Hansard — Thursday, April 26, 2007 p.m.

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


Introductions by Members		7203

Tributes		7203
	Kamloops ambulance dispatch centre
	C. Wyse

Introductions by Members		7203

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7203
	Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 34)
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 36)
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007 (Bill 35)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M216)
	J. Horgan

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7205
	National Day of Mourning
	J. McIntyre
	C. James
	Community input into Burnaby affordable housing development
	R. Lee
	West Coast Express
	M. Sather
	B.C. Council for Families
	J. Nuraney
	Kiwanis Emergency Youth Shelter
	R. Fleming

Oral Questions		7206
	Conflict-of-interest concerns regarding Ken Dobell and cultural precinct project
	C. James
	Hon. W. Oppal
	G. Gentner
	M. Karagianis
	L. Krog
	Authority of Privacy Commissioner to investigate conflicts of interest
	B. Ralston
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Conflict-of-interest concerns regarding Ken Dobell and cultural precinct project
	J. Kwan
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Appointment of Andrew Wilkinson to TILMA dispute resolution panel
	M. Sather
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Kamloops ambulance dispatch centre relocation
	C. Wyse
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Ambulance service for rural British Columbia
	C. Wyse
	Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of Supply		7211
	Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities (continued)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner

Statements		7218
	School fire in Cariboo
	C. Wyse


Committee of Supply		7218
	Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities (continued)
	Hon. B. Penner
	S. Simpson

Point of Privilege		7234
	R. Cantelon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7234
	Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued)
	J. Horgan
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	A. Dix
	Hon. K. Krueger
	M. Sather
	S. Fraser
	D. Thorne
	C. Trevena

B. Ralston: I'd ask the House to welcome two guests from Edmonton, Sandra McClellan and Kirby O'Connor. They are guests of Chris Gainor, who is the director of communications for the NDP caucus.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'd like the House to welcome Erin Anderson. She is a fourth-year student at the University of Victoria, but she's been working with us as a co-op student for the last while, in writing, within the public affairs bureau. Today is her last day. I understand she's found this work interesting and challenging, a good look at government and what we do, but not quite as difficult as her previous job where she worked in a steel mill. Erin, thank you for your work, and welcome to the House today.

C. Wyse: It is indeed an unusual set of circumstances when I stand up in the House and ask the House to consider recognizing future visitors who may appear in the House as a result of an incident that took place in Kamloops on the weekend.

It was an incident that took place at the dispatch centre for the ambulance in Kamloops. The poison control centre recommended evacuation late Saturday evening. The dispatchers stayed their course of action and held their posts until late Sunday evening, when they then evacuated the quarters. At least two of these dispatchers were sent to the hospital during this period of time.

I would like the House to recognize the fact that these dispatchers maintaining their case — that three-quarters of the province of British Columbia with one-quarter of the population remaining served — increases the chances of people coming to the House for us to recognize them in the future.

D. Hayer: I would like to introduce to the House my best friend, my partner, one of my strongest supporters and my great volunteer — my right-hand person. My wife Isabelle Martinez is here. Would the House please make her very welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today are Malcolm and Francis White. Their organization SN Transport is introducing a new project for the transfer of patients and the transportation of those with medical issues — the elderly and the disabled in B.C. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Many of the legislators here today were generously hosted at a lunch organized by the Cement Association. We have a number of members of the Cement Association joining us here in the gallery. I would like to welcome Derek Townson, the vice-president of the Cement Association of Canada; Tom Gibson, a manager at Lehigh Cement; Larry Baloun, vice-president of sales and marketing for Lehigh; Michael Ritch, vice-president, sales and marketing from Lafarge; and Marc Dion, district sales manager for Lafarge. Would the House please join me in making them welcome here today.

I. Black: I want to welcome Caroline Ross, who's a constituent of mine. She's in the precinct today. She's one of our many, many committed teachers in school district 43 in my riding.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 34 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 34, the Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007. These amendments strengthen protection for new homebuyers by (1) improving the consistency of homebuilder qualifications and (2) preventing abuse of the owner-builder loophole.

The Homeowner Protection Office will be able to authorize owner-builders who wish to build a home for their own personal long-term use. This bill also provides the registrar of the Homeowner Protection Office with effective enforcement tools, including financial penalties and compliance orders for those who contravene the act. Residential builders and owner-builders will have a process to review or appeal decisions made by the registrar.

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

Bill 34, Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today I'm introducing Bill 36, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007.

In 2006 I appointed an independent panel of three eminent British Columbians to review the governance and funding structure of TransLink, to seek input from stakeholders and the public, and to submit recommendations to me. The major amendments contained in this bill will implement most of the recommendations of the panel and will put in place a new planning framework and governance structure and balanced, sustainable funding measures that will build a solid foundation for an expanded, high-quality public transportation system in the lower mainland.

Major features of this bill include the creation of a mayors' council to maintain accountability of TransLink to taxpayers, and the creation of a professional board of directors, who will have the skills and professional background necessary to oversee the operation of TransLink. It will include the creation of an independent commissioner — who will enhance transparency and due diligence regarding TransLink's plans and initiatives and who will authorize any proposed fare increases — and, finally, the creation of a substantially improved planning process.

The name of the authority is also amended to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority to reflect the fact that as our population and economy continue to grow, we will need a transportation authority that services the broader region, not just the Greater Vancouver area.

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

Bill 36, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 35, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007. This bill amends the following statutes: British Columbia Wine Act, Community Charter, Farm Practices Protection Act, Insurance (Vehicle) Act, Land Act, Land Title Act, Land Title and Survey Authority Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Passenger Transportation Act and Wildlife Act.

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

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2007.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to introduce the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act. This bill establishes clear conflict-of-interest rules for public office holders. It makes two major sets of changes to the existing Members' Conflict of Interest Act — including extending the provisions of the act to deputy ministers and government appointees, including ministerial staff and advisers and those in charge of public sector entities.

These appointees would be prohibited from improperly benefiting from their office, and it would prohibit them from operating a business, taking another job or office, or serving as a consultant while holding a public appointment.

This bill will also oblige members of cabinet, parliamentary secretaries and deputy ministers to place their assets in a blind trust while they hold that position — in place of the existing reporting provisions. This provision arises out of a ruling earlier this year where the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner suggested that such a change be made into law.

This would bring British Columbia legislation in line with conflict legislation at the federal level and will assure British Columbians that office holders in the B.C. government are fully accountable for their actions.

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

Bill M216, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. McIntyre: I rise today to make a statement on a serious subject. Saturday, April 28, is the annual day of mourning for workers who have lost their lives or have been injured as a result of their work. This is a day of reflection and remembrance throughout not only our province but our nation. On Saturday I will stop to remember the few workers that lost their lives in my riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi.

One of those workers was Mike Greer, who lost his life in a blasting accident on a road under construction in the Callaghan Valley. Mike was 45 years old and the father of two children. One of his co-workers described him as a gentleman and a very fine person who never backed off a job. Mike had been an expert in blasting for 25 years and had worked as a highway rock scaler as well as a blaster and driller, but something went terribly wrong last June 12.

We remember Mike and the other 159 British Columbians who lost their lives during 2006 as a result of workplace accidents or disease. I would like to express my condolences to the families of these workers. We must remember them. As citizens of British Columbia we must acknowledge that their lives were cut short. We must mourn families that are suddenly without a parent, a spouse or a child.

I call on all the members of our Legislature and all British Columbians today to strive to be more vigilant, to be better trained in workplace safety, to watch out for our co-workers, to follow the rules and to be alert to potential accidents.

Everyone wants their parent, their spouse or their child to return home safely to the family at the end of the working day. One death in the workplace is one too many. Safety is everyone's responsibility, whether we are workers or employers. I am reminded of this regularly when I see the multitude of Peter Kiewit construction signs on the Sea to Sky Highway, reminding us all to never walk away from an unsafe act.

I ask that all members of this chamber rise and join me to observe a moment of silence to remember the workers who tragically lost their lives.

C. James: I also wish to speak on the National Day of Mourning this Saturday. All too often in British Columbia a loved one leaves home for work and doesn't return. Last year 161 British Columbians died on the job. Most of these deaths were preventable, and none should be forgotten. This Saturday, as we recognize the National Day of Mourning, we reflect on the sacrifice made by workers and their families, and as lawmakers in British Columbia, we commit ourselves to do better.

Last year to mark this day, I spoke about the terrible increase in forest worker deaths. This year we also mourn the loss of three farmworkers who died a few weeks ago on their way to the fields. We also remember the four who lost their lives in the Sullivan mine in Kimberley. Like forest workers, these workers work very hard. Their hours are long. The work is physical. It shouldn't also be life-threatening, but far too often it is.

Too often laws are changed that make their work even more dangerous. So on this day of reflection and mourning, let's recommit ourselves to treat every worker with dignity, to restore workplace standards and to restore safety inspections.

Today we mourn the loss of every British Columbian who died on the job, and we should aspire to live up to a higher standard.

R. Lee: Over the past several weeks we have received a number of phone calls, e-mails and letters from my constituents who are concerned about the future of two buildings on Alpha Avenue and Beta Avenue in North Burnaby, which will soon house 38 affordable housing units. I just want to emphasize that it has been confirmed to me that these multi-bedroom units will be offered to low-income families. We believe in healthy and safe communities. These units will open doors to low-income families that are in need of affordable housing in a stable living environment.

I just want to reiterate that B.C. Housing does not intend to offer these multi-bedroom units to single individuals. It makes more sense to offer them to families who are in need of a helping hand.

B.C. Housing is in the early stages of its planning process with this project. However, we all have the safety and well-being of our constituents in mind as the planning continues. In addition to this, I will ensure that B.C. Housing seeks input from existing tenants and neighbours while working closely with local groups as they develop plans for these units.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the local Block Watch, neighbourhood association, senior centre and school for raising their concerns. I'm confident that there are opportunities for the community to work together with B.C. Housing, other non-profit organizations and government agencies to continue building a strong community in North Burnaby.

M. Sather: The West Coast Express is known for punctuality, but the service was a long time in coming. Plans were afoot as early as 1972 to bring a commuter rail service to the northeast sector. Finally, in 1994, B.C. Transit opened a commuter rail project office, and the work began. In only 17 months the service was planned, stations were constructed, track and other infrastructure upgrades were completed, and equipment was ordered.

The West Coast Express has become a popular commuter rail service for the residents of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. With stations in Pitt Meadows, Maple Meadows and Port Haney and five trains running

at peak periods during the morning and afternoon, commuters are able to enjoy a relaxed and stress-free 50-minute commute to and from Vancouver.

With top-notch cost recovery rates of 82 percent and a ridership of over 9,000 a day, trains are nearing capacity. That's good for commuters, and it's good for everyone else, since it means more than 3,000 fewer cars will be on the roads daily.

West Coast Express, along with GO Transit of Toronto and AMT of Montreal, has been pushing for federal legislation that supports further services expansion. If legislation is enacted, West Coast Express will have the opportunity to increase their capacity to keep up with the demand from Pitt Meadows and to Mission.

Transportation infrastructure, climate change and carbon dioxide emissions are priorities for my constituents, and having a commuter rail service that meets the needs of our growing communities will make it easier for us all to leave our cars at home.

J. Nuraney: For many of us, nothing is more important in the world than our families. It is therefore an honour to stand in the House today to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the British Columbia Council for Families.

For the past 30 years the council has worked in partnership with many organizations to help strengthen and support families in British Columbia. The efforts of the council have our full support. We, the members on both sides of the House, understand the true value of this group, and that is why the decision to create the council received all-party support in the Legislature.

The council holds true to its vision of healthy families in a healthy society. It is at the heart of all initiatives and activities held by the council. The award-winning council has made a tremendous contribution to families and communities across British Columbia and Canada. And if that is not enough, the council has even made great contributions to the creation and enhancement of a civil society.

To commemorate the 30th anniversary, the council will be kicking off exciting new initiatives such as the new parenting program and furthering work on a provincewide network called the Father Involvement Network — British Columbia.

So let us all applaud the dedication of the council. For the past 30 years and ongoing, the B.C. Council for Families has presented itself as a strong advocate for the preservation of what is at the heart of all British Columbians: family.

R. Fleming: From my constituency of Victoria-Hillside, I'd like to single out for recognition today an extremely valuable non-profit society. I'm referring to the Kiwanis Emergency Youth Shelter, or KEYS as its acronym. KEYS is the only emergency shelter in the city for youth ages 13 to 18. The shelter strives to provide a safe, supportive environment for youth that are in transition due to crisis. The shelter is also a referral centre to other important resources in our community for youth, such as family counselling and housing. The doors are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Last Thursday, April 19, KEYS celebrated their 20th anniversary. Two decades ago, the Victoria Cool Aid Society and the Victoria Kiwanis Club came together and partnered and championed the proposed youth shelter. Until that time, youth were sheltered in the same facilities as adults, and it was counterproductive to the efforts of helping youth and keeping them safe from the harshest elements of street life.

Through 20 years the youth shelter has been run by a number of well-regarded non-profit organizations in my community. In 2002 the Cool Aid Society began focusing on helping adults within the downtown core, and they transitioned their management of the shelter to the Youth Empowerment Society. The Youth Empowerment Society proved to be an ideal choice to run the shelter, because they have a solid track record of supporting at-risk youth in Greater Victoria that goes back many years as well.

Safe and appropriate housing is often an essential first step for youth to progress to a better life situation. KEYS helps fulfil this vital role in our community. In 1986 the Victoria Kiwanis Club identified a youth shelter as something of great need in our city, and ever since, they've generously provided the house and its upkeep and maintenance.

Keeping everything else going with a meagre budget remains a challenge. KEYS has gone without any funding increase since 2002, even though youth accessing the shelter increased by 23 percent. In addition, the youth showing up at the door these days are dealing with more mental health and addiction issues than ever before.

The staff do an amazing job working with these youth. It is a difficult, emotional and stressful job that they do for our community every day, and I invite all members of the House to join me in thanking the staff and volunteers and congratulating them on this milestone anniversary.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CONCERNS
REGARDING KEN DOBELL AND
CULTURAL PRECINCT PROJECT

C. James: The opposition has learned that Ken Dobell began work on the cultural precincts initiative when he was still Deputy Minister to the Premier. Mr. Dobell met with the city of Vancouver regarding funds for the project one full year before he received his lobbying contract. He was working out of the Premier's office, securing the money for the very same project that then funded his lobbyist activities. It appears that he set up his own contract.

My question is to the Attorney General. Does he condone this type of activity, and will he investigate Mr. Dobell?

Hon. W. Oppal: The circumstances relating to Mr. Dobell are now before the Privacy Commissioner. Why don't we just wait for the results of that investigation? We don't have the luxury of making these findings and conclusions without hearing all of the evidence, and I'm sure that the review that's now being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner is something that we should all wait for.

C. James: One day it's the court case, and the next it's the Privacy Commissioner. Soon they'll run out of excuses to hide behind.

Today's new information suggests that this scandal goes much deeper than when Mr. Dobell registered as a lobbyist. His actions as deputy minister must be investigated. The development of the cultural precinct project was initiated through the city of Vancouver Civic Theatres Board. Mr. Dobell was involved from the beginning.

The April 14, 2005, minutes from that board state: "In a meeting with Ken Dobell, provincial deputy minister, he suggested funds might be available from budget surpluses between January and March."

Again, to the Attorney General. Mr. Dobell was working as deputy minister to set up a fund that then paid for his lobbying contract. Does the Attorney General agree with the Premier's assertion that Dobell was not in a conflict of interest?

Hon. W. Oppal: I assume that the Leader of the Opposition has provided this evidence to the Privacy Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Well, once again the government will look absolutely everywhere to avoid answering questions and to avoid investigating what needs to be looked at.

Perhaps the Attorney General would like some more information. He might ask his colleague the Solicitor General, or he might ask the member for Vancouver-Burrard, because they were both at one of these meetings.

Minutes from the February 17 meeting of the Vancouver Civic Theatres Board show that the board met with the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development, who is now the Solicitor General, and the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

The minister, at that meeting, advised the board that the cultural envelope was capped at $2 million for the entire province. That's when they set up a meeting with Mr. Dobell. He then told the board the funding might be available in the provincial surplus. Sure enough, one year later $5 million flowed from the province to the city, and Ken Dobell got his contract.

C. James: Again, to the Attorney General: will he ensure that Ken Dobell's actions as deputy minister are fully investigated and get to the bottom of this conflict?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, posturing aside, there's a process underway. The process is a fair process. There's a review taking place. I assume that both sides will have an opportunity to be heard.

You know, it might interest the Leader of the Opposition that when allegations are levelled against any particular person in our society, we give that person an opportunity to be heard. We give that person an opportunity to defend himself or herself. That might be a novel concept on that side of the House. We don't convict people without a trial.

G. Gentner: Let's look at the facts. On February 17, '05, the current Solicitor General sets up a meeting between the Vancouver theatre board and Ken Dobell. On March 4, '05, Ken Dobell, as deputy minister, tells the city that funds may be available in the surplus.

One year later, on March 9, '06, Ken Dobell meets with the Premier and city manager Judy Rogers. On March 21, '06, the province finds the money in surplus and passes along $5 million to the city. On April 5, '06, the Premier announces the funding while his chief confidant Ken Dobell officially registers as a lobbyist, and he goes on to win a lucrative contract for the city.

My question is: considering the growing cloud hovering over the Premier's office, with appearances of impropriety that could undermine trust itself, why is the Attorney General reluctant to do the right thing and clear the air?

Hon. W. Oppal: If those facts are as damning and as inculpatory as the speaker alleges, why doesn't he go before the Privacy Commissioner and tell him that? He has every opportunity to do that.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have news for the people yelping on the other side. I don't conduct the investigations. I'll say it again. I do not conduct the investigations.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we got another clever remark from the member for Yale-Lillooet. We've grown to expect those over the years.

Look, there are laws in place. There's a process in place. Why don't we wait for the results of the review?

G. Gentner: The Privacy Commissioner has been asked to look only at the time line as it pertains to the lobbyist registry. What we are asking for is a wider investigation into the Premier's office. It is clear from the city theatres board minutes that Mr. Dobell was involved as deputy minister a full year before assuming his lobbyist activities. He set it up.

The Attorney General doesn't seem to be comfortable, so to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts: could the minister tell this House what government-related meetings did Mr. Dobell participate in that are related to the funding of this project?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, I'm amazed, hon. Speaker, how people can play reckless and footloose and fancy-free with the facts and come to certain conclusions — the allegations. Look, there is now a review being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner. The appropriate and decent thing to do in the interest of fairness is wait for the results of that fact-finding.

M. Karagianis: Well, unless the Attorney General has expanded the terms of reference of the fact-finding mission, it is only about the lobbyist registry violations. In fact, this goes far beyond that at this point. Mr. Dobell was intimately involved in funding a project that one year later funded his own contract. He helped set up funding from the Premier's office and then later got the contract to lobby the Premier's office.

So my question to the Attorney General is: does he believe that it is appropriate for a deputy minister to establish contractual opportunities that they then leave office and go and cash in on? Does he think that is appropriate?

Hon. W. Oppal: My belief is irrelevant. That's not the point. The point here is that there's an investigation, a review being conducted. So in the interests of fairness, we wait for the results of that review.

M. Karagianis: In fact, at the centre of this scandal is the application of ethical standards in the Premier's office. This matter is not before the courts, and so we think that the Attorney General should be able to give us an answer for a change, but apparently not.

I will ask this to the Attorney General. After everything that he has heard, does he agree that there may be a real or perceived conflict of interest here? And will he investigate? If not, what is preventing him from clearing up this matter right now?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, if there is a conflict of interest and if there is a violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act, that is surely something that the fact-finding review will tell us. If there's a violation of the act, the member opposite knows what to do.

L. Krog: It's too bad the Attorney General can't listen as carefully to the questions as we listen to his answers. A few minutes ago it was a review. Then it was an investigation, and now it's a review again.

My question to the Attorney General is very simple. All Mr. Loukidelis is doing is a fact-finding review. It is not an investigation. Will the Attorney General confirm whether or not that fact-finding investigation includes the conflict of interest that has been raised so carefully by question after question in this House?

Hon. W. Oppal: Obviously, the facts are clear. There's a fact-finding review now being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner. I don't understand why that member, who is a lawyer, can't understand that there might well be two sides to the story. Why don't we wait for the results of the investigation in the interests of fairness and the interests of decency?

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, who sat on the Court of Appeal, there is a difference between a review and an investigation. The toothless tiger that is the Lobbyists Registration Act proves to everyone in this province that, in fact, nothing is going to come of that.

The fact is that the Attorney General has heard enough information in this House to warrant a genuine investigation. Will he today commit to an investigation that will clear the air and remove the cloud over this whole nasty affair?

Hon. W. Oppal: That was somewhat dismissive of the Privacy Commissioner, who's doing his job and conducting a review of this case. Why don't we just wait?

B. Ralston: Will the Attorney General advise the House under what authority the Privacy Commissioner acts to investigate conflicts of interest?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Privacy Commissioner has agreed to conduct a fact-finding review. We had a conversation with him, and he agreed to do that. If there is a violation of the act, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is well familiar with the circumstances and the avenues in order to report that.

