. We're going to make sure that we provide you the opportunities to have an economic future for you and your families. We're going to make sure we have the most stringent environmental standards in the world. We're going to make sure that we bring common sense to the debate, bring that balanced approach, so that families can make a living where they're living, the environment is protected and the future of our towns from Vancouver right to Fort St. James and from Terrace all the way down to Fernie is protected — so that families can have a future and we have a strong environment and a strong economy. I support the motion from Nelson-Creston, and I sure hope to hear the members of the opposition support it as well.

B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to support the motion from my colleague from Nelson-Creston, a proud member of the Kootenay caucus. I notice that the motion includes the term "working land base." First of all, I would like to just identify that we are talking about the working land base here in the province, and that is not all of the Crown land, obviously, that British Columbians own. We have a fairly significant amount of our land base that is set aside today in parks and protected areas and ecological reserves. The rest of the area that we refer to as a working land base is, in fact, planned over fairly extensively. There are some areas where the plans are still ongoing, such as the central and north coast, but most of the province has been planned. All of the values that are out there on the land have been identified, which of course is the purpose of doing land use planning — so that government and the public know what values are there. Then decisions around how the land will be used can be made in a responsible and accountable sort of way.

We've had a lot of land use planning in the Kootenays over the last 12 years. We've had a lot in my area, in the East Kootenay, over the last three years. I occasionally encounter constituents, sometimes good friends of mine, who question the value of land use planning: "Why do you bother doing it?" I tend to ask them a question. I ask them if they think that they or anyone else should be able and allowed to go anywhere on the land at any time whenever they want to and by whatever means.

They think about it for a minute, and I suppose they probably picture some pristine alpine area up in the Rockies that has very, very little topsoil and which, frankly, can't sustain any sort of motorized activity and even has some difficulty sustaining some of the current mountain-biking activity that's taking place. They say: "No, I don't think that I should be allowed to go anywhere, anytime, any way I want to." Then I say to them: "That means you believe in planning. That means you believe we have to do some level of planning out there to identify where we should go and what we should do when we get there and when we should do it — whether we should do it during the rainy season or some other time of the year."

There's been, frankly, I think, a bit of a pushback, or backlash, I guess — a bit of a negative reaction, in some ways — against the whole idea of doing land use planning. I think that's unfortunate. If you're talking about what you're going to do in your community, where you're going to put your sidewalks and your hospital and your recreation centre and where you're going to put your residential areas, you plan. We have this huge land base in British Columbia that is our biggest asset as British Columbians. We own most of the land in this province. We have to plan to determine, basically, what we're going to do with it.

That's, of course, where it gets a little dicey and you get into value judgments about what is appropriate, what sort of resource extraction can take place without perhaps taking away from what some people think is a natural value. It may just be a question of what you can see. Some people hate the look of a clearcut, for example, and they don't want clearcuts along highways and roads. I personally like the look of a clearcut. Being someone who appreciates wildlife, particularly elk and deer and that sort of wildlife, I can tell you that clearcuts actually are good habitat for elk and whitetail and mule deer and many other species.

It is our responsibility, of course, as government to be responsible stewards of the land. Although we do get our wealth in B.C. to a large extent from the land, it

is our responsibility to ensure that we take that wealth and use it for good purposes such as health care and education and that we also leave a suitable and sustainable amount for our children, grandchildren and future generations.

The approach that this government has taken, I think, has been very responsible with the creation of the Sustainable Resource Management ministry. We created a ministry that integrated a number of the different disciplines like forestry and mining and agriculture and tourism all into one ministry to do the planning. That was something that I think was a positive step in the right direction.

The previous administration, the NDP government, had a different way of doing land use planning. I know in the East Kootenay, just prior to the 2001 election, the NDP government created an area that they referred to as the southern Rocky Mountain conservation area. That sounds pretty good. Conservation area — who could be against that? It was down in the Flathead area of the East Kootenay in the southeast corner of the province. Who could be against that?

Well, the problem with the way the NDP practised land use planning and how they executed some of their decisions around setting areas aside was that they had a nasty habit of not telling most of the people who lived in the area what they were up to. In this particular case, around the southern Rockies conservation area, they made a little sweetheart deal with the local environmental organization and, frankly, one of the forest licensees that they were going to set aside a huge portion of the Flathead area and make it inaccessible to job-creating activities and, in fact, make it inaccessible to many of the people who live in the area and who recreate in the area.