B. Ralston: The Information and Privacy Commissioner has responsibility for the Lobbyists Registration Act. My question is: what is the specific legal authority for him to investigate a conflict of interest?

Hon. W. Oppal: If there is a violation of the act, we have the Offence Act. The Offence Act sets out the parameters pursuant to which an action can be launched. The member knows that.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CONCERNS
REGARDING KEN DOBELL AND
CULTURAL PRECINCT PROJECT

J. Kwan: The Attorney General wants us to wait for the Privacy Commissioner's review, but that won't look at the conflict-of-interest issues. We already know that Ken Dobell has failed to register as a lobbyist, and now we know that he was lobbying hard. The opposition has also obtained more information that Ken Dobell was lobbying before he registered on October 28, 2006.

On August 10, 2006, the Deputy Minister of Tourism met with Sue Harvey. She is the Vancouver managing director of cultural services and also co-authored the October 31 council report outlining the cultural precincts with Mr. Dobell.

You know who else was at that meeting, Mr. Speaker? Ken Dobell himself, the city's lobbyist for the cultural precinct project. But he wasn't there alone. Jim Moodie, another one-time adviser, campaign worker and aide to the Premier, was also there. It sure is getting kind of crowded.

To the Minister of Tourism and Sport: how many meetings did his officials have with Ken Dobell before he got around to registering as a lobbyist?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, if there are allegations to be made, the allegations should be made in the proper place. Now, I know we have a 30-minute question period that has to be filled, but you know….

Hon. W. Oppal: And you're not doing a very good job of filling it, I might add.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, the allegations are getting wilder and wilder. They're coming out of here, and they're coming out of there and other meetings, I think….

Look, if there is wrongdoing and if there has been a breach of the law — if there's been a breach of any regulation — there's a proper place to go. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has already gone to the criminal justice branch in order to get some advice, so why don't they go there?

J. Kwan: I know that these questions are uncomfortable for the government side. There are more and more clouds and darker and darker clouds hanging over the Premier's office and his friend and adviser Ken Dobell.

Will the minister commit today to submitting all of the information related to how many meetings Ken Dobell had with provincial government officials relating to the cultural precincts project as part of the evidence?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, I think the understanding of the process, the procedure and the law is best summarized by the member for Yale-Lillooet when he said that it was my job to investigate. I have news for that member. He should look at the Crown Counsel Act, and he'll understand whose job it is to follow through with the procedures when there is a wrongdoing.

M. Sather: Ken Dobell is not the only friend and insider of this government to get cushy deals. Andrew Wilkinson was recently appointed to the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement dispute resolution panel. Mr. Wilkinson is a former president of the B.C. Liberal Party — yes, another friend and insider. More friends and insiders.

M. Sather: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the friends and insiders are so common amongst this government that they'll clap at almost any of them, because they're all over the place.

M. Sather: I want to know how the Minister of Economic Development justifies this payoff to another B.C. friend and insider.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll tell you where the payoff is from TILMA. The payoff is actually to the residents of British Columbia and Alberta.

Hon. C. Hansen: The report done by the Conference Board of Canada indicates that it's going to result in a net increase of about $4.8 billion in economic activity in British Columbia. We're proud of the kind of cooperation and economic dynamism that you see between B.C. and Alberta. In yesterday's news media there was a report that B.C. and Alberta are the two provinces that are leading Canada in terms of economic growth. That's great news for all of us.

M. Sather: Sadly, the beneficiary is going to be Mr. Wilkinson. I don't know if he's getting paid as much as Mr. Dobell, but he's getting paid substantially — $800 a day, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Wilkinson is also a lobbyist, like Mr. Dobell, to this government. I'd like to know how many other lobbyists are getting perks and payoffs from this government.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Wilkinson is a Rhodes scholar. He is a medical doctor. He is a very prominent lawyer and a former Deputy Minister of Economic Development in this province. Unlike the members opposite, Mr. Wilkinson actually has read and understands the TILMA agreement and the great benefits it will produce for British Columbia.

C. Wyse: The B.C. Ambulance Service Kamloops dispatch centre experienced the effect of a backed-up toilet starting on April 21. It took from Saturday morning until Tuesday evening to make a decision to evacuate, then locate a temporary site and re-establish full radio coverage for the area serviced out of Kamloops. This dispatch station covers three-quarters of the province of British Columbia, with one-quarter of its population.

As of yesterday the B.C. ambulance system still considers this is a seamless transition. My question: will the minister advise the House when he expects the smooth and efficient transition from the present temporary location to the permanent location in Kamloops to be completed? In the tradition of this House, I will accept a range of time.

Hon. G. Abbott: What I see is an enormous range in hypocrisy. This member starts out an introduction by saluting the efforts of all those who were involved in the very difficult circumstances in Kamloops on the weekend. He salutes all of those involved in the very difficult transition that was made, and then he turns around and condemns them in question period. I can't imagine that. I can't imagine the range of hypocrisy that would be involved in someone formulating an answer like that.

As a matter of fact, this was much more than a backed-up toilet. The member knows that full well. He insults everyone involved by making an idiotic comment like that.

I just want to remind the minister to be careful in how he phrases things. Continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: I withdraw the comment, Mr. Speaker, with respect to "idiotic." It was a most unfortunate and inappropriate way of characterizing a very difficult situation.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Member for Cariboo South has the floor for a supplemental.

C. Wyse: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate your ensuring that we stay on track on the business that we have at hand and don't follow the detractors.

Three-quarters of B.C. was served by a compromised dispatch system for several days. Clearly, a backup plan was lacking in the event of a dispatch station being taken out of service. It remains uncertain when a permanent station will be re-established.

I got no answer for my last question. Once more the minister has been dismissive of issues affecting the ambulance service provided to rural British Columbians. My question, once more: will the minister tell the House when adequate ambulance services will be provided to all rural British Columbians?

Hon. G. Abbott: Adequate ambulance services — in fact, exceptional ambulance services — are being provided today. They are being provided on the weekend. They are being provided every day of the year by the B.C. Ambulance Service and the very capable paramedics who work in it.

I want to take the opportunity to salute the dispatchers, the paramedics and the BCAS managers who worked in a professional, capable, calm manner to have a seamless transition over the weekend under remarkably difficult circumstances. There is no evidence of a single dropped call. There is no evidence of a single case where patient care was in any way compromised. That was because despite the very difficult situation, B.C. Ambulance did a great job, and the people who work for them did a great job.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members from both sides, the bell ends question period.

C. Trevena: I've got great pleasure in introducing today a group of grades 6, 7 and 8 students from Linnaea School on Cortes Island. They're here today with their teacher Conrad Dombrowski and their principal Donna Bracewell as well as one of the parents, Sabina Leader-Mens.

For anyone who knows Cortes Island, they know that Linnaea is more than a school. It's part of the Linnaea Farm Society and is the centre for great growth for the island.

I hope the House will make them welcome. They've clearly seen what's happening here.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to introduce 30 grade 10 students who are here from Templeton Mini School with their teacher Mr. Gary Kunis. I hope they enjoyed the last 30 minutes, and maybe it was instructive for them. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in Committee A we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and in this chamber, the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP
AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
(continued)

S. Simpson: The key policy in the throne speech in relation to climate change would be the 33-percent reduction by 2020. Did the ministry staff play a role in the development of that number?

S. Simpson: I am pleased to hear that. Could the minister tell us how that number was arrived at?

Hon. B. Penner: Our ministry worked with other ministries across government to determine what we felt was not just an aggressive target but also a doable and achievable target. We recognize that it is ambitious. It is a stretch goal, but it's one that, based on analysis and consultations between various ministries, we felt was achievable by 2020.

S. Simpson: Could the minister give us some idea about what that analysis was that was done? Exactly what analysis was done? I would agree that it is a significant number — 33 percent by 2020.

Achieving that number…. There will be challenges to achieve that number, and we're going to get an opportunity to discuss some of those challenges as we go along this afternoon. Hopefully it's not a number, and I would assume it's not a number, that got picked out of the air. There was serious work that went into determining why it would be 33 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated, we looked at what we felt was achievable and also at what was necessary. The science has been pretty compelling that human activity is contributing to climate change through CO₂ and other emissions. The science that's out there does say that aggressive and bold targets are required, and we need to get those reductions.

Different jurisdictions have gone about it differently. They're setting 2050 targets. We haven't set the hard number for that yet. That's something we're going to do, working with a variety of groups and others to establish 2050 in the long-term goal. Taking a look at other jurisdictions and what information we had within government, we felt that a 33-percent reduction from current levels by 2020 was achievable.

S. Simpson: That still hasn't answered the question. The question is a pretty straightforward one. I'll maybe try to ask it in a more clear fashion here, in case it wasn't clear enough for the minister. The minister told us a few minutes ago that there was analysis done, cross-ministries and cross-government, that his climate change staff played a significant role in that, and I am pleased to hear that.

What I'm looking for is what that analysis was. I'm not looking for a: "We thought some other jurisdictions did this or that." If all the government did was make a couple of phone calls to get the number, then tell us that. If there's real analysis, then tell us what the real analysis was.

Hon. B. Penner: The member may want to cast aspersions upon our targets, and he's free to do so. I can understand why politically he would be tempted to do so, given their own sorely lacking record in terms of addressing climate change in a meaningful way. So it comes as no surprise to me.

Other commentators have commented — in fact even he has commented in the past — on the quality of the work we did and the goals we set for ourselves in the throne speech. He seemed to salute it then. Maybe he's suggesting something different now, that maybe we shouldn't be moving to a 33-percent reduction by 2020. If that's his position, he should simply say so.

I also take some offence to him casting aspersions upon the work done by the people working in the Ministry of Environment that took place over a number of months. To simply characterize it as a few phone calls is simply unfair and untrue.

S. Simpson: This minister continues. We've been through a day and a half without a serious answer, so we'll continue on. The question isn't to cast an aspersion. The 33-percent reduction by 2020…. I don't have a problem with that number. That's a number, and it's a solid number.

The minister told us in this House, just minutes ago, that that number was developed through analysis. There was months of work that went on, I believe was his comment, by his staff and presumably by others in government to get to that 33 percent by 2020.

I'm simply asking the minister: what was that work that was done? In some detail, what was that work that was done prior to the throne speech to come up with the number of 33 percent by 2020?

Hon. B. Penner: It's exactly the work he just described in his question. He should listen to his own question.

We also have the advantage of having information that's collected by Statistics Canada in terms of inventories of greenhouse gas emissions. That clearly also played a role in terms of setting baselines and knowing where the emissions are from various sectors, and then working with government officials in the ministry and elsewhere to determine what we thought were achievable targets to get to a 33-percent reduction by 2020.

Again, the member seems to be skating around the fact of whether or not he's going to support that objective. I think I heard him say that he does, but then on the other hand, he wants to try and put some questions around that. I guess that's his right to do so.

Our government is committed to climate change in a way that the previous government never was. We have already implemented numerous policies. I've listed a number of them here today already. I can list a few more in the throne speech around methane gas capture from landfills. We're going to be embarking on a new initiative around that, because we think we can get significant reductions there from greenhouse gas emissions.

As I've already said, we're the first jurisdiction in North America to require hybrid vehicles in terms of the government's passenger vehicle fleet. We are requiring, if there is going to be any coal-fired generation built in British Columbia for electricity, that it would have to use carbon capture and storage technology. That's leading in North America and, in fact, the world.

In addition to that, since 2001 all new electricity projects built in British Columbia have been green energy projects. The NDP opposition has opposed every single one. They haven't supported a single one. And if they have, please stand up and say so. But they haven't.

S. Simpson: I certainly will put the environmental record up of this party against that party any day of the week. This is the party…. This is the Premier who stood up with Ralph Klein and condemned Kyoto and condemned the federal Liberals. This is the Premier of this government who said: "Oh, British Columbia emissions are so low, they don't matter." Quite frankly, this Premier is only concerned about this issue today for political reasons. I've got to believe he wrote this on the back of a napkin on the beach in Maui, and that's what we're trying to get to.

The question here is: if the minister is going to tell us that he did work more than what I think was a couple of phone calls out of the Premier's office, will he produce any reports or memos or…? Maybe first we'll start with this question. Did the minister receive any reports, memos or briefing notes on this 33-percent reduction by 2020 prior to the throne speech being released?

Hon. B. Penner: I know the member gets panicked a little bit when I point out the NDP's lack of leadership on climate change. I'm reluctant to do that, but it does bear noting that the single biggest year-over-year increase in greenhouse gas emissions that has been recorded in British Columbia occurred between the

years 1995 and 1996 — a 7.5-percent increase in one year in greenhouse gas emissions.

It is truly remarkable because they did virtually the impossible: managed to increase greenhouse gas emissions while they put B.C.'s economy on its back. We went from having the best economy in the country to being number ten. Hardly an admirable record but truly remarkable nonetheless.

We are working hard. We know that greenhouse gas emissions are a challenge. That's why we have done the work, not only through the energy plan, but also preparing a plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

I mentioned earlier about the importance of getting baseline data and knowing which sectors are contributing certain amounts to greenhouse gas emissions generally from the province of British Columbia.

For the member's benefit I'll walk him through the breakdown by source. The latest stats that are publicly available are for 2004. I'll start with the largest single sector: transportation at 39 percent; fossil fuel production, 18 percent; electricity at just 3 percent; waste at 9 percent — and that includes landfills; agriculture, 4 percent; residential and commercial, 11 percent; and other industry at 16 percent.

Now the member will know that last fall, as well, we were engaged in an update to the energy plan, and that produced a significant amount of information, as the member would well expect. That information, of course, was shared with the Ministry of Environment, and we had a role to play in the development of the energy plan.

The member is more than welcome to make whatever requests he wishes to make through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, which does apply to government activities.

S. Simpson: Did the minister receive any reports, memos or briefing notes regarding how the government was going to achieve the 33-percent reduction by 2020 before the throne speech was released?

S. Simpson: Would the minister identify what those reports, memos or briefing notes were?

Hon. B. Penner: Briefing notes and memos — and I forget the other thing the member mentioned — come my way on a regular basis on a whole variety of issues. Of course, climate change is one of them. Also, I did mention earlier that the energy plan has been in development for a considerable period of time, and I have worked very closely with my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in the development of our energy plan, which is leading, as well, in terms of its environmental components.

I can mention a few additional things. I mentioned earlier the baseline figures for greenhouse gas emissions by sector and some of the initiatives that we've developed to address those, from tailpipe emission standards for a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipe by 2016, to fuel content objectives of a 10-percent reduction in carbon content.

In terms of waste identified, that is a challenge around landfills, and we think there's more we can do around methane capture. It's worth noting that since 2001 methane gas is now being captured from the Hartland Landfill, north of Victoria, as well as in the GVRD's landfill in the Delta area.

That methane gas, rather than simply escaping into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming and climate change, is actually being put to productive use, generating electricity that we certainly need in British Columbia with our growing economy and helping to displace the imports that we have become dependent on due to a lack of investment in new generational facilities that took place here in the 1990s.

We have also announced initiatives around getting to zero greenhouse gas emissions for electricity development by 2016 and an end to routine flaring from the oil and gas sector. These are all leading initiatives that will address the greenhouse gas portfolio that I mentioned.

We are working on additional measures, and that is a work in progress. We are ramping up our resources to do that. We are hiring, as the member talked about late yesterday and earlier this morning. We've got ads in the newspaper. We're seeking the brightest and the best to help us with this challenge.

The member has acknowledged that it is a challenge, and he's right about that. It's something that we're committed to, and we're going to keep working on.

S. Simpson: Once again, could the minister identify what those briefing notes, memos or reports were that he received prior to the throne speech that addressed achieving the reduction of 33 percent by 2020?

Hon. B. Penner: I have received and continue to receive a variety of information from a variety of sources pertaining to climate change, alternative energy potential and options, and any manner of other things, including waste heat capture, potential for wind generation, tidal power, ocean energy and solar energy opportunities in British Columbia. The list is extremely long. Virtually, something lands on my desk just about every day.

S. Simpson: I'm sure the minister does. I receive reams and reams of that information on my desk every day too — I suspect not as much as the minister, but I do.

There is a difference between the vast array of information that hits my desk from a variety of sources, and the briefing notes, memos or reports I might receive — should I be sitting in the minister's chair — from the Premier's office or from government officials saying: "Here's the information that supports the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that we're going to put in our throne speech and that we're going to build our whole climate change argument around."

I might find those particular reports, memos or briefing notes a little bit more important and worthy of

a little bit more of my attention than simply the stack of stuff I get from every other source. I know the minister's a pretty diligent guy, so I suspect that he would pay a certain amount more attention to those things, particularly if they were coming from the office over on the west side.

Could the minister tell me if he received reports that pertain to that reduction — the 33-percent reduction by 2020 — that ended up, in fact, as the centrepiece of this year's throne speech and as the significant initiative by this government around climate change? If he got reports, memos or policy analysis on that matter, we'd like to know. If he didn't get any, then tell us that he didn't get any.

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, I have received a variety of information, including from the ministry, pertaining to climate change, energy, energy options, measures to deal with energy, to reduce emissions, etc.

S. Simpson: Were those memos, reports or briefing notes that specifically pertained to the work that led to the decision that 33 percent by 2020 was the appropriate number to put in the throne speech?

Hon. B. Penner: We have received, as I said, and continue to receive information from the Ministry of Environment and elsewhere about all kinds of matters pertaining to climate change. Directly to the member's question, we did receive a range of information from the Ministry of Environment, staff who work in the climate change section, about what a range of possibilities would look like and what it would take to accomplish those objectives — to give government an idea of what the realm of possibility is and how we would get there.

There's obviously additional detail work that needs to be done as we go to set our interim targets for 2012 and 2016. That's why we will be working with academics, first nations, community groups and industry to make sure that we reach targets that are aggressive but also doable and that don't unduly burden the economy but do help achieve our objective of reaching a 33-percent reduction by 2020.

S. Simpson: That specific information that relates to the 33-percent reduction by 2020 that is in the throne speech…. The minister now has said that he received from his staff a variety of information, I believe was his comment. I don't want to put words into his mouth. I think he said "a variety of information" that related to that and related to what some of the options and considerations were and how that might be accomplished. Will the minister make that information available to the House?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is welcome to make an application under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act for any and all information that he seeks.

S. Simpson: Well, that's true, and we'll get to talk about some more of this.

Here's my problem, hon. Chair. I have a letter here dated March 20, 2007, that is addressed back to one of our research staff from a Miss Burnham in the information, privacy and records department for the ministry. It's in regard to a request for information.

The request for information was in regard to copies of any and all records in any format whatsoever, including but not limited to all briefing materials, correspondence, preliminary reports and studies that support comments made by the Minister of Environment regarding the impact of the Gateway program and its components on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

As the minister will know, the Gateway program is referenced in the throne speech as one of the good things that the government is doing in regard to climate change. Well, the response to that request was that the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Transportation and staff within the public affairs bureau have no records that respond to that request.

We asked for that data, and what freedom-of-information came back and told us in a response to that request is that it doesn't exist. So maybe the minister could tell us: if the information doesn't exist for freedom-of-information, exactly what information is he talking about having that he might be able to make available?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to clarify, was the member now referring to the Gateway project as opposed to the climate change plan?

S. Simpson: What I was referring to was copies of all…. It was in reference to comments made by the minister as they relate to the Gateway program. As the minister will know, the Gateway program is explicitly spoken about in the throne speech as an aspect of the climate change plan, as part of what was going to help us get to this reduction.

So it's one small piece. If need be, we will submit all kinds of requests for the other information, but I suspect that it goes like this. If we ask for copies of any and all records in any format whatsoever, including but not limited to all briefing materials, correspondence, preliminary reports and studies that support comments made by the Minister of Environment regarding the impact of the Gateway program and its components on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and if the response is that the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Transportation and staff within the public affairs bureau have no records that respond to that request…. I'm pretty hard-pressed to believe there's not one piece of paper involved in this that could be made available at a time when the minister has just talked about all the analysis that he had before the throne speech.

B. Ralston: I hope the chamber will join me in welcoming ten parents and students from Bridgeview Elementary School in my riding. The teachers are Mr. Swistak and Mrs. Pelzer. The parents are Mrs. Chandra, Mrs. Bains, Mrs. Fisher, Mrs. Sondi, Mrs. Tran, Mrs. McIntyre, Mrs. Croaker, Mrs. Bort and Mr. Campos. I hope the House will make them welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: It is a great pleasure for me, having been a teacher at Bridgeview Community School, as it then was between 1978 and 1987, to make a special welcome to the folks who are here visiting from Bridgeview.

Hon. B. Penner: I am advised by the executive director of the environmental assessment office that the Port Mann twinning project is in the preapplication stage. We expect the formal process to begin shortly. Greenhouse gas emissions will be a factor that is considered by the environmental assessment office as part of their review.

S. Simpson: We weren't specifically talking about what the environmental review process is for the Gateway project. We will get a chance to talk about that maybe in a little while, but we aren't talking about that right now.

I'm coming back to the issue here about these briefing notes. Apparently, on the question of the Gateway, which is transportation-related…. It is about the cars. The minister spoke here about tailpipe emissions. The minister spoke about reducing transportation emissions. Clearly, the Gateway program is a focal point of where tailpipe emissions will potentially come from, around that corridor currently and after the project goes ahead, should it proceed.

What we know is that the minister has been a proponent of that plan, and I accept that. That's his prerogative. What we asked for was copies of any and all records in any form whatsoever, including but not limited to all briefing notes, correspondence, preliminary reports and studies that support the minister's comments and deal with the issues around air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

We've been told they don't exist. They're not FOI-able, so I'm assuming they don't exist. That being the point, it comes back to the question I asked earlier. I asked if the minister had received any documentation prior to the throne speech related to the 33-percent reduction by 2020.

The minister alluded to having received some reports from his staff after numerous questions and said I could FOI those reports. My question, then, to the minister is: is the minister telling me — while he received absolutely nothing from his staff or from anybody else, apparently, in relation to the question of Gateway and transportation; presumably they would be linked — that he did receive things on other matters that were different and distinct from that?

Hon. B. Penner: I would expect that when the environmental assessment process regarding Gateway and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge gets underway and then is completed, there certainly will be documents that would be accessible by the opposition through FOI.

At this point, as I indicated, the formal review process has not yet started for the Gateway twinning project. It's in the preapplication stage. The executive director of the environmental assessment office advises me that the project is getting closer to starting the formal review process, but that formal process has not yet started.

S. Simpson: The freedom-of-information request didn't ask for any reports related to the environmental assessment. They asked for reports that support the comments made by the Minister of Environment regarding the impact of the Gateway program and its components on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Am I to believe, since nothing existed here, that the comments of the minister supporting Gateway, suggesting that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was a figment of his imagination that had no evidence to support it?

Hon. B. Penner: I remember canvassing this issue last year with the member at some length around the preliminary information or assessment that the Ministry of Transportation had done, looking at the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge project and that proposal — which, by the way, the NDP opposition has failed to take a position on. We still haven't heard from the Leader of the Opposition whether or not she, in fact, supports that project. I assume that that's only because the other side is divided on this issue. They can't come to a conclusion about whether or not they support it.

Nevertheless, I know the critic sent out a newsletter just a few weeks ago, including a photograph of an artist's rendering of what the twinned Port Mann Bridge would look like and promoting a rally against the project in his riding. I'd have to assume, then, that at least that member is against the project. I'm not sure if the NDP members from Surrey would agree with him on that. I suppose that's why we haven't heard the leader of his party take a position yet on issues related to the Port Mann Bridge.

We did canvass this issue last year. The project will have to go through an environmental assessment, and the environmental assessment office will be taking a look at the greenhouse gas implications of that project, combined with tolling. It's my understanding that that project, at present, is not anticipated to have a signifi-

cant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but that doesn't mean that we don't take emissions from transportation seriously. In fact, we do.

That's why our throne speech did call for a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes by 2016, adopting the California standard. Also, we're looking at what we can do about carbon content in gasoline to meet additional reductions. We also have the $2,000 provincial sales tax credit that's applied to the purchase of hybrid electric vehicles in British Columbia. As I've mentioned a couple of times already today, that's why British Columbia, I think, still remains the only governing jurisdiction in North America where, as of this year, all passenger vehicles acquired for the B.C. government fleet, through lease or purchase, have to be hybrid electric vehicles.

S. Simpson: Since we know from this freedom-of-information request that…. Certainly, the indication here is that the minister received no background information, no materials and no support that would support his position, which would allow him to have a knowledgable and informed position on this issue. Clearly, he didn't seem to get any materials that would have allowed him to have an informed position, as we're not able to get any of those materials.

My question to the minister would be this. The minister has suggested that we FOI on the question that I raised earlier, which is that the throne speech lays out as its keynote piece a 33-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. The question that I'd asked is: what analysis had been done and, most specifically, what information, memos, briefing notes or other data and reports had the minister received to support that number in its development, prior to the throne speech?

The minister has said that he did receive data and that we could FOI that. So my question to the minister would be this: if I put that FOI request in tomorrow, am I going to get anything more than a letter that says the Ministry of Environment and staff and the public affairs bureau have no records that respond to that request?

Hon. B. Penner: I suspect the answer is yes, but in the meantime it would be interesting to hear from the critic whether or not their party does support the Gateway project. If not, why not? Or if they can't make a decision, when can we expect to get one from the opposition?

S. Simpson: Maybe after 2009 when we're sitting there — should this minister then be a good opposition member — he can ask those questions in estimates when it's his turn.

What we know now is that the minister has received no data or information of substance on the 33-percent reduction before 2020, or if he has, he refuses to acknowledge and make that information available. He's said he won't make it available.

After asking the question Lord knows how many times, I have to assume…. "It's another answer that I don't want to give, so we will evade the answer as best we can, and that's what we've done here." So we'll try something a little bit different, and we will get to talk about Gateway in a minute.

Could the minister tell us: prior to the throne speech, in the development of the 33-percent reduction by 2020, what consultation did ministry staff who are responsible for climate change do with experts — like Professor Weaver, for example — outside of government in determining that that was the correct number?

Hon. B. Penner: I have met with numerous individuals, groups, representatives from different organizations and members of the Legislature, in fact, since I've been appointed minister. Many of those meetings have pertained to climate change and the need for action and the challenge about what we can do to try and curtail and limit and reduce greenhouse-gas-causing emissions for British Columbia — the opportunity that British Columbia has to play a leadership role.

There were also numerous meetings, I know, that my colleague the Minister of Energy had in the development of the energy plan, which will play a very significant part in us meeting our objectives around reaching a 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. I have already canvassed what many of those objectives are. They are to develop zero-greenhouse-gas-emission-causing electricity sources by 2016.

Already we are well on our way to doing that, because 100 percent of the new projects that we have developed since we took office in 2001 in British Columbia have had zero emissions. They've been mostly run-of-the-river hydro projects but also methane capture projects from landfills — north of Victoria in the Hartland landfill and also in the GVRD at their landfill near Delta. Yet I haven't heard the opposition member support a single project that we've put forward — not one.

Instead, they have an ideological aversion to including the private sector in helping meet this challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while still providing the energy that we need in British Columbia. That is something we're working on, and we continue to do that. It would be helpful to hear something constructive once in a while when we're developing these clean energy projects in British Columbia, generating jobs in the process as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: Up until the report, I think — and I'm sure that the minister will correct me if I have the date wrong — the province has had…. As a matter of fact, it still has a climate change plan on the books. I think that was dated 2004; it might have been 2003-2004.

I understand that there will be a new climate change plan sometime in the coming weeks or months, but there is a plan on the books. It hasn't been totally rescinded yet, at least not in any formal way.

Of course, it's not legislation either, so you don't have to rescind that — much like the emission target that the minister doesn't seem to be inclined to want to entrench. They won't have to rescind that one either. The problem is this: we have a plan, and — as the min-

ister will know because he defended that plan in this House on numerous occasions — it's a plan that has no targets in it, that talks about relativity. That was the plan that existed up until 2004. In fact, that was the plan that existed and was enthusiastically supported by this government until the most recent throne speech.

The question I have around consultation…. I'm sure that the minister talks to lots of people about these issues; I talk to lots of people about these issues. My question is more specific. The question is: who, if anybody, did the minister — or his staff or the climate change officials within his ministry — consult with to get advice leading towards the recommendations that led to the 33-percent reduction by 2020 in the throne speech?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've mentioned, we have had numerous meetings — not just me but my colleagues in government — with all kinds of individuals. Some are more expert than others in issues dealing with climate change and energy and things we can do around alternative energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while trying to maintain a standard of living here in British Columbia that can help us pay for things like health care and education and all of the other social benefits that we have come to expect and enjoy in the province.

We have had those conversations, discussions and meetings going on for years. Since 2001 there has been a lot of work done in different circles, different groups. All of that information has come into government, and we have benefited from all of that as we developed the targets for the climate change initiative and the throne speech. That work was done within government, and we have set that target of 33 percent by 2020.

This is what people have said since then. Prof. Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria, I think, was one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that came out in February or late January of this year. It caused significant shock waves around the world because of how strong the science is around climate change.

What Professor Weaver had to say is: "It is the most progressive plan that I've seen anywhere in North America, for a start, and one of the best in the world. This is the way to go. This is great leadership. It really is super."

I've already talked about what David Keith, the Canada Research Chair in energy and environment at the University of Calgary said. He says: "I think it's right on."

Guy Dauncey, from the Sustainable Energy Association, after we announced what our targets were, said: "Finally, after years when all governments in B.C. have been asleep at the switch, we have leadership. This is something to celebrate."

Hon. Chair, we know that the work is ongoing. We have much more to do, and we plan to do that over the weeks, months and years ahead.

S. Simpson: I think we have a pattern here, and it's good. We know that we're not getting answers, so we'll just move on to the next area and see what we don't get out of this.

There's a 33-percent reduction overall by 2020 anticipated…. That is the government's policy. That is the position that the government says it will achieve. Could the minister tell us, hon. Chair, where he anticipates receiving that on a sectoral basis?

We know transportation has about 40-odd percent of our emissions; oil and gas, another 20 percent to 25 percent; energy, another percentage; homes and land use issues, another percentage. Those are all there. I believe that the minister earlier, in answer to another question, talked about the work that the ministry had done on a sectoral basis in preparing the 33-percent reduction by 2020.

I'm going to assume for the moment that there was some analysis at a sectoral level on how to accomplish a 33-percent reduction. Could the minister tell us what the anticipated reductions are by sector to accomplish that 33 percent by 2020?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member knows, we have set the 33-percent reduction target by 2020, and that is a stretch goal. It's something we're working towards. We have some idea about where we think we can get those reductions.

For example, I've already mentioned that in the electricity sector we think we can eliminate greenhouse gas emissions entirely by around 2016. That's something that's laid out in the energy plan. The Energy Minister can fill you in more about that, because his estimates are taking place just down the hallway as we speak here.

We will be engaging in consultation with academics, industry leaders, first nations and community groups over the next year as we work to set specific reduction targets by sector, but all of this is geared towards reaching our overall objective, which is a 33-percent reduction by 2020 in greenhouse gas emissions from British Columbia.

S. Simpson: Just so that I'm clear here, the government has set the 33-percent-by-2020 target, and at this point the government does not have an assessment of what those reductions may be by sector. It doesn't have a firm handle on that yet. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But it doesn't have a firm handle yet that it's prepared to put out there. Would that be fair comment?

Hon. B. Penner: As I said, we will be working with industry, stakeholders, community groups, first nations, academics, scientists and others to help us set those specific sectoral targets that the member refers to.

We're not alone in this at the moment. The member may be aware that California has embarked on something similar. They have set their overall goal for reductions but are still working towards setting their sectoral targets — that's my understanding — and they hope to have that work done by next year.

S. Simpson: We'll come back to this in a different way in a bit, hon. Chair, but I want to go to another question. I had the opportunity to raise some questions with the Minister of Transportation in regard to some transportation matters in his estimates. We were talking about climate change issues as related to transportation and about how his ministry would deal with those things.

His response — and I paraphrase — was something like this. The Ministry of Environment will be responsible for setting the standards around emission reductions and for tracking those standards, and we as the Ministry of Transportation will have to then go out and meet those standards that are set for us by Environment. That will be our job as Transportation. Environment's job will be to set the standard and monitor or track it to make sure that it's being achieved.

Hon. B. Penner: When it comes to things like mandatory tailpipe production standards for greenhouse gas emissions for automobiles, the Ministry of Environment will be leading on that front. But obviously we'll be counting on getting support from other agencies in government, including the Ministry of Transportation.

I should note that currently, within Canada, greenhouse gas emissions are tracked and compiled by Statistics Canada. They keep a national inventory. I think the most recent statistics available are for 2004.

British Columbia is exploring the potential for joining a regional greenhouse gas emissions registry with a number of states south of the border. That was one of the topics of discussion when I was down in California recently with the Premier. That's something that the province is interested in exploring.

It's important to have timely and consistent information so that we know what steps we need to take and can track our progress as we work towards our 33-percent overall reduction for the province by 2020.

S. Simpson: I'm sure that the minister has been busy and hasn't seen this, but I do have a press release from April 24 that says B.C. has joined the western regional climate action initiative.

S. Simpson: Oh, because I don't know. I just noticed that they'd joined, and the Premier had signed his name onto all of these commitments that came with it, which is good.

The Ministry of Environment, if I understand the minister correctly, will be responsible for emissions related to transportation — vehicle emissions. What about responsibility for setting emission standards and tracking those in the case of the oil and gas sector or in the case of other emitters of greenhouse gases? Where will the other responsibility be for those sectors in terms of setting emission standards and tracking those standards if it's not with the Ministry of Environment?

C. Wyse: I would seek leave from the House in order to make a report about an incident that has just occurred back in Cariboo South and North.

The Chair: It is not normally within the mandate of this committee to hear a report, but if unanimous leave of the House is granted, then….

C. Wyse: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the House I really want to extend my appreciation for this extraordinary privilege that has been extended to me.

I'd like to report to the House that an elementary school that exists in Cariboo South has just burned to the ground. I would like everyone here to know that there were no injuries and that everything went well. To the best of our knowledge, things are fine, and they will pick up from there. I wanted the House to be aware that everything had gone well.

Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for that update. I'm pleased to hear that no harm has come to any individuals. That's a relief.

To address the critic's former question, we will be working with the Ministry of Energy and Mines as they set their sectoral targets for the oil and gas sector. As I said, we will be consulting over the next number of months. As we do that, what comes from that consultation — and what ultimate targets get set for that sector — remains to be seen, but it will be in the context of our overall objective of a 33-percent reduction by 2020.

Depending on what those consultations develop and what targets are set, it is possible that new regulations or legislative initiatives could be forthcoming for the oil and gas sector. If that is so, it could well be the Minister of Energy and Mines who stands up to introduce that legislation or puts forward that proposed regulation in cabinet through an OIC process, but that would all be consistent with their overall framework and mandate of a 33-percent reduction by 2020.

I just want to add some clarity to what the member was referring to earlier around a registry for greenhouse gas emissions. The member is correct. We have already announced and signed up with the western regional climate action initiative. That's a group that includes the states of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington.

What we're committed to doing under that memorandum of understanding is working to now establish a common registry for tracking greenhouse gas emis-

It's something we want to do in collaboration with our partners in this western regional climate change initiative. The Premier has made it very clear that he thinks there are tremendous benefits to British Columbia being involved with a west coast collaborative, because of the synergies, the economic activity and also, of course, the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a tangible and substantial way. So we are doing that, and we will be working towards participation in a cross-border greenhouse gas registry.

But currently, as it stands today, it is Statistics Canada in our country, across all provinces, that gathers the information around greenhouse gas emissions. That's the system that is in effect as of today.

S. Simpson: The throne speech spoke about the 33-percent reduction. It then spoke about sectoral targets for 2012 and 2016, and the minister has made reference to that on a couple of occasions. When can we expect to see those sectoral targets for 2012 and 2016?

Hon. B. Penner: As stated in the throne speech, we will be establishing a climate action team that will assist us in working with first nations, industry, the stakeholders, communities, academics and scientists in helping set those targets for 2012 and 2016. In addition, I would anticipate that during the course of this year, we will be working towards our objective of setting sectoral targets so that all industries, all sectors of the province's economy know what's going to be expected of them as we move towards our global target of a 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

S. Simpson: We know that once those targets are set, it will potentially take some time to achieve them, and we'll talk a little bit about carbon credit programs in a minute. The minister talked about the end of the year. Certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but was the minister saying that by the end of the calendar or the fiscal year — and maybe he can tell us — we will have sectoral targets in place as relates to 2012 and 2016? Or did I misunderstand what he was saying about those sectoral targets?

Hon. B. Penner: It's entirely possible. I don't want to prejudge how long it will take certain groups to do that work, but it would be my hope that next year at this time we'll be debating what those specific sectoral targets are.

S. Simpson: I'm interested in knowing whether it would be the intention or the expectation of the minister that a complete monitoring program will be put in place so that at the time when we begin to move — hopefully sooner rather than later — towards accomplishing the reductions that the minister has spoken about and that the Minister of Energy speaks about in his energy plan, there will be a monitoring program in place that will allow the public to have relatively frequent information on how those reductions are going? Would that be an expectation in terms of transparency?

Hon. B. Penner: As I mentioned a little bit earlier, within Canada, across the country, Statistics Canada currently serves the function of gathering greenhouse gas emissions data and making it publicly available. The most recent statistics we have for the whole country and for every province is 2004. I'm told that new numbers are imminent. That is, the data for 2005 should be forthcoming relatively soon, but that lag time does concern me because now it's 2007.

That is one of the reasons why the Premier and I are interested in this idea of the climate action registry. That is something we are actively exploring to find a way that we could get more timely data about what the real situation is here in British Columbia, so that if there are trends or lags, we can adjust our plans accordingly and take timely action.

S. Simpson: I'm going to come back a little bit — I appreciate that — and get a little better sense of what we're doing here to some degree. I want to come back, though, to the targets a little bit and at the point where the interim targets are put in place as well.

The minister will know this, I'm sure, because he was copied on this letter. It's a February 16, 2007, letter that was addressed to the Premier and was copied to the minister. It was sent on behalf of West Coast Environmental Law, the environmental law centre at the University of Victoria, and Sierra Legal. In it they acknowledge the work that was done in the throne speech, and they certainly acknowledge that if those goals are accomplished, as noted in the throne speech, that would be a very positive thing — to do that.

They go on to say, though…. I want to read two paragraphs from the letter and then ask the minister for his view in regard to this. The letter goes on to say:

I wonder if the minister could tell us…. This letter is sent on behalf of those organizations by staff counsel at West Coast Environmental Law. I'd be interested in knowing how the minister responds to this request by these eminent environmental and legal organizations.

Hon. B. Penner: This is an issue that I think we already canvassed at some length, either before or after lunch. I can't remember which. I certainly said that that is a possibility. That is the potential outcome after we engage in consultations with stakeholders, academics,

industry groups, first nations and others. I know that some groups have already made their various positions known, and that's great. Nevertheless, we'll still be doing some consultation around that. Like I said, there may well be a role for legislation and regulation in meeting various objectives.

However, I do seem to recall hearing the critic himself on CKNW just a few nights ago, where he said to the effect: "You can have all the regulations you want, but…." And I think what he was implying was that you need to have the public behind you, and you need to have everyone express and show their own will and commitment to get the job done. I would tend to agree with that. It doesn't mean that we won't bring in legislation or regulations. It's something that we will talk to a number of stakeholders, industry, academic and community groups about, and we will be engaging in that work in the months ahead.

S. Simpson: I wouldn't want the minister to have misunderstood what I said on the radio. The minister might know that I was commenting about the story around the cabinet committee and the decision to put this issue in the hands of the cabinet committee and then to remove that committee from its ability to be FOI'd. What I was saying in the media that the minister has talked about was that I thought that was a most unfortunate direction to take and that it was concerning to many people. You'll know that an awful lot of people have expressed serious concern about that decision by the Premier and his colleagues on executive council to go that direction.

The concern they've raised, since the minister brought the topic up…. What I said in regard to regulation is that this is an issue where you can have all of the regulations you should have, but ultimately it's an issue that…. From the point of view of individual responsibility up through local governments, community interests, to provincial and national governments and global concerns, all have to make their contribution to resolving this issue of climate change and to changing their own behaviour or changing the way they do business in order to ensure they are achieving that. What I said is that it's very important that people take ownership of this issue at a personal level and a local level, if we're going to accomplish that.

My view would be that by having this go on in a cabinet committee, with the secrecy that evolves around cabinet committees…. We all know there are a handful of those committees, and we certainly don't have any idea what they're doing. What revolves around those committees does not enhance the ability to have that kind of local and community ownership. The point I made around that was that we on this side had proposed a legislative committee to go out and develop those plans and those proposals — to be able to go out into the community, meet with interests in the community, build that ownership and that public awareness around the issues and bring that back to this House, where it appropriately belongs.

That doesn't take away from the ability to do things in camera, to do things in confidence when it's appropriate to do that, but it certainly ensures that the vast majority of the work related to this, as it should be, is a public process. This issue is not a cabinet issue; it's an issue for all British Columbians, for everybody in our society. Everybody in our society should be engaged in that process. That would be the comment I was making on the radio the other night that the minister was talking about.

The issue I raised in regard to the letter and to these comments in the letter…. I would be the first one to say that I believe the government, and the minister has referenced a number of organizations or groups that made very positive comments post–throne speech. I think that's very true, and I would be the first one to acknowledge that. This letter talks about the goodwill that was created by the throne speech and by the decision of the government to reverse its position around targets and to set a firm target that many people said was a positive target.

It was sort of in that range of what many people believe needs to be accomplished on our way to success. People acknowledged that, and I think they rightly should. What the letter goes on to say is that the goodwill is created by the words but that it will be the actions that will determine whether people continue to feel positive about the work of this government on climate change.

The very first thing on this letter — which interestingly is written by three sets of lawyers: West Coast Environmental Law, the Environmental Law Centre and Sierra Legal, all lawyers with expertise in environmental law — is that you need to entrench those goals, those targets, in law in order to ensure that we accomplish them. As the minister will know, at some point governments change, ministers change, and Premiers change over time. We're going to 2020. The best guess is that few, if any, of us that are here today will be in this place in 2020. A few, if any, of us — I guess we'll see. Maybe I'll see you there, but we'll talk about it when the time comes.