When the B.C. Liberals were in opposition, word got down to the then Opposition Leader and also to a few of the members in opposition who were responsible for land use and the environment. They made a commitment prior to the 2001 election that they would, if elected, terminate the southern Rockies conservation area, created very surreptitiously by the NDP, and put the question out to the general public: "Do you want some sort of a plan in that area? And if you do, we're going to help you. We're going to provide the resources for the plan to be something that is completely community-based and broad-based."

That, in fact, is what happened. The government put this out to the public. A stakeholder process was formed, and resources were targeted to the process by Sustainable Resource Management. The SRM staff, I think, did a first-rate job of managing the process. It is a long and arduous and sometimes even divisive process, because you have a large number of people sitting at a table essentially debating whether motorized access ought to go some place; whether forestry or logging ought to take place in a particular drainage; whether mining, oil and gas drilling ought to take place. All of those questions were answered one way or the other. There were decisions made by this collection of community people, the stakeholder table, to restrict certain types of activities, and there were decisions made not to restrict certain types of activity. But the main benefit of going through this somewhat difficult exercise is that the community actually supports the plan. The plan was created by the people and not top-down by the government, as was done by the former regime.

We still have some land-based planning happening in the East Kootenay, and I am happy to say it is almost done and within the next couple of months should be completed. I'm looking forward to exporting that process over to my colleague in Nelson-Creston, where he will have an enormous amount of fun with it, I'm sure.

I just wanted to mention a couple of other things here with regard to use of the land base. One of the things that we have all heard, not just over the last three years that we've been participating here in government but prior to that when we live in our communities…. We run across people who are in the forest industry or in the mining exploration business or in recreation. They need certainty. They need to know what the rules are. I think, again, our government has done a terrific job of trying to provide that certainty by completing these land use plans and completing them in a timely way, instead of allowing them to go on forever and ever as was the case prior to 2001.

We still have some work to do in terms of standardizing terminology and the various land use plans around the province. We need to make sure that the mining explorationist that takes a look at a land use plan can determine that he or she can go there and invest their time and resources in finding something and testing the ground — the ore or the coal or whatever it is — to determine its value and then have the certainty that they need to then go out to the mining investment community. We have a very large mining investment community here in British Columbia, based in Vancouver, and they invest all over the world. Frankly, they can take their money wherever they want to go, and they do. They take it to South America and Asia. More and more they're spending that money back here in B.C., which is a good omen for the future of the province, because mining, of course, is an industry that provides very high-paying jobs.

I think we have to work a little bit more on providing the kind of certainty in our land use plans on that working land base that will provide the mining industry and the forest industry with the kind of certainty that will allow them to make big decisions about big investments.

In the East Kootenay — not in my riding, but in the riding north of me, Columbia River–Revelstoke — there is a fascinating land use project that we're going to be dealing with here in the next while. That, of course, is the Jumbo ski hill development proposal. It's a proposal that has been around for at least ten years. I think, frankly, it's been around longer than that. It's a proposal that has been honed and developed and redeveloped and gone out to the public. Then a few years

go by, and it goes out to the public again. Right now the project is being considered as part of the provincial environmental assessment process. That process, of course, is separate from the political process. It will take its own course, and none of us knows how that is going to end up. That process should determine whether or not this particular project has the kind of impact on the environment that is sustainable and appropriate, given the benefits that the development would bring to the region and to the province.

It's interesting on this particular proposal…. One of the things that government has to wrestle with, in addition to whether there's an environmental impact and what the measurement of positive economic impact is in terms of jobs and investment…. Government also has to take into account what the people in the region actually want. On this particular project, that's going to be an interesting exercise. It is a bit like putting your finger in your mouth and holding it up to the wind, trying to figure out just exactly where everybody is on that particular project.

I know in my riding on smaller projects, not as large or as perhaps controversial as Jumbo, I have run into an awful lot of folks — frankly, some of them are very good friends of mine — who don't want something to happen. Recently in the East Kootenay we had a proposal that's still on the table to do some CBM, coalbed methane, exploration. I attended and in fact participated in a public meeting in Fernie. There were about 300 people there. Certainly the majority of the people who were there, at least the majority who spoke, spoke against the extraction of coalbed methane gas in the East Kootenay. Frankly, my modus operandi as an MLA is that generally, if my constituents want something, I will try and help them get it. If they don't want something, I will try and see that they don't get it.