The reality is that many a majority of our seats will be held by different individuals representing our communities. The point I make here is that those people may bring different perspectives about their obligation to continue the work that the government says it wants to do today around climate change. It is long-term work; it's not short term. It certainly needs to have short-term objectives, but it is long-term work.

The question I have around that is really that…. We need to ensure that those commitments that the government has made — the significant commitment of 33 percent by 2020 — are put in law where they can't be changed unless somebody wants to bring them back to this place and debate them. That's why I think those groups have a big interest in having these entrenched in law.

I will say unequivocally today that the position of the official opposition is that firm targets need to be

put in place. They need to be legislated, and they need to be law. We will support the legislating of firm targets. That is our position.

Having said that, I'm going to move from this. But I'm going to ask one further question on this — certainly, one further question now. God knows where we'll go later. Will the minister tell us: if the option is not legislation, then what other options are available to the government that would ensure the long-term commitment to meeting these objectives, which legislation obviously provides? What other options are available to ensure the commitment that these objectives will be accomplished, which obviously legislation affords us?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't think we really have a disagreement here. At least, I haven't quite picked up on one. Maybe I'm missing it. What I have said is that we're certainly open to the idea of legislation around the 2020 targets. That's something we're going to be consulting about in the months ahead.

I'm also mindful of the fact that — as the member did say and has acknowledged — regulations alone won't do everything. We need to get individual actions to change. To do that, there may be specific regulations and legislation about particular industry sectors that need to be undertaken.

The throne speech has already identified quite a number of individual specific actions — whether it's tailpipe reductions for greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, with a reduction there of 30 percent; looking at a carbon content change for fuel; changes to landfills so that we can do better at capturing the methane gas that escapes and contributes to climate change; or changes in the oil and gas sector around routine flaring and other things that take place in that sector as a matter of practice.

There are a number of opportunities where specific individual actions taken together will lead us to our ultimate objective of a 33-percent reduction. That 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020…. The member raises a good question about how many of us will be here. I was tempted to say that I've been here for 11 years already. What's another 13? I shudder at the thought.

Hon. B. Penner: Of course, the member for Chilliwack-Sumas was querying: "What is the record for the number of years of service in this esteemed House?" I'm not quite sure. Maybe one of the learned Clerks can inform us shortly what the record is in terms of years of service in the Legislature. I wonder if it was Alex Macdonald, perhaps, but I don't know.

Hon. B. Penner: Frank Calder? No, I don't think so. Anyway, we'll get that information shortly for those that are following this debate and want to add it to their trivia pursuit repertoire.

Individual actions will be required and, collectively, reductions — whether it's from agriculture, transportation, oil and gas, forestry — will be required to bring us to that cumulative total of a 33-percent reduction by 2020.

S. Simpson: That's a good segue, because I want to talk now about specific sectors and some of the plans.

I'm sure that we'll have an answer momentarily here. I have a suspicion that the Clerk has the answer.

The energy plan. We'll just talk for a moment about energy issues, hon. Chair. Back when the throne speech first was released, we made comments at that point because the Minister of Finance, shortly after the throne speech, said publicly that there would be little in the budget in this year other than….

What we saw was the $4 million that was put into the budget to fund the climate action secretariat and some of the initial activities, I take it. She said that we would expect significant funding to come in subsequent years. I believe that was her comment.

When those of us on this side of the House raised some questions about why there wasn't greater discussion in that budget, why the service plans — probably with the noted exception, potentially, of the Environment Minister's service plan — had little or no references to climate change, we made a point of reading through them.

I did note that the date on the letter of accountability for the Environment Minister is about four or five days later than everybody else's letter. I don't know if that means anything.

I do know that it was the only statement of accountability by a minister that reflected on this issue in any significant way among many of the ministries that obviously are important to this, including the ministries that now have ministers represented on the committee.

One of the other things, though, that we were told at that time was that we should be waiting for two documents in order to get a better sense of what the future government's initiatives around climate change were. We were told to wait for the climate change plan, which I anticipate we'll see some time in the not-too-distant future — the next version of the climate change plan — and for the energy plan. Of course, we all received the energy plan back a little while ago with some fanfare around its initiatives. So I want to talk a little bit about energy.

Maybe we'll start with: can the minister tell us what the role of the Ministry of Environment is around the green or environmental initiatives related to the energy plan? What role does his ministry have in terms of

Hon. B. Penner: The Ministry of Environment was involved, over an extensive period of time working with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, in the update to the energy plan. The member is quite correct. It was an update to the energy plan that was first released, I think, in November 2002.

A month or two ago we had an update to that plan, and it was released with pretty positive reviews across the board. In fact, I think the energy critic for the opposition gave it a B grade. When I was in high school, I was certainly happy to get a B, and I was absolutely over the moon if I got a B when I was in law school. That wasn't always the case, though.

In terms of ongoing activities, there is a range of areas. We're just enumerating some of them now, but off the top of my head, I can think of us playing a referral role, for example, in the siting of wind power projects since August of 2006. The environmental assessment office has reviewed, and the Minister of Energy and myself have approved, some sizeable wind power projects in the northeast part of British Columbia.

We've also, of course, played a permitting role and an approval role in proposals for other IPPs, the run-of-river projects that members of the opposition are opposed to. I think since August, when you combine the wind power projects and run-of-river projects that have come through the environmental assessment office process, we have approved just about 700 megawatts of clean, green, 100-percent renewable, zero-emission electricity projects in the province, representing hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment to British Columbia — actually, probably exceeding a billion dollars, I would surmise.

Those are some of the roles that the Ministry of Environment plays and will continue to play in the implementation of the new and updated energy plan.

S. Simpson: Does the minister know — in terms of all of the areas that are covered in this plan, in terms of responsibilities or areas categorized under the energy plan — essentially what kind of tonnage or megatonnes of emissions are created out of that sector?

Hon. B. Penner: For 2004, according to Statistics Canada data, the upstream oil and gas sector in British Columbia accounted for 12 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Keep in mind that we're going to get some updated figures here — I'm told relatively soon — for 2005. But the most recent information I have is indicating 12 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions for the upstream oil and gas sector in the year 2004.

S. Simpson: The energy plan does a few things. It does talk about eliminating flaring at oil and gas. It talks about establishing policies and measures to reduce air emissions in coordination with the Ministry of Environment. Actually, my colleague the Minister of Energy gave a B for what was the very first of the summary of policy actions, which was to set an ambitious conservation target to acquire a 50-percent reduction in use through conservation strategies by 2020.

That was the particular item he gave the B to. A 50-percent reduction would be very positive. I assume that if the government knows this, the Environment Ministry might know it. Since the government developed this plan, and clearly, a fair amount of work must have gone into it, I'm sure, over a period of time, has the government determined…? If this plan is successfully implemented, with all of the initiatives that are identified in the plan, what will it reduce emissions by in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Penner: Relating specifically to electricity, it is our objective to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions on a net basis from the production of electricity. I believe that's set for 2016.

The member may want to refer some questions to the Energy Minister about that specific portfolio, but that is an area where we think we can, under this energy plan, achieve some very measurable and meaningful reductions.

It does mean we have to do something in British Columbia. We can't simply sit back and think these reductions will happen by magic. It's going to take work. Actually, it's going to take projects, and it's going to take projects that some people will be opposed to. I've already said the opposition has found it suitable to them not to support the projects we're doing. I guess that's their choice, but on our side of the House we feel there are projects that have to get built if we're going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from the electricity sector.

We cannot just decrease our reliance on imported electricity, much of which comes from fossil fuel generation outside of the province. Goodness knows, greenhouse gas emissions know no boundaries when it comes to their effect on the climate. Also, within British Columbia we do have a number of facilities that generate electricity from the consumption of fossil fuels.

Our goal by 2016 is to try to displace that electricity with a cleaner source of energy for British Columbians. Since 2001 something like 35 to 39 contracts have been signed for new power production in British Columbia. I believe there are plans to move ahead with expansion within the existing B.C. Hydro system on some existing facilities to add new capacity. Those are major undertakings related to Revelstoke and possibly Mica and others.

Again, I defer to the Minister of Energy to elaborate on all that is contemplated there. Those are significant initiatives that are going to be undertaken, but not without some opposition. That's just, I guess, how things go. We will do our best, as we move forward, to work with community groups and to make sure that first nations, for example, are involved. That's why I'm pleased that in many projects that we've seen, particularly with run-of-river projects, first nations are actively supporting them.

The Ashlu Creek project comes to mind, where I had a chance to visit recently. I got to meet with some of the Squamish First Nation leaders and people working on that project, who have been waiting for years, frankly, for that project to take place. They've been working on it since the 1990s. Today it's actually under construction, and members of the Squamish First Nation are working there. That's an example of a win-win. It doesn't mean that there aren't still people opposed to it. There are.

We think that those kinds of projects, wind projects and others are going to be absolutely essential if we are going to get those kinds of reductions we're looking for in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: We will have the opportunity to talk about some of those projects in some more detail — some of the specific projects, probably — next week.

For right now, just staying on energy, what I'm particularly interested in…. Maybe what we'll do is talk a little bit about some of those private power projects that the minister has talked about. I know this is a matter primarily for the Minister of Energy, and I'm sure that that discussion's going on right now.

In terms of accomplishing those reductions in emissions, I believe the government's objective is efficiency by 2016. We can talk about whether we have a problem around our efficiency in the other House, where energy is the main topic.

Let me put a question to the minister and see if the minister has any concern with this. The minister will know that in order to have green power here, these particular private power contracts, most of them, have probably 20- or 30-year contracts for power purchase from B.C. Hydro. The run-of-the-river projects, and presumably the other projects, will as well.

They have 20- to 30-year contracts for power purchase. At the end of those contracts for power purchase, the proponents, the owners of those projects, will be free to put their energy on the market in any way they see fit and to sell it to whoever they like, including our friends in California, should they so choose. We may or may not be able to retain that power, depending on what markets look like, and we may end up seeing prices set largely outside of British Columbia.

The other concern, I guess, that's quite an apparent and immediate concern around this, is that we've seen, at the beginning of March, the California utilities board give $14 million to Pacific Gas and Electric to help support and offset their costs for a piece of work. What that piece of work is to do is develop a transmission system from the U.S. border to California, outside of British Columbia, and to look at the purchase and acquisition of green power companies in British Columbia.

The order that does this — and it's available on the website from the California utilities board — clearly states that they have an objective around achieving a certain degree of percentage of green power by 2020. They are not so sure they're going to do it, so they'd be much happier to buy ours and just redirect it at some point to California.

If that's the case and that's what's going to occur, my question really is: does the minister have any concern about our ability — not to achieve efficiency by 2016 — to hang on to that green power post those power purchase agreements if in fact California, through Pacific Gas and Electric and others, is actively up here trying to acquire that power to meet their own green initiatives?

Hon. B. Penner: As we keep noting, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is having this debate down the hall, but I can comment on those issues that relate to water licensing and/or permitting around wind projects, for example.

I actually remain pretty optimistic about the potential for wind power in British Columbia. A number of significant projects have been approved by the environmental assessment office reviews and signed off by the Minister of Energy and myself in the last number of months. The Dokie and Wartenbe projects have all received approval, and those number in 300 megawatts or more of potential.

My understanding is that those proponents are now out in the market getting financing and looking to secure turbines. So I think there is actually a great future for wind energy in British Columbia. Obviously, they have to be sited appropriately when it comes to concerns around wildlife and birds and so forth, but I believe that those challenges can be met. That was demonstrated, I think, through the environmental assessment process that looked at studies around that.

Nevertheless, there are people opposed to them. I've had letters from people saying: "Don't build them, because cattle will stop breeding if you do." I've actually had those letters sent to our office. I think that's spurious, but it does demonstrate the lengths to which people will be creative when looking for a reason to oppose something that might be inconvenient for them — or might in their minds be inconvenient for them — because it represents a change, and maybe it's something they have to look at that they didn't used to have to see.

As I said earlier, if we're really going to reach our targets, which on our side of the House we want to do by 2020, and have a 33-percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to have to make some changes in British Columbia. Part of that change is more renewable energy so we can wean ourselves off of imports, which are coming from the United States as well as Alberta at significant cost, including to the environment. We want to be self-sufficient and help displace that dirtier power.

On the run-of-the-river side, we've been joined by our comptroller of water rights, who will tell you that up until, I think it was, 2003, if IPPs were getting water licences to produce electricity in British Columbia, as was the case under the NDP in the early 1990s, those licences tended to be for an indefinite term. What we have done instead is shorten that up, so it's now a

maximum 40-year term. When that water licence expires, additional conditions and terms can be required as part of the renewal process for that water licence.

Conceivably, the comptroller of water rights in 40 years' time…. Goodness knows it might still be Mr. Mattison, and British Columbians should be so lucky to have his skill and expertise for all that time.

I'm not sure his wife would agree, but that would be a good thing. He'd still be working for us.

He — or whoever is in his shoes at that time — will tell you that we can set terms and conditions on the renewal of those licences. Conceivably, one of those requirements could be that any electricity produced from that run-of-the-river project be sold to a B.C. utility. Heretofore not one of the independent power projects that are run of the river have obtained contracts to sell electricity to California, which is the spectre that the opposition keeps raising — or, more particularly, a certain John Calvert, who I know used to work for the NDP.

That's the kind of the fearmongering that goes on — that somehow California's going to take it all. Well, if that were the case, why hasn't a single IPP signed a contract with California today? There's nothing legally stopping them. The answer is: because we have a market for it right here in British Columbia.

I rather suspect that 30, 40 years from now, unless there is a technological breakthrough that I can't even imagine, we'll still be using electricity in British Columbia to keep the lights on and to carry these very informative debates across the airwaves to people everywhere. I would expect that there'll continue to be a vibrant market for electricity here in British Columbia. If not, as I said, there will still be the potential through the renewal of the water licence to add some conditions.

Those are not the only conditions or levers, though, that government has. Maybe the member is not aware of it, but the majority of these run-of-the-river projects are built on Crown land and therefore require Crown land tenures. Those tenures are also for a certain set length of time. In the renewal process, one can contemplate that additional conditions could be applied. But that's a matter for the Minister of Agriculture and Lands to debate, if the members want to take that up with him. Certainly, from the water licensing side, there is plenty of opportunity 30 or 40 years from now, when those water licences come up for renewal, to add some conditions to that.

I think the strongest answer to that fear that the opposition has is that it hasn't happened today, and California needs electricity today. They are importers of electricity too, and yet not a single run-of-the-river project signed a contract. Why? I think because they find B.C. Hydro to be a pretty good customer.

B.C. Hydro is interested in purchasing that electricity, because the alternative is importing it from the United States. That's the situation we got to, frankly, after about 15 years in this province where we weren't building enough. The last major project by B.C. Hydro was 1984 at Revelstoke. For a number of years we enjoyed significant surpluses in electricity, but as the population grew and no new, large sources of supply came on line, we gradually saw that margin decrease. Today we're net importers.

We have set a target to be self-sufficient by 2016, and that's a target that we're working towards. Again, it's also going to take some vision, some leadership and some courage. There will be naysayers that say: "Sure, we agree with the general idea, but just don't have it affect me, and just don't do it here." They'll think of some other reason not to have a project go ahead, like maybe it'll scare our cattle so that they don't breed anymore. But we are committed to that goal, and we know that with our energy plan, we will achieve it.

S. Simpson: Well, it's my sense that one of the things that happened with those agreements, of course, is that Hydro…. It was a two-step process. The water licences were got; the utility commission efforts were made. At that point Hydro offered up power purchase agreements that were money in the bank, essentially, for those companies to be able to come forward and garner all kinds of capital to be able to build those projects.

We know, for example, just as one of those…. I believe it's Plutonic, which was a company here — not an overly large company — that was able to acquire about 25 or 26 of those water licences and get power purchase agreements put in place. What we know is that it didn't take long for General Electric to come along and say: "You could use a partner, and here's $100 million for 49 percent of your company." Now General Electric is a significant owner of British Columbia power, as are other companies coming along and doing that. We're starting to figure out who owns this power now, and it isn't mom-and-pop operations in British Columbia who own this power.

Two matters. One, I want to take the question to discuss the issue of the water licence itself, since you have your staff here to deal with the water licence. In terms of the fee that we get for water licences for run of the river, could the minister explain how that fee structure works and what fees we garner for run of the river?

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Chair, it's good to see you in the chair. Sorry for the delay. We're just trying to get some information here.

The comptroller of water rights advises me that water rental rates are prescribed in something called the water regulation, which is accessible on line. You can take a look to see how that works. In essence, there is a capacity charge which IPPs or others would have to pay even if they're not generating power. Then there is an additional charge that's factored in, depending on the amount of energy produced at a particular facility per year. So that's the outline.

The water licence fee for applying for a licence…. I know this is what the opposition wants to fixate on. And John Calvert is trying to whip up some hysteria on

this by talking about a $10,000 fee for a water licence and making people think that that somehow is the only financial obligation on the proponents and the only benefit the taxpayers get. That's simply false, and it's extremely misleading.

It would be helpful, in the interest of a productive public debate, if the members would also take into account the annual water rental fees, which I just described in a moment. Everyone can go take a look at the regulation to see how that is set.

I'll just give you a comment that for the fiscal year just ended, a total of $315,470,000 was collected from water rental rates across British Columbia. Now, the majority of that was coming from B.C. Hydro, because they still continue to produce something in the order of 85 percent to 90 percent of the electricity produced in British Columbia.

But the IPPs that are operating run-of-the-river projects also pay water rental rates. Since the member mentioned a company called Plutonic Power, I'll just make the observation that yesterday the environmental assessment office announced that the review has been completed into their project known as the East Toba River Montrose Creek Hydro Project.

That project, when complete, will produce enough clean, green, zero-emission, 100-percent renewable electricity for 70,000 homes on an annual basis, and will pay — in addition to the $10,000 water licence fee, if that's in fact what they paid for the two projects; it might have been more because there are two different streams — $3.2 million annually, every single year. I'm not great at math, but in ten years that's $32 million.

Yet what we continue to hear from the opponents to these projects…. I understand that it's based on an ideology which I don't subscribe to. But based on their ideological objections, they only mention the water licence application fee. They don't mention the $3.2 million per year of water rental rates, nor for that matter, the $1.4 million per year that that particular project will pay in local property taxes. Some $1.4 million in local property taxes — that's pretty significant, I would think.

That, of course, is over and above any responsibilities the company will have for paying applicable federal and provincial corporate income taxes, and any sales taxes associated with purchasing necessary equipment and the operation of that project for maintenance purposes.

Taken together, that is a pretty significant amount of money. Now, I know the opposition will probably focus on the $10,000 application fee, but I should note there are these other sources of revenue that are generated.

The member may also want to just be apprised…. I can send him a copy of the news release from the government of the day, because it was a NDP government of the day that trumpeted the following on August 1, 2000. I think this is worth listening to. Their NDP Minister of Employment and Investment trumpeted on August 1, 2000, the following: "Lower water rental rates stimulate small hydro projects."

That was done by an NDP government. I suppose that was then, and this is now, and now they've suddenly discovered an ideological aversion to having a private sector help meet our energy needs in an environmentally responsible way.

But it's a little bit strange to hear that, because, if anything, water rental rates have actually gone up in British Columbia since that decision was announced and then implemented. Because of the indexing that takes place when B.C. Hydro rates get adjusted by the Utilities Commission, those percentage increases get passed along into water rental rates. IPPs have to pay that if they're producing power from water.

Lastly, I couldn't help but notice the member's critique of Plutonic Power for being successful in attracting investment into British Columbia. Well, this side of the House actually looks forward to investment in British Columbia. I can understand that the members opposite have an ideological aversion to the private sector and, I guess now, to investment from the United States. That perhaps explains why the economy in British Columbia did so poorly in the 1990s, with that kind of hostility.

It does seem a little bit strange and a little bit hypocritical when not only did they cut water rental rates and trumpet that as a good thing for the environment and for the economy when they were in government, but to my recollection, the single largest IPP that was approved by the NDP in the 1990s was built by Calpine power from the United States of America.

That was then. This is now. That's what the NDP did then, and this is what they're talking about today. So I just ask the members to maybe try to think a little bit about their corporate memory if they still have any left, because that's the record that they left us in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: I wasn't going to spend a lot of time on this, but we've got another hour to talk about IPPs, so we're going to talk about them for the next hour or so. Then we'll deal with other things on another day. We've got lots of time.

The minister talked about where the water rental goes. The first thing I want to do is clarify: is it the Ministry of Environment that has responsibility for collection of those water rental rates, including the $5 a megawatt or whatever it is we collect on run of the river around power? Is that in fact collected by the Ministry of Environment, or on behalf of the Ministry of Environment for somebody else?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, the Ministry of Environment calculates the amount owing. We send out the invoices, then the revenue comes into the consolidated revenue fund and it goes to help pay for things like health care, education, roads and environmental protection.

The $3.2 million per year that will be provided to government as a result of us approving that project yesterday — that the opposition, I guess, is opposed to — will go to things like health care and education.

I asked the question to the opposition: where would they propose to get that next $3.2 million from, and then the other millions of dollars from the other

projects? There are about 39 of them today that are in operation, thanks to our government, and for some reason they are opposed to that. I guess that's where they want to be, but that's hardly leadership.

I heard the member say kind of off the record that this was revisionist history. Let me just provide a little bit more detail about this news release that my colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines provided me with — and I'm quite appreciative for that. Let me just read along here. The headline is, as I said, "Lower water rental rates stimulate small hydro projects" — NDP government release, August, 2000, Victoria. "The provincial government is restructuring water rental rates to encourage the development of environmentally sustainable small hydro projects by independent power producers."

That was then, and of course this is now. "The amendment to the water regulation will reduce the size of and unit charge for the first block of electricity generation under the general power use category. The result will be a 57-percent reduction in the energy component of the water rental charge for the first 160,000 megawatt hours of electricity generated by the licensee each year."

That was a step taken by the NDP government. Today they're saying they're against all that.

Read a little bit more. This was a quote by former minister Dan Miller: "As part of its recently released integrated electricity plan, B.C. Hydro committed to meeting up to 10 percent of its load growth with new green resources over the next several years," said Dan Miller, minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. "By reducing water rental rates and stimulating the development of small hydro projects, the province is helping B.C. Hydro fulfil that goal." A 10-percent goal, I might add. What is it now? The Minister of Energy and Mines, in his new energy plan, says that we're going to attain 90 percent of clean energy for B.C. Hydro in British Columbia. Under the NDP, the goal was 10 percent.

Now, there's a little bit more on this, because I know the member is still skeptical about what the true history is. I know he wasn't in the House during those years. Here was what the current Opposition House Leader had to say back in 1998, when he was serving as the Minister of Employment and Investment: "On the issue of markets, we're moving to a more open market. The generation has now become a competitive generating market. In terms of the business plans, it's not the government that's building the plant. It's an independent power producer."

The government would not be submitting business plans to the Utilities Commission. In fact, on the RFP there were 47 different projects that came in to be able to construct an IPP, and it was on a competitive basis. That's what was taking place. That was dated July 29, 1998, stated by the current Opposition House Leader.

Now, there are also comments from the former NDP Premier of the day, Ujjal Dosanjh, talking about: "The province supports independent power producers and suppliers to meet B.C.'s domestic electricity requirements. In particular, there is a role for independent power producers and cogeneration, whether fuelled by wood, residue or natural gas, small hydro and other generation types, for private developers offer real benefits to British Columbia." Ujjal Dosanjh, former NDP Premier of British Columbia.

Last but not least. Does anybody remember someone named Glen Clark — that real free enterpriser, Glen Clark — back in the 1990s and all the things that had he to say and do back then? Here is what he had to tell the House back on June 22, 1995: "I have to say this on the IPP question: we have opened our transmission lines up to wholesale wheeling, which means that an IPP can come in right now, and we are required to wheel it through to a utility. An IPP right now could build a plant in British Columbia and export down to Bonneville through B.C. Hydro's system, and we'd allow it." He ends by saying: "And we'd allow it." That was the NDP Premier back in the 1990s, Glen Clark. That's what his view was at the time.

My, my. How things have changed. I mentioned earlier that the largest single IPP that came along in the 1990s was an American company — it was Calpine power. What kind of facility was that? A member opposite just made some critical comments about Plutonic Power being able to get some investment to build green, renewable, 100-percent zero-emission electricity projects. What kind of project was that that Calpine built? What was it? It operates on natural gas. It burns a fossil fuel. It's located on Vancouver Island, and it's a cogeneration project, which provides some benefits, but it burns fossil fuels. That was developed by the previous NDP government.

There is more. There is a little bit more to the story. The member, I think, had said something about protecting British Columbians. When that contract was signed, were ratepayers protected, or was the private company protected? The contract that was signed for that deal had taxpayers offer protection to the company for natural gas price fluctuations. So ratepayers bear the risk of increases in natural gas costs.

Guess what's happened since, oh, the late '90s when that project was built. Natural gas prices have gone up, and who's helping that company out because of the deal signed by the NDP? Ratepayers.

Ratepayers are footing that risk. Under our government, we're signing contracts with IPPs where they bear the risk, and they have to get the project done. If there are cost overruns on those projects, if the engineering doesn't quite work out as planned, if the weather changes and the water doesn't run as much as they, the proponent, had expected in their business plan, who carries that risk? Will it be ratepayers bailing them out, or will it be their own shareholders that have to foot the bill? Hon. Chair, I think you know the answer. It's the investors that are taking the risk. We're protecting ratepayers, unlike what happened with the previous government in the 1990s.

S. Simpson: Let's talk some more about this. We now know the minister has said that the fees are col-

lected by Environment, so that's good to know. Now, my understanding — and I can be corrected — is that the government collects about $5 a megawatt hour for power, and then there may be some additional fees on top of that. Could the minister tell us: in addition to the $5 a megawatt hour, what other fees are collected? The minister has suggested here that we like to talk about the $5,000 or $10,000 fee, depending on the size of the project. I don't want to do that. I want to make sure that this is a complete discussion. So it's $5 a megawatt, and then I believe there are some other small incremental fees there as well. Maybe the minister could tell us what other fees get collected?

Hon. B. Penner: In addition to the generation charge for water rental rates, there is a capacity charge, as I mentioned in my last comments, which is applicable whether or not it's actually producing. There are possible storage fees, if that particular facility has a storage component for water. And there are probably fees related to Crown land.

Again, I could defer more detailed questioning around this to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, but I do know that tenures are required. Most of these projects are situated on Crown land, and so fees would be required for Crown land tenure, which would include powerhouse sighting; transmission lines; penstocks, if those are built for a project — not all require them; I know that some use tunnelling instead — and for roads, etc. So there have to be fees paid for all of those types of uses. Then, of course, there are the income taxes that projects would pay, federal and provincial. There are the income taxes of the people working on the project.

For example, on the Ashlu Creek project that's under construction today, there are upwards of 60 people working there, developing that project that will produce about 49 megawatts of clean renewable electricity and help displace about 219,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year.

Now, it is a significant project. I understand from some people that went to see it recently that they were surprised to see that it was a significant project. But it is going to take significant projects to make a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and 219,000 tonnes per year is a good start. That's how much CO₂ it would displace from a coal-fired plant in the United States selling the power to B.C. to make up the difference in the electricity.

I also note that the member has criticized the role of the private sector investing in these projects, but you should also note, Member, and other Members, that increasingly our first nations community is playing an active role in partnering in the development and operation of these projects. It's really one of the bright lights, I see, as part of the new relationship. First nations are participating in a meaningful way in economic activity in their traditional territories.

The Squamish First Nation is active in supporting not just the Furry Creek project, which is already built and in operation — about ten megawatts. I understand the Energy critic had a chance to go see that, and he said it was a wonderful facility. That's the quote that I saw from him, and I tend to agree. It seems to work out just fine. It's above the golf course, and people at the Furry Creek golf course have no idea it's there because it's so unobtrusive.

The upper Mamquam project was supported by the Squamish First Nation, and today, as I've said, the Ashlu Creek hydro project is under construction. There are about 60 people working on site, including members of the Squamish First Nation. They have reached an agreement with the proponent that at the end of the 20-year contract with B.C. Hydro, I believe, guess who owns the project. The Squamish First Nation is going to own that project.

Now, the opposition might be against that. If so, why don't they say so on the record? But that's the kind of activity that's happening in British Columbia. If they do want to say that they're against first nations participating in these projects, they'll have to try to explain that, I guess, to the first nations, if not to other members of this House. They'd also have to explain that position of opposition to IPPs producing electricity in B.C. to some of their fellow travellers. I've mentioned what some previous NDP ministers had to say, but how about some other people who I don't think ever quite attained that status of being a minister but nonetheless served here as a MLA?

Former NDP MLA Erda Walsh had this to say in the Legislature back in the 1990s: "Even in today's fast-changing market for electricity, opportunities will continue to present themselves now that our government has put processes in place to facilitate competition by independent power producers."

I mentioned earlier that the former NDP Premier Ujjal Dosanjh supported these projects. Here's a further quote from him:

Now who said that? Was that the Fraser Institute? Was it the IPPBC Association? Was it the B.C. Business Council? No, that was a former NDP Premier that had that to say, encouraging the role of independent power producers in British Columbia making electricity.

Lastly, I just can't let this go, because he was a person that occupied the role of Minister of Environment for awhile in the 1990s, one of my predecessors, the former Minister of Environment Moe Sihota. I know the current member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is in the House, and she may be interested to know what her protégé had to say: "As we were saying earlier today,

remarkable economic benefits could flow from cogeneration projects and independent power producers. In fact, solutions for different communities may lie in independent power producers. I was talking about Field earlier today, as another example of where we may be able to do an IPP instead of a direct Hydro program."

Hon. Chair, I might not always agree with everything that some of those previous MLAs in this House, the ministers, had to say, but clearly, they did recognize one of the benefits to independent power production in British Columbia — that is creating clean, renewable electricity, providing economic benefits at the same time for rural communities and, increasingly today, as I've already noted, providing economic opportunities for first nations to participate in our growing economy here in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: Well, since the minister wants to go back and explore the past, I guess that some exploration…. We don't have to go back that far to explore the past of people who don't sit here anymore. We can explore the past of the people who sit there.

This would be the government, of course, that at one time brought a court case against the Nisga'a agreement and tried to kill the Nisga'a agreement. That's what this government did; that's what this bunch did. This is the bunch that introduced a referendum against treaties. That's what this bunch did.

This is the bunch that supported conventional coal-fired power — the dirtiest form of energy there is in fossil fuels — and now have flipped because of public pressure and pressure from this side and not because of any commitment. The Premier's commitment on this is as shallow as his commitment to integrity was today when he talked about those issues related, quite frankly, to the dirty tricks that we've talked about here in this House. That's what we're talking about. This is a government that won't deal with dirty tricks, that is happy to have its staff do those things — because it reflects the values of this bunch.

This is the government that said: "We don't believe in targets around climate change." Now they've changed their mind, but they won't make a commitment to put it into legislation today. That's what this government is about. This is a minister who talks and talks, but no substance comes out. The minister hasn't answered a question in a substantive way in two days. I suspect that for the next four or five days we do this, he won't answer a question in a substantive way either.

You know, this is the government and the Premier who don't want to be accountable for their conduct, for the dirty tricks that we've seen here, for the way they've manipulated first nations. They don't want to be accountable for their conduct at all. That's the government, and that's a minister who's proud of that performance and who stands up and cheers it.

That's why we have a problem in this province, and that's why we have a problem with the environment. That kind of conduct…. We can go down the row of ministers, hon. Chair, and each one of them is as culpable for the way that they perform their duties. It's shameful, and it starts with the guy at the top.

The Chair: Order, Member. I would like to remind the member that we're discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

I'll go right back to the environment because, I mean, we heard all kinds of exploration from the minister. If the minister wants to know where we stand on the water issue and on the issue of private power, well, we're very supportive of green power. We're very supportive of alternate energy. We're very supportive of those projects, and we believe they can be successful.

If the minister paid attention, the minister would know that the member for Skeena earlier on introduced the Water Resource Protection Act, a private member's bill. What that bill said is that we're going to get a fair share for British Columbians. We're not going to give the money away to private operators and not take a fair share for British Columbia.

This is a government that has determined there is no royalty to be captured here when the water in run of the river is producing incredible wealth. The reality is this: $5 a megawatt we're getting and a couple of bucks for extra fees. In return for that, $86 a megawatt is going to those companies, or in that range. That's what we're talking about. We get five bucks; they get 86 bucks and pay it off — pretty good deal. Pretty good deal, I would say.

What we've done — the member for Skeena — is introduce the Water Resource Protection Act and said there has to be some fairness and balance. But I know this minister, like his Premier and like the rest of them, would rather give the resource away to the private sector who writes the cheques that cover the B.C. Liberal campaign donations. That's what we're talking about here. Your friends write the cheques to pay for your campaigns, pay for your elections, so you'll give them our resources for a song. That's what we're talking about.

It's unfortunate that this minister will put the interests of his friends before the environment. That is shameful, and that's exactly what he's done. This minister has not produced one shred of evidence today or yesterday to show that he had a clue about what was going on with the throne speech and the 33-percent reduction — not a clue. He has not produced evidence. We have asked: "Did you get any reports?" We go off on this meandering rhetorical rant about what he did and didn't know and about whether people gave him brochures about the environment, but nothing there about substance.

I suspect it's because, much like folks who read the throne speech…. They started, and it kind of flowed along, and then up popped the environment and climate change — 15 pages in the middle — and then down it went, and we finished off the speech.

It becomes increasingly clear that the work that was done on that was done in the west wing, the west an-

nex, by staff for the Premier. It was done to get the Premier out of a political box that he had put himself in around climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The ministers and the cabinet had no clue what was going on. All of a sudden he's here talking about greenhouse gas emissions, and that's why we have a Finance Minister who was wise enough to protect herself politically.

In fact, what did she do? Very quickly after the throne speech, she said: "Don't expect any money from me for this stuff." She got out of that one right quick. There was $4 million for climate change in a $39 billion budget. They say: "But we're not ready yet. We'll get it in a year." What do they say? They say: "The energy plan will come, and the energy plan will show you."

What do we see in the energy plan? We see a plan that says: "Oil and gas is where we're going, because clearly, as a government we've walked away from the forest sector — we've allowed it to collapse in most of the province without any kind of responsible action — and we're doing oil and gas now. That's fine. Oil and gas is pretty important, produces a lot of money. We'll give the oil and gas sector $265 million in subsidies, but we better talk about alternate energy and green stuff, because we've got to be green in this energy plan. It's got to be, like, the cover of the plan. So we're going to go green in this energy plan. We'll talk about this alternate energy. What kind of subsidies are we going to give to alternate energy to make sure it can develop? Well, let's start with nothing. How about nothing?"

That's exactly what's in the plan: nothing for alternate energy, nothing to help that industry along. That's what we hear. There's a $25 million project out there for new ideas, and nothing to help those people on the ground who want to get that alternate energy that the minister is always so proud to talk about — no support to actually get that stuff off the ground.

So that's what we do. When we ask the Minister of Energy or the Minister of Environment, "What are you going to accomplish in terms of emission reductions from this plan that you're out there touting as the energy plan?" they have no idea. They can't tell us. That's the reality of the situation we face.

This minister can go back and revisit the past and the 1990s, pull out press releases, take quotes from here and there and try to craft some kind of political message out of it. That's fine. That's what the government does, and I accept that. The reality of the situation is that there are huge issues here that the minister is not addressing, that the government is not addressing, and we need to get at those.

We are going to continue to push the government to get at those, and we will continue to do it until we get some response. If need be, we will continue to have those discussions in these estimates for as long as it takes to get this minister to actually answer a question.

So with that, I'm going to move on to a different topic. The minister has talked about car emissions, tailpipe emissions. He has talked about the government's plan for tailpipe emissions. It's my understanding that the government plans, its key initiative in this area, will be an adoption of the California plan for tailpipe emissions. Could the minister confirm whether that's his government's plan, or does he anticipate changing that plan in some way?

Hon. B. Penner: The throne speech does talk about our objectives around tailpipe reductions. I've already canvassed that for the last two days on numerous occasions, but I'm happy to say it again. We are working towards a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes of automobiles by 2016, so we're looking towards a similar outcome as what California had envisioned.

But I just want to go back to what the member was going on about a moment ago, saying that they do support green power. I've yet to hear them support a single specific project — not one. Let me just take you through a very short list. What do all of these things have in common? The Miller Creek power project, 30 megawatts near Pemberton; the Brandywine Creek small hydro project, 7.6 megawatts; the Eagle Lake micro-hydro project in West Vancouver, less than half a megawatt; and the Furry Creek small hydro project near Squamish — already talked about that — that's about ten megawatts. I understand the energy critic saw it and said he thought it was a good project, but they're still opposed to it.

The Highstead Creek small hydro project near Valemont, six megawatts; the Marion 3 Creek project near Port Alberni, 4.6 megawatts; the McNair Creek hydro project near Gibsons, 10 megawatts; the Mears Creek project in Gold River, 3.8 megawatts; the Pingston Creek small hydro project near Revelstoke, a 45-megawatt project — I've had a chance to be there; the Raging River small hydro project, 1.8 megawatts, Port Alice on Vancouver Island; the Siwash Creek project, half a megawatt, near Lytton; the South Sutton Creek, near Port Alberni, a five-megawatt project; and the Upper Mamquam, a 25-megawatt project near Squamish; and of course, the Ashlu Creek hydroelectric project, 49 megawatts near Squamish, supported by the Squamish First Nation.

What do all of those projects have in common? The NDP has been opposed to them. They have opposed them. They have actively opposed them. They've fought them, and yet they say they support green energy. They haven't brought themselves to support a single, specific project. That's disappointing, particularly when you look at what another NDP former Environment Minister had to say back in the 1990s. In fact, she was quoted in the news release that talked about the 57-percent reduction in water rental rates that the NDP announced.

This is what Joan Sawicki, one of my predecessors, had to say: "'Moving British Columbia towards greener sources of energy is a priority for a green economy initiative,' said Joan Sawicki, Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. 'Restructuring water rental rates to

take advantage of the environmental benefits offered by small hydro projects can help us meet that goal.'" And of course that goal, or that restructuring, was a 57-percent reduction in the energy component of the water rental charge for IPPs.

One thing I do differ with is at the bottom of the release. It says: "Over the longer term, small hydro project developments have the potential to generate more than $450 million in new investment and 700 construction jobs throughout British Columbia." Why do I disagree with that? Because they've clearly underestimated the potential for British Columbia. With a single project approved yesterday by our government after an environmental assessment office review…. That project, the East Toba River–Montrose Creek hydroelectric project near Powell River, is estimated to cost $450 million and is expected to create 650 person years of employment during construction, and then 20 permanent positions during operations.

That's from just one project. That signifies just some of the economic opportunities that are available to British Columbians because this side of the House does believe in the power of the private sector in helping us meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by generating clean electricity. We are prepared to stand up and support specific projects that meet rigorous environmental standards. We are prepared to support those, unlike the members opposite.

S. Simpson: We're going to get a chance to talk more about those in a bit. The one thing the minister talked about…. And as I think my colleague, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, the one thing they clearly have in common" — and I would probably agree with the minister — is that none of those projects will produce tailpipe emissions, which is what my question was about.

I guess that probably reflects better than anything that the whole performance of this minister for the better part of a couple of days is to never let answering a question get in the way of some rhetoric meandering into the past — much better than to deal with the present or the future or with questions of substance and trying to answer them.

We're going to go back to tailpipe emissions now. The minister said that it was the California approach. What I'm trying to determine here is: is the minister looking at a model that is substantively the same model that has been adopted in California, or is the government looking at something that is different in a significant way? Is it looking essentially at what California — I believe California kicks in 2009 — is proposing to do?

Hon. B. Penner: The outcomes we're looking for are substantively the same. California has set a goal for 30-percent reduction in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes of automobiles, and that is the commitment that we've made as well in the throne speech.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to hear that. I want to talk about that a little bit. What I've got here is a report from 2004. It's the California Environmental Protection Agency's Air Resources Board, and it's their staff proposal regarding the maximum feasible and cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The report has been reviewed by the California resources board and approved for publication.

It is their position in regard to what the issues are and the challenges that they see. As the minister says, these emission reductions are important, and the California plan will reduce emissions in one sense. It certainly will stop the escalation of emissions. It will do that. Without that plan, California would see their emissions skyrocket from what they saw in terms of 2004, something just under 400,000 tonnes per day, up to 2030, something that was bordering close to 600,000 tonnes per day. Some 570,000 to 580,000 tonnes a day is what they saw happening with their tailpipe emissions without a plan.

So what they said, and I'll read this. It's under the section on environmental impacts from this report. It says:

Now, the concern I have is what they go on to say. They say that staff estimates that: "Baseline emissions today" — and this is based on 2004 — "are 386,600…equivalent tons per day. With the regulation" that's being put in place, "2020 emissions will be lower than today's, and 2030 will be approximately the same as shown below."

That they've said here, hon. Chair, is that because of the increase in the number of vehicles on the road…. They have said absolutely it reduces the emissions on a per-vehicle basis, but because of the significant increases they view in vehicles on the road, by 2030 their emissions in total tonnage will be about the same as it is in 2004. So while they reduce the increase, they don't get ahead of the game.

We have a problem here in British Columbia with increased cars. When I read the budget documents, ICBC projects an 11-percent increase in the number of vehicles on the road in the next three years. So clearly, we're not moving in a direction to reduce the number of cars on the road.

Considering this kind of information…. I had this discussion with the Minister of Transportation, and there was some acknowledgment on his part, obviously, that the increase in volume of vehicles, numbers of vehicles, on the road takes away from the reductions because of new technologies in cars. How do we start to get to the 33 percent below 2020 when this is probably the biggest single piece in the equation — tailpipe

emissions? If not, it's certainly one of them. How do we start getting to that 33-percent reduction by 2020 when we know, if these numbers are correct, that we in fact are going to be lucky to be in the same place by 2030?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct that addressing greenhouse gas emission reductions is a complex topic, and it's going to take a variety of measures to do that. The tailpipe reduction initiative, which I hope the member supports, will take us part of the way there. It's a 30-percent reduction, on average, by 2016 for the tailpipes in the vehicle fleet. But of course, that's not the only thing that's happening.