On CBM, my gut feeling is that the majority of people in the Elk Valley — that is, Elkford, Sparwood and Fernie — do support a controlled, responsible exploration and extraction of coalbed methane gas. But there are a number of people — a large number of people — who are afraid of it. They don't think they want it. Maybe I shouldn't put it that way. They don't want it. It's not that they don't think they want it; they don't want it.

I guess I struggle with that, because in the Elk Valley and elsewhere in the East Kootenay and all over this province today we're trying to find money to pay more into health care. We've put a couple of billion dollars more into health care over the last three years, and we've got another $1.3 billion going into it. We put more money into education, and that money comes from taxation. It comes from the taxation of individuals and corporations. In this province, if you don't have resource extraction, you don't have the taxation from individuals and corporations that you need to pay for those social programs.

It is a struggle sometimes to connect the need that we all have — it's not just government, because the benefit from the health care and education expenditures goes directly to the people and to our kids and our grandkids…. It's a struggle to help people connect the need to do responsible resource extraction on the land base and, at the same time, not allow the cumulative impact of that resource extraction to take away, in some meaningful way, from how we relate ourselves to that land base.

In the rural areas of the province, there is no question in my mind that there is a spiritual relationship between the people and the land base. We may differ on how we view a clearcut. It could very well be that there are more people in the rural parts of the province who enjoy a clearcut than there are in urban B.C. That's quite possible. I guess we're used to clearcuts, and we're used to seeing people out on the land base actually doing things and working and extracting value from the land base that can be converted into things like taxation for hospitals and education.

We as government do, I think, have to somehow find a way to factor in the concern that's out there in the smaller communities, the rural communities of the province, that enough is enough. There is a cumulative impact of different types of resource extraction. Although I am as red-blooded as any member of our caucus with regard to the importance of resource extraction and although I support resource extraction quite enthusiastically, we still have an obligation to take into account the beliefs of the people who live in the rural parts and also the urban parts of the province — they have every bit as much of a right to have an opinion on what should happen out there — and not only the beliefs but the feelings of people in terms of what is happening in their back yard.

That's the most difficult component of planning and decision-making, I think. You can do a scientific study and make a determination as to whether or not your stream is going to be safe and whether or not soil erosion will be caused and all that sort of thing. It's a lot more difficult, I think, to ascertain how this is going to impact the view of people about their home territory.

In just summing up, I think the province is on the right track in terms of finishing up the land use planning we're trying to finish up. It's excruciatingly difficult for the people involved that live in the communities. It becomes a very political exercise because of the value judgments that are implicit in land use planning, but we're pushing ahead. I commend the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the previous Minister of Sustainable Resource Management for doing that. It's a necessary part of good government, figuring out what we can do out there — when, how, what and where. Thank you for the opportunity.

L. Mayencourt: It's good to be able to stand up here and speak in favour of Motion 46. I want to speak in favour of this as an urban MLA, as many of my colleagues here in this chamber are from urban settings. We live in bigger cities.

Small communities around this province have been particularly hit hard in the past several years over a variety of different things — whether it's the softwood lumber agreement, the SARS epidemic, the avian flu or

any number of natural disasters like the horrific fires we witnessed in 2003. I have the opportunity, as do many members of this chamber, to go out and visit people in a variety of different communities. One of the things I see when I go to towns like — I don't know — Cache Creek or Williams Lake or other parts of the heartlands is a community of people that are industrious, that are determined to save their communities, that have a great passion for living in those communities and that want to make sure they have every opportunity to remain in those communities and that their kids can remain in those communities.

They see the resource base we have in British Columbia, and they see the potential that lies beneath their feet. They know this province has always been built on the resource sector, and sometimes they wonder why we — those of us that live in urban settings — don't really get how important the resource sector is, how important the natural resources of this province are not just to those small communities and those families but also to our urban centres.