As we speak here, there's a close to $2 billion transportation project called the Canada line under construction. I know some members of the opposition have been opposed to that project, but we see it as being environmentally responsible. It's going to provide commuters with a much better option for getting between Richmond, the airport and downtown Vancouver.

So I am puzzled why, even just a couple of weeks ago, I heard the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville speaking in disparaging terms about that project, when we think that that's a very productive way to help get people around to key places in the lower mainland by having an alternative to their personal automobile.

We also have announced a number of other initiatives. This was something the Premier first talked about last fall at the UBCM convention, and then was reiterated in the throne speech, around the green cities project to provide B.C. communities with additional resources to improve air quality, reduce energy consumption and encourage British Columbia to get out and enjoy the outdoors.

Specific elements include the $10 million a year over the next four years for the LocalMotion fund, which will cost-share capital projects on a 50-50 basis with municipal governments to build bike paths, walkways, greenways and improved accessibility for people with disabilities. LocalMotion infrastructure will be complemented by expanded cycling networks created by the Gateway project.

A new green city awards program will encourage the development and exchange of best practices by communities, with the awards presented annually at the UBCM convention. We're also offering financial incentives for local governments to help shift their vehicle fleets to hybrids, just like the B.C. government is doing with our passenger vehicle fleet within the province.

I've already talked about the tax incentives that we provide in the order of $2,000 for hybrid electric cars. We've made tax changes to remove the motor vehicle fuel tax component of alternative fuels — such as biodiesel, to encourage greater use of that product — because that has some greenhouse gas benefits.

It's going to take a range of activities, and probably the most complex one will be to get communities to design their cities differently in the future. The Premier has talked about challenging communities to come up with measures to redesign their communities in the future so that we have greater densities and an overall smaller footprint, which will help facilitate the viability of public transit as an option.

Those are a number of the initiatives that are longer term but are going to play an important role in helping meet our overall reduction targets.

S. Simpson: The minister talks about that list, and it is unfortunate that the government has chosen not to support the northeast sector line and accelerate the building of that light transit line out into one of the fastest-growing areas of the province. That would go a long way to taking cars off the road, quite frankly — to have that line built sooner rather than later.

The question I'm raising here isn't about the long list of cycling and other important and good things that we do, that we might want to do, and LocalMotion and the good things that some of those small initiatives will do. Those are all fine.

As the minister asks…. Yes, I do think we need to have a tailpipe emission program. I do think that California has done an awful lot of work in this area, and I acknowledge that. The California model — I think what it does is tell us about the challenge as much as anything. It tells us that because of the increase in the number of vehicles on the road, their ability to actually accomplish a reduction in overall tonnage of emissions is very difficult, and they acknowledge here that by the time you get to 2030, they probably are status quo to where they started.

It's not because they don't have a good plan or they're not working hard. It's that they face a very complicated situation because of the increased volumes in vehicles on the road. So they're not talking about making any real progress by the time you get there.

We now have ICBC, and I'm sure ICBC took into account the Canada line and other things in some of their calculations. They factor those in when they look at how many cars they plan to insure in a year. They now tell us an 11-percent increase is their projection over the next three years in the number of vehicles on the road. I'm assuming that they've looked at those things.

My question to the minister is this. The minister has talked a lot about the tailpipe emissions program and the ability to reduce our emissions through one of the most important areas. Will the minister acknowledge that being able to actually accomplish significant reductions in our overall emissions is going to be challenging — unless, of course, he wants to say that California hasn't got it right and that they're not right in how they analyze this?

Otherwise it is a big problem. My question to the minister is: what advice does he have on how we overcome that problem with the transportation sector, which makes up 40 percent of our emissions, with about 25 percent of that being tailpipe? It's a pretty big number in solving our problem. What advice does he have on how we get past that problem, or does he not think that this will occur in British Columbia as well?

Hon. B. Penner: Every jurisdiction will have their own unique set of challenges, because everybody's circumstances are somewhat different. But we are committed to a 30-percent reduction in tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. That's a policy we are pursuing. It's one that we think makes sense and that will have a significant benefit in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions overall for British Columbia.

As I've said before, that's not, of course, all we're doing. As stated in the throne speech, we are looking at measures to reduce the carbon content of motor fuel in British Columbia. We've already taken the motor fuel tax off of alternative fuels like biodiesel in British Columbia, to encourage the use of that fuel in automobiles by individuals.

Today in a number of locations you can pull up with your diesel vehicle — if it's a VW Rabbit, one of the older vehicles out there; I saw it happen myself — to the pump and, without making any modifications to your vehicle, hook up the pump to your tank and fill it up with biodiesel here in British Columbia. It's economically attractive to do that because of the tax changes that we have made as a government since 2001 to encourage the use of that alternative energy fuel.

As I mentioned earlier, the Premier is keen to work with communities and to challenge them to plan differently in the future, to encourage greater densification of their communities. There is great opportunity to have people increasingly walk or cycle to work, and it's already happening. We can be quite proud, I think, in British Columbia that when you take a look across North America, in Vancouver we have the second-highest number of people who choose to walk to work compared to any other place in North America. I think only New York City ranks ahead of Vancouver in that regard. It highlights some of the opportunities we have if we design our communities appropriately to get higher densities, to actually give people an option for getting to work.

Now, remember I said earlier that no matter how innovative, bold or positive a change, some people will simply resist change. There will be people opposed to that. The opposition's been opposed to us developing these green power projects, even though when they were previously in government, they supported them. Now they say they're against them. We know that people have resisted wind power projects. While still saying that they support the general idea of generating clean, renewable electricity, they say: "Please not in my back yard."

I know there will be resistance to changing how communities are designed, to encourage communities where people have a choice to actually walk to work. That is, nevertheless, something that we've embarked on, because the Premier and our government have a vision. We see the opportunity. We want to build on the success we've seen already with Vancouver, for example, being the second-highest city in terms of people commuting to work with their own feet. We think there's more that we can do in that regard, and we're committed to doing it.

Of course, there is the Canada line project, a $2 billion transportation project. It won't be the last mass transit project built in British Columbia, but it's the one currently underway. It'd be great to see if the opposition could bring themselves to actually say they support that project. So far what I've heard is doubts around the edges, and I've actually heard outright disparaging remarks from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville about that project.

I think it's a positive move, and I can understand that the member wants to see more transit projects. So do we. It takes a strong economy to help pay for that. Frankly, it takes the private sector to help build a strong economy. Yet what I hear the opposition say at every opportunity is that they don't trust the private sector. They don't like the private sector. Too bad the investment's from the United States if it's coming here and creating jobs.

We have a fundamental difference on this side of the House. We know it's going to take a strong economy, providing jobs and revenue in British Columbia to help us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets. It's not something government can do on its own. We are going to need the private sector to help us in technological innovation, in creating the investment climate, the economic activity, the tax revenue that we're going to need to continue to build these and other projects in the future.

S. Simpson: We have a trend here now that when the minister doesn't have an answer to the actual question, the length, the verbiage is much greater and it's much longer than when the minister might have an answer for the question.

I just want to clarify this, because I thought I heard different numbers. Maybe it's just getting late in the day. Did the minister say that on the emissions reductions, a 30-percent reduction by 2016? Was that the number the minister used, or did I just mishear that?

Hon. B. Penner: For the record, according to the throne speech, and it is government policy, we will work to establish tailpipe emission standards for all new vehicles sold in B.C. to be phased in between 2009 and 2016, reducing carbon dioxide emissions from autos by 30 percent.

S. Simpson: Then maybe the minister could tell us…. As I had pointed out here, and in the document from California about their standards, their expectation is a 17-percent reduction in tailpipe emissions by 2020. That's the number they have in California right now. The minister has said that substantively it's the same program in British Columbia as the program in California. I'd be interested to know how we get a 13-percent greater reduction in four fewer years and what the thinking is to make that happen.

Hon. B. Penner: The member is mixing and matching things here. Our objective and our outcome are the same as California's — that by 2016 we would see a 30-

percent reduction in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipes of new automobiles.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I don't think I'm mixing. When it talks about the environmental impacts and reductions, it says that the reduction…. They will start in 2009, and they will have 85,900 equivalent tons per day reduced by 2020 statewide, and that will constitute a 17-percent overall reduction in climate change emissions from the fleet in 2020. They expect it to be a 25-percent overall reduction in 2030. That's the number here, so I'm not sure what I'm mixing up. Maybe the minister could tell me what I'm mixing up.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm sometimes reluctant to point that out to the member, but I will because he's asked me to. What he's mixing up is the effect of blending in the new vehicles with the existing fleet. That's why the member commented from that document from California that as the years go out past 2020, you see a higher percentage in terms of the reduction — because the older fleet is being retired, being replaced by the new vehicles, which by 2016 must have a 30-percent reduction in tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions, the same objective we have here in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: Maybe what I need to correct here…. Is the minister talking about the government fleet or about cars on the road? What California's talking about is cars on the road. If the minister's talking about the government fleet, then it's minuscule. It's minuscule in relation to all the vehicles on the road.

I can't imagine he actually means that. The tailpipe emission program isn't about the government fleet. It's about all the vehicles on the road, starting with vehicles in 2009. Maybe the minister could tell us whether he understands the program.

Hon. B. Penner: I do, but unfortunately the member doesn't. Our commitment in the throne speech — and it was said two months ago, so there's been plenty of time to go and read it — says that all new vehicles in British Columbia by 2016 will be required to have a 30-percent reduction in tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions — period.

California has the same objective. The document that the member's reading — and I understand it's been a long day, so I can forgive the member for getting confused about the document he's got — is talking about blending in those new vehicles with the existing fleet. All vehicles don't stop operating in 2016 that were built prior to 2016. So gradually over time, as the member noted, California is projecting a bigger reduction in overall emissions from their total fleet of older vehicles on the road as they get retired and are replaced with new vehicles bought or acquired from 2016 or later that are compliant with the regulation to have a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipe. That's the same plan we have.

S. Simpson: I still don't think the minister gets it. What this says in the California plan is that starting in 2009, vehicles are required to have reduced emissions. They are required to reduce their tailpipe emissions for vehicles starting in 2009 and later. I believe the throne speech talks about 2009 to 2016 as the period. Is there some magic here that sometime after 2009 all of those cars that went before that don't meet those standards are somehow going to emit less? How is that supposed to work? Maybe the minister could tell us that, because what we see here is beginning the change in the evolution of vehicles starting in 2009. That's what the California plan talks about.

The minister seems to be suggesting that vehicles built before 2009 will somehow have those reduced emissions. Now, you can charge people more money. You can do a whole lot of things to penalize people who drive vehicles that are older than 2009, certainly, but in British Columbia, the vehicles 2009 and on are going to, in fact, be the ones that have the emission standards, because you're not going to get companies to do it any differently.

As the minister well knows, as we all know, our ability to adopt the California program is probably to be hand in glove with them, because they have the size of market to allow us to be hand in glove with them. They can put that kind of pressure on the sector to do that with vehicles in a way that we can't because of the size of our market. It makes sense to adopt the California model in many ways, because they have the market clout.

I can't imagine how we could get out there on our own and do this on our own, separate and distinct from them, unless there's a national program. We sure saw from the Minister of Environment federally today that we won't be seeing any national program that includes this. Maybe the minister could explain how the increase is so much more dramatic here.

Hon. B. Penner: I say this very sincerely: I think the member is getting tired. He can be forgiven for that, and I feel sympathetic for him. I know he's been putting in a lot of effort today and yesterday and all week, no doubt, with the duties that all MLAs conduct in this Legislature. It's a busy time during session. I know all members get tired as the session goes on and, certainly, as the sitting goes on during the day.

I'll try to make this very clear. It's been out there for months. It's in the throne speech, so I'll quote directly from a copy of the throne speech that tailpipe emission standards for all new vehicles sold in B.C. will be phased in over the period 2009 to 2016. Those standards will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by some 30 percent for automobiles — for those vehicles then produced in 2016.

The emission reduction targets for those new automobiles — the standards for the tailpipe emissions — get more stringent. That's what phasing-in means, between 2009 and 2016. That's the same trajectory that California is on. They're working towards that, implementing those more stringent reductions for new vehicle emissions.

I don't know how long people drive their old cars. I think with today's technology cars are lasting a bit longer, which I suppose in some ways is a good thing.

But obviously, not all cars built before 2016 cease to operate in 2017. Some people will continue to operate older vehicles for a number of years, and then as those cars get retired — or, in the case of some cars I had when I was a student, retire themselves — they will presumably get replaced with newer cars. Increasingly, those newer cars will be built in 2016 or later and have the advantage of having complied with, I hope, the requirements around 30-percent reductions in tailpipe and greenhouse gas emissions.

As to the member's comment about the market, yes, I'm glad he understands and supports the market, at least in a limited way in this regard. We do believe it makes sense working across the border, even though it's with the United States. I know the members opposite have some issues around that, but we do believe in working with our partners and building a bloc. British Columbia alone is perhaps about 4.2 million people. Washington State is about six million people, so there you're up to ten million. California is around 36 million people, if my memory serves correctly. Suddenly, we're up to a market approaching 50 million people.

I think with those kinds of numbers and that kind of population and the size of those economies, you start to build momentum. You start to show leadership. You start to show people that things can happen. That is the vision that I'm proud to say our Premier has. He's not averse to working across the border. He's not averse to working in a collaborative way. I can remember some previous NDP Premiers who took delight in poking U.S. Governors in the eye. They even seemed to countenance a blockade of an Alaska ferry out in Prince Rupert a few years ago that greatly damaged our relationship with our neighbours.

Our Premier has gone a very long way to rebuilding that relationship, in fact, taking it to places it's never been before, being seen as a true leader and visionary in establishing a Pacific coast collaborative as we work to address what I think is one of the biggest challenges of our time: confronting the dangers of climate change.

We're leading the way and working with our neighbours along that path to help show leadership to the rest of the world about what can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining a vibrant, sustainable economy that generates tax revenue for government so that we can provide all the services that people want.

Increased spending on health care, increased spending on education, transportation projects to give people options to get out of their vehicles — those are all things that we're doing.

With that and noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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

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

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to pick up the discussions where we left off this morning. We're still discussing B.C. Hydro and the electricity and alternative energy division.

I think it's better that we lump the two together. That's working well for me, and I hope that I can move some of these staff out of here in the next 20 minutes or so. Then we can move on to mines, perhaps, if that minister of state is ready to go.

As we broke for lunch, we were just touching on the subject of Burrard Thermal. The minister will know that in the election of 2001, I believe, the governing party made a commitment to shut down Burrard Thermal. I know from my time in government that it's easier said than done. As I understand in reading the energy plan 2, the government has set a date of 2014 for that to occur. I'm wondering if the minister could advise this committee what steps need to be taken

between now and 2014 to ensure that the stability function that Burrard Thermal provides to the system will be maintained or replaced by some other mechanism.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The 2001 commitment said we would phase out Burrard Thermal over time. This energy plan that we just put through indicates that by 2014 there will have to be a decision made by B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission as to whether they want to keep the antiquated equipment around.

Who knows? They may decide at the end of the day that they want to repower it with something else. But at that time that decision will be made, and Hydro works towards that. That's the same time the VAR decision would be made in regards to the levelizing of the energy in the system. At the present time they use Burrard Thermal for that purpose.

J. Horgan: I guess it's a technical question then. I know and understand that the Burrard plant provides that levelizing function to the system. I'm just curious. This is a slow wind-down. Obviously, it will be 13 or 14 years from commitment to implementation, and I'm not critical of that. I'm just saying that that's a long period of time. At what point can we — and the public and ratepayers — get an indication of how B.C. Hydro intends to replace that backup generator function that we have with Burrard in the event of calamity to the transmission lines or on the reservoir network and of that balancing function that takes place?

What would the capital costs be? Has there been any planning on that? Can the minister advise me on when that will take place, if it hasn't started already?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hydro certainly has reviewed and priced out in today's dollars what the replacement costs would be for that process if in fact in 2014 Burrard was shut down. That dollar amount is approximately $50 million, in today's dollars.

J. Horgan: I'm assuming that that would be the cost to provide the stabilizing function. What about the notion of that 1,000 megawatts? I appreciate that it's the upper end, when everything is running — all six are going full speed — but that generator is the backbone, or has been historically. In the event of calamity, you can rely on that. What plan does the minister and Hydro have — absent Burrard — to fulfill that function?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Capacity we can get through future resources that could come on line from both Mica and Revelstoke. We spoke about that earlier — that they're looking at putting another generator in at Revelstoke, which has 500 megawatts capacity. There's the possibility of the replacement of that energy from possibly a Site C or from other generation across the province that Hydro is actively buying as we speak.

J. Horgan: I understand that there is a range of resource options, but it's the location of Burrard that makes it unique and so troubling for governments of any stripe when it comes to addressing the pollutants that come from an antiquated gas plant like Burrard right in the heart of the load centre.

Let's assume that we have horrific winters, storms as we've had this past year. We lose transmission from the Peace, we lose transmission from the Columbia network, and Burrard is no longer there to keep the lights on in the lower mainland. That's the question I'm getting at. What's the corporation's plan for that backup right in the heart of the load centre? What are you going to do about that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There's no attempt to shut the plant down until that energy is replaced, until the VAR support process is addressed — those kind of issues. A lot of that energy, interesting enough, that they could use is being generated much closer to the load consumption centre in the province as we speak, around Vancouver. That's what they are doing.

Actually, they're looking at bringing unit 5 back up and on. They need the energy going into the coming winter. They need to start working on that now, so they can bring that up at that time. But it is a very inefficient plant. It's not the CO₂ and the other pollution that goes out there. It's 60- or 65-percent efficient. It's really way out there.

There are a whole bunch of decisions that have to be made around Burrard Thermal as those years go by. That's why we're not doing it fast. We have to think through this stuff. You don't build new generation in a couple, three, four or five years. What Hydro needs to do is make sure that they can actually keep the lights on and that the facility will stay in its place and stay functional. In fact, in '06-07 I think they generated about 800 gigawatt hours out of it. Even at that, that's fairly significant.

J. Horgan: I've thought about this and have been involved in discussions around Burrard in the past, and I know that it is some distance away. But the minister said a few times this morning that you can't just wake up on a Friday morning and say Friday afternoon that we're going to find the supply.

Again, it's not the energy that's the challenge. The reason it's there, at least when I was getting briefings from Hydro back in the days…. Don't shut it down. Your assistant wasn't there at the time, but those that were said don't shut it down because…. First there's the VAR support that the minister mentioned, and it's the proximity to the load centre.

Can I assume …? If I'm looking at the geography, the closest hydro facility to the load centre would be the Bridge River system and the Seton reservoir. Could the minister help me out? If we had to rely on it today, would that be the fallback, or is there generation closer to the load centre?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I can appreciate the member asking these questions. There's more than one. The

Vancouver area — the area of the province that consumes the most electricity — does not just have one set of lines coming into it. There's from the Columbia, obviously; there's from the Peace. There are different ways to feed it. Hydro and BCTC have to look at how they manage those lines so that they don't have them at total capacity 100 percent of the time. They can go from one to the other. There is all kind of backup in transmission systems and also in generation systems.

If in fact we came to a point where the whole Columbia system and the whole Peace River system went down, we'd have a calamity on our hands that Burrard Thermal wouldn't be able to fix up for us. Burrard Thermal was built in the '50s, and it was a diesel-fired plant at that point in time. That's before the first large dam was built on the Peace, W.A.C. Bennett, the largest one in the whole system. It then went to natural gas. That's how old that system is there.

If the member is trying to say that if the whole rest of the system goes down, Burrard's actually going to take it up, no, that's not going to happen. We've got a lot more problems than trying to figure out how we're going fire up six generators at Burrard.

It is an important question, and I don't want to make light of it. Hydro will manage that. They don't use it for generation unless they have to. That's contrary to what took place, I guess, in the '90s, when there was a gas-fired mindset in the generation of electricity in the province. That's obvious in the press releases I've read that came out in the '90s. The previous government said they only wanted to get 10 percent from clean green sources, and the rest was going to be natural gas.

I know that at the time they invested some money in Burrard. It's still an ancient, very inefficient system, but it supplies VAR support, and it's also a backup to help us when there is a major peak in the system. We need to look at that carefully, and Hydro needs to plan how they're going to move forward in providing that energy.

What I said earlier is that they are acquiring energy as we speak. With every call they get some more energy and capacity to fill that void. I would think something that was built in the 1950s that generated electricity using diesel fuel, by 2014…. That's a long time. That's a pretty old plant. There are going to have to be decisions made about whether they repower it, dismantle it or whatever they do with it. But I know now the greenhouse gas emissions out of Burrard are much less than they were during the 1990s.

The energy plan's clear. It says that by 2014, Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission are going to have to make a decision about what they're going to do with it. I would assume that there will be lots of thought process before 2014, because the member's right. You can't just decide Friday morning to build a plant and have it running Monday afternoon.

J. Horgan: A couple things. Gas-fired plants were popping up like mushrooms all over western North America in the 1980s and 1990s. It wasn't a B.C. phenomenon. That was the benchmark, in fact, for pricing electricity in the marketplace — the cost of new supply based on natural gas–fired plants that make the whole system work. It wasn't an NDP idea. It wasn't a B.C. idea. Everybody was doing it. It wasn't just us.

J. Horgan: Well, we're pumping it out of the ground in the minister's back yard. Someone's got to use it. They were using it in the '90s to generate electricity, and nobody seemed to be concerned about it. I absolutely understand that we are concerned about it now, but at the time…. This is another case of if we're going to do historical revisionism, we should look at the whole context, not just grains and press releases and OICs. We don't need to spend a whole lot more time on that.

I am not advocating keeping Burrard Thermal. I want to be clear about that. This line of questioning is resulting from a commitment that the government made coming into office. I'm trying to figure out…. Okay, if you've got a horizon of that length of time, then you've probably made some progress on planning to replace, to this point in time.

It's the proximity to the load centre that makes it valuable at all. I mean, from an environmental perspective and an efficiency perspective — the minister is quite right; we both agree — this would be the last plant you'd want to have in your bundle of options for the province. I fully agree with him. We're simpatico. But it's the location, location, location and the value to balancing the system that keeps it there at all. Were it not for that, you'd shut it down tomorrow and be looking for other sources of supply. I'm sure of that, and that's why the line of questioning, Minister. It's not that I disagree, because I don't.

I'd like to know how much planning has gone on to get…. We're six years in. We're halfway there, from the commitment to the result, and I don't hear with any confidence that there is a plan other than: "We're going to get on it real soon."

Maybe I'm missing something, and I'll give the minister a chance to just kind of wrap this up so that we can move on. That's my concern. I don't want to say Burrard Thermal. It was dirty in the '80s, it was better in the '90s, and it's better now. The progression of the technology — we all understand that. It's not a partisan issue; it's a technology issue. But the challenge for Hydro, as I used to understand it…. "Yes, minister," they would say. "We'd be happy to shut it down. However, have you considered a, b, c, d, and e?" I'm just wondering: has the minister been getting the same briefings that I used to get, and are we at a, b, c, d or e at this point?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's great. We will wrap this up. We could go on forever about Burrard Thermal — I've got lots of notes about it — but it doesn't get us anywhere at the end of the day.

There is a plan in place. Hydro has been making calls. They signed 7,200 gigawatt hours of electricity in

the last call. There is going to be a call this fall in regards to electricity for a minimum of 5,000 gigawatt hours. There's the opportunity for using wood waste to generate electricity across British Columbia. We had that discussion, and that all depends a lot on price and how that's actually going to work out at the end of the day. There are those things.

They're doing Revelstoke, one unit in there. They still have an opportunity to put two more in Mica. They have an opportunity to put another one in Revelstoke. So there is a plan. The plan is moving forward to replace the energy that's produced very inefficiently in that plant, across the province in different places, and keep British Columbia whole.

The IEP, the integrated electricity plan, was all about that: the load growth going forward, what we have to do and how we have to fill that gap. A big part of that gap will be 50 percent by conservation over the next period of years. That's a strong message to the public, to the people of the province, that we want to look at conservation. It's not just building everything new; it's working with other things that we have in the province, with conservation and building some new.

J. Horgan: I'd like to just go back to self-sufficiency for a minute before we wrap up and let our Hydro folks head back to Vancouver. In 2006 it's my understanding that B.C. Hydro preferred to shut down the gas plant here on Vancouver Island and purchase on the spot market from the United States because it was cheaper — when gas prices went high in 2006. So this is a case, again, of the self-sufficiency argument not quite working in all situations.

I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that? Why would it be that Hydro would advise a local, home-grown gas plant to shut down because the price was too high for that power, and buy it from the United States?

Hon. R. Neufeld: At that period of time they didn't buy off the market in the U.S. They actually had lots of surplus in the system, and the price of natural gas was relatively high.

The member will know that ICP is owned privately, built during the '90s. What happens is that B.C. Hydro, the ratepayers across the whole province, take on the cost of the fuel supply. So if the cost of the fuel supply — meaning the natural gas — is relatively high, it's going to cost you an awful lot of money to generate the electricity.

There's a difference with this government. What we have said in those processes is that if someone wants to build a natural gas plant in the province, they're quite welcome to do that. In the new energy plan there are some things they have to do, but secondly, they would have to actually guarantee the fuel supply themselves.

It was a process in the 1990s that the government decided to instruct Hydro to put the cost of the fuel supply on the government directly. That's changed dramatically. But that's what happened in that place. There was lots of electricity. It was surplus in the province, and it was a high cost to generate it through ICP.

J. Horgan: Well, I thank the minister for that answer. I just want to touch on the gas-fired issue generally for a moment.

Again, it's one of those oddities in life that the minister comes from an area that is providing enormous wealth to the province, pumping natural gas out of the ground, and yet we won't burn it here. We hear this also from those opponents of coal-fired plants who say: "Well, we're mining coal, but we're not burning it here, and that's hypocritical." We'll get into coal with the Minister of State for Mining later on. It is high-quality metallurgical coal, by and large, that we export — not for power generation.

When the ministry and Hydro were putting together the energy plan, aside from the obvious greenhouse gas challenges of natural gas, why was a decision made to exclude that fuel from energy generation?

J. Horgan: Then combined-cycle gas plants are still in the mix, and Hydro is prepared to purchase power from IPPs if they're prepared to provide carbon offsets or sequestration if that's possible. Is that the case?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That in fact is the case. What we've said is any new generation in the province has to be zero net, which is purchased offsets or sequestration. We've also told the industry that if they want to use natural gas, the fuel supply is their risk, not the people of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: I guess I've been reading the press releases incorrectly, and I arrived late to the packed press conference over at Carmanah.

So we're still in the business of burning gas to generate electricity. That's not been scratched off the list. That's news to me, and I'm partly pleased to hear that. It is, as I said, the benchmark in the marketplace, and we are making many, many tens and hundreds of millions of dollars pumping it out of the ground. That sense of hypocrisy that some have talked about is not there — or is there, maybe. We'll have to see.

Other aspects of the energy plan. With respect to alternative energy, we haven't touched upon wind at this point. The minister and I have both, again, been on television or radio at different times talking about how wind is such a nice complement for our reservoir system. It's interruptible power. When the wind's blowing, we can generate and transmit. When the wind's not blowing, we've got our reservoirs to count on.

We haven't got a lightbulb run by a windmill, as far as I know, in B.C. to this point in time. We have some VIPPs in the last call. We touched upon that. As we look at pricing, is there any plan to follow the lead of the federal government and provide additional incentives for wind power in B.C.?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Not similar to what the feds provide. That's one cent, I believe. That program is in place, again, for a number of years. So that's an incentive to the wind energy group. What we do in British Columbia for wind energy is that we don't charge any rent for wind, so that's rent free for ten years, I believe it is — right? There's no sales tax on the equipment that's needed to actually build wind projects. The property tax system has changed to encourage wind energy to build in the province.

A. Dix: It's great to engage with the minister during the estimates for the Ministry of Energy. I look forward to the new minister, the Minister of State for Mining, who will have his first opportunity of estimates shortly. I want to congratulate him on his new office.

I want to ask the minister, just on the issue of maintaining low energy costs for residential consumers in, say, Vancouver-Kingsway or even in North Vancouver…. I want to know if the minister thinks that maintaining low energy costs…?

He'll agree with me, I'm sure, that our overall energy costs in British Columbia, thanks really to the success of the public sector — the second-lowest in Canada, I think, after Hydro-Québec — had been maintained partly because of that public investment, partly because of shrewd public investments by many governments over past decades.

Does he not think that limiting the purchase of future energy to private producers will have an impact in the long run on the energy costs faced by consumers — in my constituency, his constituency, the member from North Vancouver's constituency — and by all the residents of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm happy to see you in here asking some questions about energy. To the question of low rates: yes, we want to maintain low rates in the province. There is no reason why we can't maintain low rates in British Columbia.

I think we should understand that as robust as the growth is in the province — with more jobs and more people moving here, wanting to live in British Columbia — that same thing is happening in other areas in North America. So other areas are going to have to continue to build new resources also.

The fallacy — I know it's out there with some people — is that if government builds it, it's always cheaper. Well, that's not always the case. I think probably we can point at all kinds of things to actually prove that out, but government's got a role to play. There's no doubt about it.

Having the independent power producers provide some energy in the province of British Columbia is a good way to go because we actually transfer the risk and the debt to them and buy the electricity from them. Your critic advocated that we should actually be dependent on the U.S. of A. — that we should be dependent on electricity generated in the U.S.A. Interestingly enough, Member, that's from the private sector — most of that energy in the U.S.A.

One person is actually advocating that we should buy it from there, and we shouldn't build anymore. Whether Hydro builds it or whether the private sector builds it, the cost is going to be the same. That will be reflected in our rates.

You're right about having low rates in the province. It's because people a long time ago made some decisions to build some great dam systems in British Columbia. It caused some upset, no doubt about it, in my area and in the Columbia. We have been able to live off that.

When you look at the IAP, and you look out 25 years and see that we need about 30,000 gigawatt hours, what we've said to Hydro is: "We need 50 percent of that from conservation." That's a pretty good target. Hydro, in their wisdom, says: "Yes, we can do that," so 50 percent of that will come from conservation.

We know that some is going to come from the IPP people, but we also have the opportunity to build possibly another dam, Site C, that could be built on the Peace River. There is — we talked about it earlier; I'm not sure whether the member was in here or not yet — Mica and Revelstoke where we can put more generators in.

There are other things that Hydro has been actively doing now in the last five or six years, and that's upgrading generators across their whole system because some of them are relatively old. They can actually put in mechanically or engineering — whatever they do — to generate more electricity out of those generators and with the water that's going through them.

So there are all kinds of things we can do to maintain or to keep our prices low, and we will do that. Everybody is in the same position as us. You don't have enough electricity indefinitely. You have to build new stuff as you move forward, and your demands grow.

A. Dix: I think I inspired the minister, so I'm going to ask another question of him and then return to the critic. When he talks about energy in the United States, especially nearby, I think FDR would roll over in his grave to hear that it's all about the private sector.

Anyway, I wanted to ask the minister to respond to one of the concerns because I think the difference between our side and the minister's side is that he is much more ideological, and we're much more commonsense-oriented in our approach.

He wants to exclude the public sector, the fair competition. He wants to hamstring our public sector agency, B.C. Hydro, which has proven itself in those low-energy rates that the minister refers to and that I referred to. So that's the difference between us and him. He wants to restrain B.C. Hydro to protect the interests of private producers. We want to let a thou-

I wanted, though, to ask the minister how he responds to the concern that much of the energy that B.C. Hydro is purchasing at premium pricing has little capacity. In the language of the energy industry, it is not firm energy.

Hon. R. Neufeld: There is a distinct difference between that side of the House and this side of the House, and I'm proud to say it. I actually think that — and this side of the House thinks that — the private sector can provide all kinds of services to us, the people of British Columbia. That side of the House is stuck on the fact that government's got to do everything. You know, I appreciate that. That's the difference. That's why you are over there, and that's why I'm over here.

I have a different opinion, and right now most British Columbians agree with our opinion. I think that they'll see that it has paid off well, when you look at…. I mean, there are a whole host of things I could go back to, but I don't think the critic would want me to go back into history and talk about all the wood for jobs and all those kinds of things that were put in place that really never happened in the 1990s.

Rather than go to that, what I'll say is a lot of the generation that they have purchased is energy. Capacity they will get from Mica and Revelstoke. I think the member should be well aware of that. He probably is from the years he spent advising a former Premier. So bioenergy has lots of capacity. In the 2007 call, we'll be asking for, you know, a certain amount of capacity. We'll hear some complaints that maybe Hydro wants too much capacity or too much energy and not enough capacity.

So those kind of things will happen, but that's the way it works. I mean, Hydro knows how to run the system. We actually let them run the system. We actually encourage them to build plants in British Columbia, not some other country. I think what we need to do is let the system work.

I know there are lots of different opinions about whether we should use IPPs or not. We're using IPPs. It's not for all the generation we need in the province, but it's for a portion of the generation that we need. We ought to actually get that entrepreneurship out there and have them take some of the risk on the dollars instead of the public sector — the public in the province — taking all the risk on building new generation.

J. Horgan: I don't want to take the minister to task on this because we've been having a delightful time here in estimates. I'm pleased that my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway could come and engage in the process with us today.

I do want to touch just briefly, as I look at the clock…. I was hopeful that we could get to start the mines process, the first-ever estimates for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. But I wanted to touch on the DSM or the demand-side management aspects of the energy plan, if I may.

What we said yesterday, that I was effusive in my praise of the government for setting such an ambitious target back in February, and although I did have some concern that there didn't appear to be additional or new incentives to the public to achieve those goals beyond their own personal commitments to address climate change…. The debate of the lightbulbs has begun here in Canada, and I have to say that in my local media market here in Victoria, one of the talk shows spent, I think, 20 minutes concerned that lampshades would not fit on the new CFL bulbs. So, you know, it's going to be a challenge.

That tells me that the public, although they understand the importance of addressing climate change, and we're all heading in that direction or working toward that…. I was hopeful that the 50-percent target would be accompanied by some significant incentives for consumers. I'm wondering if the minister could outline what those might be.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, I'm happy to say that there is a fair amount of money already in place to help with demand-side management. Power Smart actually is — and the member is well aware of Power Smart through Hydro — a great system. I think it's worked well over time. In fact, we now see other jurisdictions coming in — not right now, but have come in the past and probably are coming — to look at the processes that the Crown uses for implementing Power Smart.

In the late '90s Power Smart had…. I'll give the member some numbers. I'll share this with you so you have it because it will take it right back to when we started in 1989. In 1998 there was $6.4 million; 1999, $4.7 million; 2000, $2.8 million; 2001, just under a million; 2002, $14.4 million; 2003, $45 million; 2004, $62 million; 2005, $72 million; 2006, $90 million; and an anticipated $72 million in the coming year to spend in Power Smart that the Crown has put in place.

In fact, I think they have saved 4,300 gigawatt hours of electricity through that investment in the energy plan. We've asked them to acquire 50 percent. Hydro had put forward to the BCUC in their integrated electricity plan that they thought they could comfortably get 33 1/3 percent of the electricity through conservation.

When my ministry looked at that, we said that there are a number of things that government — the Crown — could do itself to actually help them to acquire more. That's where we came up with the 50 percent — another 17 percent. So there are things that we can do in the ministry or in government.

Those are building standards, and I'm sure the member would agree with me that we need to look at building standards in a reasonable fashion. We can't just all of a sudden say: "Here it is. Take it or leave it." We have to give people some time to get accustomed to some better building standards; to look at the public sector, to start with, to see where we can actually modernize the buildings that we already have; and to put in some strict standards for anything that's built new from now forward to start saving electricity.

That's one of the reasons why we added another 17 percent to their estimation of how they are going to reach that goal. I'm sure there are a whole host of things that government can do to work with people to help them save energy. We have sales tax remission on all Energy Star equipment that you put in your house. Hydro has all kinds of rebate programs that I just read out for people to buy those lightbulbs.

I'm happy that the federal government is taking something about the lightbulb part across Canada. I think it makes it a lot easier for everyone to start adapting to that because industries that build the lightbulbs or build the lamps that used to take the old incandescent lights will have to figure out ways that people can actually use that kind of lighting. I think it's out until 2012.

There are a whole bunch of complicated things that go around just getting rid of incandescent lightbulbs. They are not as bright, so far, as incandescent lightbulbs. I'm told that in some exit-ways you couldn't use them because their light isn't bright enough — those kind of things. So there are a whole bunch of things we have to look at in the interim to give people time to get used to that.

There are a whole bunch of programs that are done. We talked earlier — I'll quickly remind without going back into it — about the climate change team and those kind of things. What we're trying to do is figure out exactly how we can meet some of those goals and what we have to do.

I'd encourage the member to give us some time. We didn't say we're going to spend all this money and that's going to fix everything, because you can't do that. You need to actually do some reasonable planning to look forward to figure out how you can do those things so you can meet some targets and some goals in 2012 and 2016. We'll have those better in place later on this year, and the job will never be done. I think it will be reviewed on a constant basis, regardless of who is government, about how we can do these things.

It's just like building plants. We talked a lot about that. You know, every megawatt we save is one less megawatt that we have to build on the land base someplace and disrupt somebody's life, probably. I think it's incumbent on us to hit that 50 percent target, and I think the public is really on for it. We'll work towards doing that.

I appreciate the member giving us credit for that, and that's not throwing it back at you. I do. I honestly appreciate it. That says to me that we don't always have to agree on everything, but you agree with some of the things that were in the energy plan that are tough targets. We both agree that those are targets that — as a public, regardless of political viewpoints — we have to take seriously so that we leave for generations to come what we received when we came.

J. Horgan: I'm glad we're both sincere about this. It is, I think, going to be the cornerstone of the climate change process that's unfolding within government and right across the country. I've been slagging the federal government at every opportunity. I'd like to do it again on this issue, but good on them for following my mates in Australia and banning the bulbs and leaving sufficient time so that the public…. I haven't looked closely at the regulations yet or the implementation plan, but they are providing adequate time so that the public can respond, and entrepreneurs will find ways for those lamp shades to fit. I know my friend from Burrard would probably assist in that regard.

The minister mentioned 4,300 gigawatt hours to date through the investments that he mentioned. My understanding is we want to double that in the next 15 years to 8,000 gwh. I appreciate that it's not just a matter of multiplying by two the amount of investment, but are there new incentives that are being contemplated inside Hydro that…?

I'm not anticipating early announcements on these things, but I know that a lot of work goes into the Power Smart program. It is the pride of the organization. I know when we had the CEO here before the Crown Corporations Committee, that he's very proud of that. He's working hard at home with his own metering processes that I'm not entirely clear on.

Perhaps the minister could talk about what plans are announceable today, as it were — or at least flesh out some of the ideas that are being contemplated — and also about the notion of net metering and other forms of personal responsibility for these issues.

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are a number of other things that are being undertaken. In the 2002 energy plan net metering was brought in, so we've had net metering now for a while. The uptake is I'm not exactly sure what. Maybe the Crown could find that out for me. But that's been around for a while.

What we've done is ask the Crown to look at time of use, and the member is well aware of what time of use is. There is a lower rate off peak and a higher rate on peak. We brought that forward in the 2002 energy plan, but only for industrial consumers. That was a program that has been quite successful, where there's a block of power that they could get at the old heritage rate, and when they went to a higher rate, they had to pay the cost, the build of new generation. That's been very good.

Smart meters are another thing that will be coming out relatively soon. That works with time-of-use rates, but at least we can start getting the smart meters into people's houses so they can actually see what's happening. They did a pilot project across the province. I was part of that. Many people were — I think 2,000 across the province. That program is now done, and Hydro is reviewing to see just how well that worked.

I think that once we get the smart meters in the houses, a meter that actually is a really sharp meter that you can put on the wall, that's wireless…. The kids, too. I mean, the kids are going to do this for us. They are the ones that actually tell me, anyhow, all the time about having to use less energy. You can see the wheel go around and how much you are consuming at different times in the day and what the cost of that

electricity is to you at that period of time. So there are education programs that they'll be doing.

The other part in the 2007 energy plan is the automatic up-to-ten-megawatt purchase of electricity by B.C. Hydro. I think that will encourage quite a few homeowners to maybe put in some solar or some small wind at their homes, and they can actually sell that electricity back to B.C. Hydro. They don't have to go through the bidding process. They don't have to have all of that to go through. They will be paid what the average of the last call for electricity was.

I think those are great steps in the right way. I know people write me and say: "Look, I've got some excess electricity. I want to sell it back to the Crown. Why won't you let me?" So net metering and also the standing offer of up to ten megawatts — you don't have to generate ten megawatts, but up to ten — are great ways to start that process of people starting to generate more of their own electricity.

J. Horgan: Certainly, I'm really excited about the smart metering, and that's what the CEO was talking about, and the 2,000. People have often said to me in my constituency office with respect to health care: "If I got a bill, not that I had to pay but at least quantified for me, as a patient on what it costs to go visit my GP to have my tonsils looked at or my kid's knee banged with a hammer, I'd be less inclined, perhaps, to make that expenditure."

Similarly, it's voodoo to most people what goes on. The power comes from the streets, and there's a thing that spins — very quickly in many houses — at the side, and they don't know anything else about it. They get their bill every couple of months, and they pay it.

I think that educating people in this climate change environment about how much is coming in and what happens if you start unplugging an apparatus that you're not using or you only use two or three times a month is a great initiative, and full speed ahead on that. I'm anxiously awaiting the results of the pilot, and I look forward to hearing from the minister on that.

The other issue he raised is our kids. My 18-year-old back in October…. I don't know if the minister has heard me tell this anecdote. I was in my shorts getting ready to cut the grass, and he came up to me and said: "Dad, does it concern you that it's 29 degrees on the last day of October?" Our generation says: "Well, it's a longer summer." But the new generation understands that that's something to be uncomfortable about. Then he hopped on his bicycle and rode away.