Many, many times in my travels I have met with people that are facing heartbreak, people that have for one reason or another lost their jobs, their livelihood, or have seen an industry collapse around them. What I sense in their eyes is something that really breaks my heart. It's a sense of loss, a loss of hope. I think we have an obligation as a province to ensure that we provide hope for all British Columbians — hope for a better prosperity, for a better life, for a better way of life, for strong communities, for strong little towns throughout British Columbia.

Last week His Holiness the Dalai Lama was in town in Vancouver. One of the things he teaches is that if a man has hope, he has everything; but without it, he has nothing. When I look at the communities I have had the pleasure of visiting, which seem to have seen some of that hope just slip away, it encourages me to stand up and defend those people, to say it that it's very important that we balance the needs of the environment with the needs of the economic development in our province.

I've never met anybody in this province in a small city, a big city, a small town or anywhere at all that wasn't an environmentalist, that didn't really value the beauty of British Columbia and see what a magnificent province we live in. I have been to many communities where I have seen people that have worked hard to build a resource sector, and they have, in fact, been the backbone of British Columbia. They have been the ones that have pulled the copper from the mines, that have logged the working forests we have, that have worked in the fisheries. I see these people, and I know that they care deeply about their environment, and they also care deeply about their way of life.

They look to us to be able to understand that their need for continuing on in their community and their need for a successful life are based on appreciating the province's resources that we have been blessed with, which all of those communities have a share in. In fact, some of the prime beneficiaries of the resource sector have been urban settings like my own, Vancouver-Burrard. We have probably more people working in the forest industry in my riding than in any other riding in the province. We have more people working in the mining sector in my community than in any other riding in the province.

The resource sector is important to us. I can remember that last year we had a really difficult time with some problems with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and we saw some cost-cutting going on there that was just not what we felt comfortable doing. We didn't really have anywhere to pull the money from to pay for enhancing those services or retaining those services. Then one day we got an announcement from the Peace River district that a new lease had been let on some oil reserves. It put $450 million, in one sale, into British Columbia's coffers. That money was used immediately to mitigate the problems that the Ministry of Children and Family Development was facing, and it was put immediately to work in helping the Ministry of CAWS — Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — to provide services for British Columbians.

We have a lot of talk in British Columbia about cuts, and it really concerns me. I think about a health care system that we put more than $2 billion more into last year. On the street you'd think we had cut services in health care. I talk to many people about education and about the education system and how much more money this government has put into education than any other government in previous history, and you still hear words on the street like: "You're cutting education."

Why is it that when we're putting so much money into education and health care and social services in the safety net, when we put those millions and millions of dollars into that, those are perceived as cuts by British Columbians? I believe they're perceived as cuts because British Columbians know our true potential. British Columbians know we live in a land of plenty. British Columbians know that we are rich in resources — in offshore oil and gas, inland oil and gas, coal, copper. In many other areas, in forestry, we have a vast supply of natural resources here in our province. The people of this province know that potential, and that potential is what they want to see us translate into the best education system in the world and the best health care system in the world. That can be done when we properly manage the environment and properly manage the resources we have.

Mr. Speaker, for those that have known me for many years, you have known that I have spent the last ten years of my life working towards improving the social safety net for British Columbians. I think that we have an obligation in our province to serve all citizens well and to reach out to those that are less fortunate

than ourselves, to reach out to the province's most vulnerable, to reach out and support small communities that are devastated by natural disasters and by man-made disasters.

Our job here is to ensure that we meet the expectations of British Columbians with the social safety net. The only way we can provide for that, the only way we can look after children and families, the only way we can look after women's services, the only way that we can look after those people that are unfortunate enough to be on social assistance or on disability or what have you…. The only way we can do that is by collecting money from somewhere.

We can take it out of the pockets of taxpayers, which we do — that's the business we're in — or we can take it from our land. We can use the resources that are sitting before us, which God has given us, and we can put them to good use to ensure that we protect all that is valuable to British Columbians. All that we need to survive in British Columbia can be made in British Columbia — comes from our ground, from our dirt, from our trees. All of that is stuff that is available to us.

We don't take the responsibility of managing the environment lightly. We know we have a strong commitment — and we back it up every day in this Legislature — to do things right. But the fact of the matter is that we use a tiny, tiny fraction of our land base to manage our forestry — I think it is something like 3 percent of the working forest — and we use an even smaller amount of the land base for oil and gas exploration. We use an even smaller portion of the land base in the mining sector.

As a matter of fact, I have been to one of the largest mines in British Columbia. It is up near Williams Lake — the Gibraltar mine. That mine is smaller than Lansdowne mall. That's how little space we're actually using when we pull the God-given resources that we have out of the ground and turn them into textbooks for kids, into services for women, into inner-city school funding for disadvantaged children, into health care for seniors, into home care for people that are stuck in their homes, and into disability pensions for all the British Columbians that deserve and need those services.

That's why I'm so committed to supporting Motion 46, because Motion 46 is about people. It sounds like it is about resources. It sounds like it is about the environment. But no, it is about people. It is about people wanting to succeed in their communities, about people wanting to have the best lives not just for themselves but for those amongst them that are less fortunate. We can achieve that by careful stewardship and by effective management of those resource sectors.

I'm proud to support Motion 46, and I hope other members will join me in that support.

Hon. G. Abbott: It is my pleasure to rise and to also speak in favour of Motion 46. I think there are a lot of important elements that have been put forward in Motion 46, and I want to speak to those as minister responsible for Sustainable Resource Management.

The key elements as I read the motion are, first of all, a balanced approach — one that takes account both of a sustainable environment and of economic development. Certainly, I think it is clear that all of government — every minister of government, every agency of government, every member of government — is committed to the kind of balance that is embodied in Motion 46. We all are committed to ensuring that we have a great place to live as well as a great place to work.

The issue, though, of balance is very much central to the mandate of my ministry, Sustainable Resource Management. We attempt to achieve that balance between the economy and the environment through a number of means, and I won't go through them all. I know there are a number of speakers today who want to speak to this motion, so I will just briefly talk about some of the key things that we do in the ministry to try to achieve that balance.

Among them would be the land use planning on Crown lands in the province. As you know, Mr. Speaker, around 95 percent of the land base in British Columbia is Crown. We have, as a responsibility within MSRM, the responsibility for generating land use plans that set out the zones in which different elements in the economy can operate. For example, in a typical land use plan or land and resource management plan, one would find areas that are devoted to parks and protected areas — something we all welcome. I think that all of us — or at least many of us — as well as being citizens who work in the province, would take the opportunity to get out and recreate on areas of Crown land, whether it's fishing or hiking or a hundred other activities that British Columbia is such a wonderful home for. So we see parks and protected areas as a key element in LRMPs and land use plans.

We also need to take account of those things that provide employment to British Columbians within land use plans. We need to have areas — whether we describe them as working forests or operating areas — where the forest industry can extract timber on an ongoing and sustainable basis, because that creates a lot of jobs for British Columbians and creates a lot of wealth for British Columbians that helps sustain our health and education systems among the many other social services that are provided by government.

Mining. While we lost much of the mining industry during the decade between 1991 and 2001 under a former government, mining is coming back in the province of British Columbia. We're working very hard with my colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines to ensure we have a welcoming environment in every respect for the mining industry. On a very small footprint the mining industry provides an enormous number of jobs, and it provides an enormous volume of wealth for this province. So again, we need to work through the land use plans to ensure that mining has a place in our province as well.

Additionally, tourism is a key element in virtually every part of the province. Of course, we also need to take account of recreation, because people like to access

those Crown lands. To have an area that has mining or logging or tourism development on it doesn't mean it is not accessible to the public. Of course, recreation is one of the things that attracts and keeps many British Columbians here — whether it is snowmobiling or cross-country skiing or, again, a hundred other activities that are possible on the land base. That is the land use planning side.

The other key element that I just want to highlight today is the environmental assessment office. We have made a number of very important changes, as you know, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the environmental assessment office — getting it on a much more businesslike basis, having maximum 180-day turnaround periods, and so on. It is a process that is now working very well and is certainly able to draw much more support from the business side of the ledger than it did in the past.

In fact, I should note that just this morning I spoke to about 700 people who were visiting Vancouver, as part of the International Association for Impact Assessment, from some 80 nations around the world. We were able to highlight, I think, the very good work being done by our environmental assessment office here in British Columbia. The EAO deals with larger projects, and the aim is to ensure that those projects meet the environmental standards and the environmental needs of British Columbia. Again, it is a balancing of jobs and the environment, and it is ensuring that British Columbia is a place where we can work, where we can invest, as well as where we can live and enjoy our lives in one of the most beautiful natural settings in the world.

There are lots of examples we can use to demonstrate very clearly the balance between the environment and the economy. One I will use is in my own constituency of Shuswap, and that's the cogeneration project at Riverside Forest's Armstrong division. If one thinks back — well, I guess, to the time when you were Forests minister in the province, Mr. Speaker — even a decade ago in B.C., the issue of disposal of waste from sawmill operations was a very big issue. Beehive burners were, generally speaking, unpopular, and there was a lot of push to see those shut down. The consequence of shutting them down, of course, was that the residue — waste materials, bark, etc. — from those forestry operations was a very considerable problem and had a lot of people kind of scratching their heads about how to deal with that.

Well, we have clearly come a long way over the past decade or two, from beehive burners to cogeneration. What was, for a decade or two, a major problem in terms of storage and disposal and so on is now very much a great asset. In Armstrong we've not only got a plant that produces all its own energy needs through the burning of hog fuel and the conversion into electricity, but some 4,000 to 6,000 residences also receive their power from that cogeneration plant. It's a substantial addition to our energy storehouse for the province, and what was a problem has been converted into a great asset.

I want to close on this point. Again, I do believe we can reconcile the economy and the environment, and I believe we have, actually. We continue to reconcile economic interests with environmental interests. As British Columbians, while we may occasionally have political and other differences, we all love our great province. We all want a stronger economy and a sustainable environment. We have been blessed in this province with bountiful and natural resources. We have, over time, built a great infrastructure to support those resources. We've got great people who are ready and willing to work hard and make this province a better place. Our government is providing responsible and effective public policy as a complement to the great people and the great resources. I believe we are again seeing British Columbia emerge not only as the envy of the great nation of Canada but also as the envy of the world.

R. Hawes: I know there are others who wish to speak, and the hour is getting late, so I will make my comments very brief. I'm pleased that the member for Nelson-Creston brought this motion, Motion 46. To a large degree, it's the reason that I ran for election. I know that the previous government had completely disregarded balance on the land base, and that has caused tremendous grief for families from one end of this province to the other. It's that disregard that caused me huge personal anger.

I want to just demonstrate it through one example, and that would be the Windy Craggy mine in the northern part of this province. There were hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the research and development to open a mine that would have provided huge revenues for this province. That company, when it was on the verge of opening its mine and going into actual production, was told by the previous government: "Sorry, you're out. We're turning this whole area — thousands and thousands and thousands of hectares of land, thousands of square kilometres of land — into a park."

The Windy Craggy investors were out their money — there was no compensation — sending huge shock waves around the mining world. In fact, I've heard from some in the mining community that we were then regarded as being less safe to invest in than some Third World countries with tinpot dictators because, in a flash, investment could be gone from here, where at least in some of those other countries you would have some opportunity to save your investment.

Windy Craggy mine would have taken up about 4.5 square kilometres in these thousands of square kilometres. It would have been like a postage stamp on a very large envelope — very, very little or no impact on that area, or that park, which very few people visit in a very remote part of this province — but the revenue to the

province had that mine gone ahead would have been in excess of $100 million a year.

There would have been no wait-lists for hip replacements or knee replacements. Many, many of the surgical wait-lists that we see in this province could have been eliminated — but for the actions of the previous government. That's why I support this. I support what we in this province are doing to make sure that there is balance in land use decisions, that we respect the rights and the ability of families in this province to live as families and to earn their living off the land base, as they had for a long time prior to 1991 when that last government was elected.

We know what sustainable land use means. We know that investment in forestry, for example, is not a short-term thing and that in order to entice forestry companies to make the investment that's needed for the long haul, they need to have certainty. They need to know they have a future that won't be snatched away from them with the creation of some park or other use that comes out of the blue in response to some small environmental group that's pressuring a government that's pandering for votes. We're not doing that. We are respecting the rights of working families in this province.

I'm very proud to support Motion 46. It is a very meaningful motion. As a member said here previously this morning, it would be very good to see the members of the opposition stand up, recant their previous folly, support something like this, admit how wrong they had been and perhaps even apologize to families around this province who have suffered needlessly because of their wanton disregard for balance in the use of the land.

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