I'm reminded regularly by my kids that we have to respond aggressively. Every now and again I'll go to flick something on, and it won't go on because he's pulled out the plug. So the new generation gets it. Anything we can do to educate those who are concerned about lightbulbs or lamp shades is a positive thing.

I know Hydro's Power Smart has been a wildly successful program from '89 right through the '90s. It was successful then, and it's successful now. So I'm encouraged by that.

The last issue I want to raise on B.C. Hydro…. It is before the commission now. I don't know if that compromises you in any way. I don't believe it would. It's the E-Plus program. Constituents are coming to me and saying: "I signed a contract with the Crown corporation. I made investments based on a commitment from the corporation to a certain process that I thought I could rely on."

I'm having some difficulty explaining to my constituents who are now looking at alternative forms of heating their home, looking at burning wood, looking at getting oil reinstalled in their homes. A capital cost is associated with that. Then there are the greenhouse gas effects that will be increased as a result of these E-Plus customers going back to or going to another form of heating.

I'm wondering if the minister could just comment or at least find some way that I will be able to go back to my constituents and other members on this side and government members, I'm sure, to assure those customers that a contract is a contract most of the time. Perhaps the minister could explain what the phase-in process is going to be for the end of the E-Plus program, should the commission agree to it.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I do have to be careful. It's not that I want to avoid the question, but I need to be relatively careful because it is before the commission. So anybody listening could take some of my comments out of context and say something. I want to qualify that before I start.

Before we leave the last item, when you talk about your son and it being 29 degrees at the end of October…. I don't know. Send him up north. It was about minus 10, and there was snow on the ground at the end of October, so he can see what it's like in the other part of the province.

Further to that, we had snow the first of October. We had seven months of snow this year, so it's a little bit different winter — but actually good for Hydro, to be perfectly honest. We went through quite a number of years of drought, so it certainly will bring the water.

What we use in our homes in electronic equipment…. You're right. That's why I say we need to help educate the kids. They're the ones that will lead us. They're the ones that led us on the blue box issues about starting to recycle and those kinds of things — the three Rs. So we need to actually work with them as close as we possibly can. I love going to schools and talking to the young kids about electricity use. They grasp it pretty quickly.

It's actually a tariff that was put in place. The Crown has put to the commission that they would bring those rates back up to what everybody else pays for residential over a ten-year period. The Crown felt that was plenty of time for them to recapture any costs that they had already put into putting those systems in place. I think the member would agree with me that paying half the rate for electricity that most people do for heating their homes, if in fact they have electricity,

That's probably about all I'm going to say. If it was done, I would have loved to have had a discussion with the member. When the commission makes its decision, as you said before, we can sit down and have that cup of tea or whatever and talk about it.

J. Horgan: It is unfortunate, because I won't be able to satisfy my constituents until the commission rules. My sense is that it won't go well.

It's one of these disconnects again, and we run into them in government in public policy–making all the time. People were encouraged at the time, for good public policy reasons, to go in a particular direction in their homes. As time goes by, policies change. We want to encourage conservation of electricity, but in the process we may well produce more greenhouse gases from the transition from those homes that are using electricity now to some other means of heating. It's one of those issues, and I appreciate the position I've put the minister in. I'm glad that he got up and gave it a shot. I appreciate that very much.

With that, hon. Chair, I would suggest that that would conclude my time with the electricity folks until perhaps Columbia Power next week. If the minister wants to take the rest of the day off, I'll spend some time with my friend from Kamloops–North Thompson.

Hon. K. Krueger: Greetings to the critic opposite. [Applause.] Thank you for that kind applause, members of the opposition.

I'd like to make sure everyone knows the people that are assisting me today. Mr. Greg Reimer, the deputy minister, is to my right. Mr. Doug Callbeck, the assistant deputy minister, management services division, is on my immediate left. Behind me to the right is Mr. Eric Partridge, the assistant deputy minister for the mining and minerals division.

A few opening comments. I hope it's allowed, because I got a historical message from one of our civil servants that I thought would be a fitting way to open these estimates on the mining and minerals division. His name is Brian Grant, and he works with Mr. Dave Lefebure, who is our province's chief geologist, a PhD and a wonderful man.

I'd inquired about the B.C. geological survey and how long it's been in operation. The answer is that the B.C. geological survey has been in existence officially since 1895, when William A. Carlyle was appointed as the first provincial mineralogist and organized the bureau of mines in accordance with the Bureau of Mines Act, 1895. The province and the federal government had jointly funded geological mapping previous to this — for example, Bowman's mapping of the Cariboo gold fields in 1885.

The application of geology to management of the province's mineral resources was the first use of science in the B.C. government. I thought that was really interesting. Throughout its history the B.C. geological survey has been staffed by enthusiastic geoscientists and engineers, who have provided invaluable advice to government, industry and the public. What a long and proud history.

It's been my profound privilege to get to know the fine people who work as civil servants in this division of this ministry. I'm really glad to be here today to discuss B.C.'s mining success story, which is a long and proud one that experienced a revival in 2001. It's a story that I'm honoured to be able to be a part of in this role as minister responsible for mining.

In 2001 the province's share of exploration spending in all of Canada was at 6 percent. Exploration spending stood at $29 million. PricewaterhouseCoopers stated this in their annual review published a year earlier: "Unless the province creates an environment that is conducive to exploration and development, the industry faces a very uncertain future in B.C. If this trend continues, we will lose an industry that over the past 120 years has been a major contributor to the provincial economy."

The level of exploration spending in 1999 had gone as low as $22.5 million. I'm delighted to report that in 2006, it was up to $264.5 million.

With changes made by our government in consultation with industry, the province's share of exploration spending in Canada has nearly tripled, from 15 percent in 2001 to well over a 1,000-percent increase — to $265 million. Optimism in mining is the resounding sentiment throughout British Columbia.

I just got back from the Minerals North Conference in Terrace last week. They were hoping for 350 delegates. They had to start turning them away when they reached 500, because there is no facility in Terrace large enough to accommodate a bigger crowd than that. The place was brimming with optimism. Lots of first nations people. Tremendous enthusiasm.

I'd like to also share a quote from Michael McPhie, president and CEO of the mining association, who says:

This is quite a turnaround from just a few years ago. This turnaround, as explained by Mr. McPhie, will help families and communities cope with the devastating effects of the mountain pine beetle, which has wiped out huge swaths of Crown timber in B.C.'s interior.

Families are both beneficiaries and key contributors in the mining success story. Today more than 28,000 people are employed in the mining and mineral sector

in over 50 B.C. communities — jobs that pay family-supporting wages averaging $93,600, including their benefits. More families throughout British Columbia will benefit from the revitalized industry as more mines come on stream.

We have 25 of the 52 major projects in the pipeline in Canada — 25 of them located right here in British Columbia, a significant number compared to the one lone mine being reviewed in 2001.

Furthermore, the increased exploration activity and development of new mines is providing tremendous opportunities for first nations. As the province builds its new relationship with first nations, we will continue to insure that resource development is carried out in cooperation with first nations and in a sustainable manner.

The B.C. mining plan update was released earlier this year, with 95 percent of the action items in the plan completed or in progress, and we expect to complete the objectives of the plan by 2008.

It truly is an exciting time to be the minister responsible for mining in British Columbia, and I trust that the industry's optimism for the years to come is shared by every member of the House. That optimism is certainly shared by the fine people who serve doing yeoman service as civil servants for British Columbians in this ministry.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his opening remarks and his opening opportunity to participate in the estimates process as a minister of the Crown.

The minister…. I need not tell him, but I'll tell those that are watching and listening. I was quite pleased to congratulate his ascension from the back bench to the cabinet table. I know he's passionate about rural British Columbia, and I know he's passionate about this sector. I think those in the mining sector have an advocate at the table. That's what his job is, and he will discharge that with all of his energies.

My job, however, is to offer criticisms when warranted and praise as well. So I'd like to start this section by pointing to a few issues of concern and then, hopefully, wrap up with some of the positives that the minister alluded to in his opening remarks.

Today's press gives us an opportunity right off the top. This is something that people listening at home won't be surprised about: there's a perception problem in the sector, and it was acknowledged today by the chairman of Goldcorp Inc., Ian Telfer in today's Vancouver Sun. He's quoted as speaking to the Association for Mineral Exploration — Mr. Mike McPhie's organization — that the minister alluded to.

I just want to read a couple of the quotes that Chairman Telfer made, to provide some context. Then perhaps the minister can respond. The chair said: "We are all doing things to higher standards…but still there is a perception out there that you don't want a mine opening up near you because, unfortunately, we have a history of putting undercapitalized companies into marginal mines and then having them struggle to clean it up after they leave."

He went on to say: "Without changing the public perception, we are going to find it impossible to mine and develop even in developing countries."

That's the quote. Those are harsh words from a senior representative in the sector, but I think there is cause for optimism in that someone of that stature, speaking to a group of similarly suited individuals, I'm sure, at the association, threw down the gauntlet to the industry. I know the minister will probably support that there needs to be a shift in the way business is done. There needs to be a shift in public perception towards the mining sector.

I've said publicly, and I've said privately to the minister, that I believe the wealth of British Columbia now and into the future is going to be found under the ground, whether it be minerals or oil and gas. We've relied heavily on forestry and other resource-extraction activities to keep our treasury full and provide public services to the people of urban British Columbia — I could say.

There's an expectation in urban B.C. that that continue. Certainly, in my constituency, which used to be resource-based — fisheries and forestry in Sooke and the Cowichan Valley — that's changed. It's now predominantly a service sector community.

So we need those resources. The minister and I are of one mind on that. I guess where we divide, or where we depart, is on how rapidly the industry gets to that point of not just changing the perception but changing the way they do business.

In the interactions I've had with representatives from the sector, I'm very enthusiastic. I'm very encouraged by individuals like Mike McPhie, who is pragmatic, practical and focused on results.

I recall in the 1990s there were industry reps that were less enthusiastic about cooperation and working to find common solutions. Some representatives from the sector walked away from land use tables and refused to participate in what was the formulation of the economic development we're seeing today. We had to have some certainty on the land base, not just with respect to aboriginal rights, which we're still working on, but also with respect to what's appropriate land use and what's inappropriate land use — where we are going to protect areas and where we are going to let them be open for development.

That was very important work that was undertaken in the 1990s, and we're all, as British Columbians, benefiting from that today.

My first question to the minister of mines is: what are his thoughts on the comments of Ian Telfer?

Hon. K. Krueger: I want to respond to the member that comments like that are certainly of concern to the industry, the ministry and the government, although I believe the spokesman was referring to worldwide perceptions of the mining industry. Those are a concern, and we want to be leaders in British Columbia, and we are leaders. We have, we believe, the best regulatory regime in the world and — if not the best — one of the best environmental assessment processes in the world.

Just a quick correction to the record for the member. It's Mr. Dan Jepsen who is the president of the AME. Mr. McPhie, who I quoted earlier, is with the Mining Association of B.C. Mr. Jepsen's organization concentrates on exploration.

We are building — and in fact we have built — a new reputation in British Columbia. There are some really dramatic examples of that. One of the most recent is the Galore Creek project in northwestern British Columbia, close to the Alaska panhandle. That company, when it acquired its interest in B.C., approached the Tahltan first nation and approached them very respectfully and involved them all the way along. It paid off in many different ways.

At the Minerals North conference that I referred to earlier in Terrace last week, a number of the people staffing the Galore Creek display were Tahltan people who had been involved right from the beginning and were tremendously proud of the contributions they'd made, including showing the company a much better route for a toll road than it had planned.

The company engineers had mapped out a first-choice and second-choice route, and then they sat down with the Tahltan to see what they thought of them. To their shoulder-slumping disappointment, the Tahltan said: "We don't like either route. Your number one route — you're right — we don't like, but your backup route is worse from our point of view because of the effect it might have on salmon-bearing streams."

They pointed out a valley between those routes and said: "Why didn't you come down this valley?" The engineers said: "Well, we flew over it, but it looked too steep." The Tahltan said, "We don't think it's too steep," and they showed them how to do the road. It's actually saved the company 9½ kilometres of tunnelling through a mountain if the project goes ahead. We certainly hope that it and dozens of other projects that are in the application process are going to go ahead.

Last week the Minister of Agriculture and Lands and the representatives of several ministries and I sat down with the TseK'hene First Nation — three different chiefs — and they raised the concern of old mines that hadn't been properly reclaimed within their territories. The Minister of Agriculture and Lands made the offer to them that he has made to other first nations in other areas and lived up to. He has a budget to help with the reclamation of old sites, and a number of first nations people are very actively employed throughout the province working on those issues.

I remember also the land use management planning processes that the critic referred to, and people who were involved in exploration saying to me as an opposition MLA in the '90s: "Every time we attend one of those LRMP meetings and identify anything as an area of interest to us, the very next meeting we go to, it's been declared a protected area." They felt they were only hurting themselves and their industry by participating at all, so they did walk away.

The industry, together with the ministry and all the people who work with us, has built and continues to build an excellent reputation as a go-forward ministry that is contributing huge amounts to the revenues of British Columbia with which we pay for the social programs that British Columbians prize.

Gigantic wealth is created through this industry, but it only affects 0.03 percent of the land base. Highland Valley copper, a big mine near Kamloops and not very far from my home, employs over a thousand people and has employed people for decades, pays those very large salaries that I referred to earlier, and last year in 2006 alone generated a billion dollars' profit for the parent company; the year before that, $663 million.

The land is being reclaimed as the mine proceeds. I took an opposition caucus tour of that mine in the '90s, and I was amazed at the abundance of wildlife living on the reclaimed areas. It's a no-hunting zone, and they were so tame — moose, deer, coyotes, bears. It was a really great thing to see.

People often hold opinions about the mining industry because of mistakes and abuses of the past. Those things aren't going on in British Columbia today. I'm very confident to say that.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for the answer. Certainly, the Galore Creek project is a very appropriate poster child for the new image of mining in British Columbia. They have done some terrific work with the Tahltan and also other first nations in and around northwestern B.C.

I'm hopeful. I met with representatives from Galore Creek during Mining Week, and I was very impressed with their approach to British Columbia — coming from Toronto initially, not sure what they were going to find on this side of the Rockies. We have a mixed reputation, not for any other reason than that, quite often, politics is a blood sport here.

They didn't know what they were going to find, and "so far, so good" was the word that I had. They are pleased with how things are going in terms of their investment plan, and they are well off to the races, an ideal replacement for those jobs at Eskay Creek for the Tahltan, and everybody is a winner.

I did meet, however, also with representatives from the Tahltan, who were enthusiastic about Galore Creek but less enthusiastic about some of the other proposals in their traditional territory, particularly in terms of sustainability from their perspective, from the community perspective. If even half of the proposals in their traditional territory were to come on stream, the influx of out-of-territory workers would be profound, and the social implications of that are significant. The minister knows that.

I don't want to dwell on that, but I think we should probably rejoice in the success that we have before us, the Galore Creek and the embrace from the Tahltan, and worry about the other issues as they emerge. But there are other projects in and around British Columbia that are also of concern. I'd like to touch on one before I pass the floor to my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, and that's Kemess North.

The minister will know that we've had some very successful operations in and around that area, but there

is controversy around the tailing ponds and issues around Duncan Lake. I'm wondering if the minister could apprise this committee of the status of that proposal. I understand it is under review within the environmental assessment process, but what actions has the minister taken to this point in time, or any other members of executive council for that matter, to alleviate some of the concerns of first nations in and around Duncan Lake?

Hon. K. Krueger: I do have some practically up-to-the minute reports about Kemess for the member. I wanted to first respond to the general comments he made about first nations concerns, particularly up in the northwest.

We have some wonderful staff in community relations and first nations consultation positions in the ministry. They do a great job for us. I've seen them in action. They've been in meetings with me. It's great to have them.

The critic referred to the plethora of opportunities up in that part of our beautiful province, and indeed there are opportunities everywhere. But I received a letter also from the Tsay Keh Dene chiefs, which led to the meeting last week. It essentially said: "Look, new minister. We are not opposed to mining nor to industry. We know we need those jobs. But we find it daunting that there are so many projects being proposed at the same time, and we don't really have the capacity, necessarily, to deal with that many at once. From our point of view, it would be kind of nice if just one mine came on at a time."

That's one view, of course. Another is that the commodity cycle is a cycle. The value of the minerals waxes and wanes, and we're in a really high time for values. This is, if you'll allow me to use an agricultural analogy, a "make hay while the sun shines" opportunity. That's very much how the industry sees it.

I went to the PDAC conference in Toronto at the beginning of March. It's one of the biggest prospectors and developers conferences each year in the world, as I understand it — 15,000 delegates. There were dozens of booths for British Columbia. Mr. Lefebure — the chief geologist of the province, who I referred to earlier — and I toured around those booths, and they're incredibly optimistic people.

Some of them said to me: "We have to be optimistic, because it's so unlikely we'll be successful, so unlikely we'll find commercial-sized deposit in the first place, then get through all the daunting hurdles that we must, to generate the investment we'd need, to get all the necessary approvals, but we're very optimistic."

It takes a lot of time, and not all of those projects will come on at once. We empathize very strongly with the feelings expressed by first nations. We're ready, willing, able and eager to help them work through the process of having a look at these things together. As I mentioned earlier, we have great staff to help us do this.

Hearings were completed on the Kemess proposal between October and December of 2006. But they then went into a 90-day extension, plus an additional 45-day hearing process, if necessary. That was at the request of first nations.

Staff have put in over 1,100 hours in these consultations, with 370 hours put in by consultants as well. Two final technical reports were received on April 23 and are under review by the ministry: a water quality report by consultants to the company and an Environment Canada report on tailing impoundment — both comments due to the panel by May 4.

Final public meetings are scheduled in Smithers from May 17 to 19 of this year, primarily to hear from first nations who received funds from the environmental assessment office, the federal CEAA and Northgate Minerals to participate and review technical materials.

Can I conclude, then, that following the May 17…. I didn't know when he was going to stop, so now that he has, I'll ask the question. Then you can give me the end of that response or expand upon it.

What I noted was the consultation in Smithers May 17 to 19 with first nations. Could the minister explain how expansive that discussion will be? Will it be a matter of going over the findings to date? Is it the last kick at the can, or will there be other opportunities for first nations?

Hon. K. Krueger: First nations people have been involved in these hearings all along — the 90-day formal period and then the 45-day follow-up period, which could be started at any time that the panel chose. The May 17 to 19 scheduled hearing is part of that. The panel may well choose to go on longer than that. They still could. At public request and if the public interest is there, we expect they may well have more hearings.

As I left Terrace from the Minerals North Conference, I walked into the airport just as the member for Skeena was walking out. We greeted each other, and he was very enthusiastic about mining, as am I and as were pretty much all the people I met in Terrace.

He asked me if I'd had an opportunity to tour any mines while I was in the area. I had gone out to the Swamp Point project, where $800 million in wealth is going to be generated on the 62-acre site, and that is an aggregate project. Brand new caterpillar trucks had arrived three days earlier, and we're preparing the first shipload of material.

I told him about that, and he said: "Oh, I got to tour Kemess last year. I'd never been to a mine before. What a tremendous project." I said: "Well, I want to tour it this coming year. It is an area where first nations have significant concerns." He said: "Well, I don't support that. I think it's a tremendous project. All the equipment is already there, and Northgate would very much like to proceed."

I've heard the concerns about Duncan Lake, and I want to go and see for myself. These hearings are all

about making sure the public and, certainly, first nations have a chance to get anything they want on the record in the process.

J. Horgan: I, too, was invited to tour the site last summer. Opposition members were invited to make their way up, and I, sadly, wasn't able to do so. If the minister has a seat on the plane and the government wants to pay for my ride, I'd be happy to join him for a visit to Kemess North.

With that, I'll cede the floor to my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I'll take a brief break and join you in a moment.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister a few questions about an area of great beauty and a lot of mining activity in the vicinity, that being the Flathead area in southeastern British Columbia, a spectacular, wide valley next to the continental ridge — the height of land in our continent and an area that's very rich in wildlife resources.

I had a chance to visit it last summer, and I was amazed — coming from the lower mainland — at the few people that were there. Any area with that kind of beauty and that kind of access around here would be totally inundated, but it wasn't. I think there is quite a network of logging roads in the area. At the time I happened to be there, there wasn't much in the way of active logging, so it was quite quiet.

The issue at stake that I want to talk to the minister about is the proposed Lodgepole mine by Cline resources, a tributary of Boise Creek and Lodgepole Creek of the Flathead. It would be an open-pit mine by Cline resources to produce two million tonnes of lower-quality metallurgical coal per year for 20 years.

The communities in that area have expressed a lot of concern about the possibility of this mine going through. Concern has also been expressed across the border in the state of Montana. It's a transporter issue, with the Flathead River crossing into Montana State, and it being a very rich area for them in terms of recreation as it flows into Flathead Lake.

The Flathead area is a world heritage site in recognition of the unique natural values of it. Just recently the B.C. Outdoor Recreation Council listed it as the most endangered river in British Columbia.

One can see the concern that is being expressed about the Flathead and about resource development there. The National Parks of Canada have also expressed their concern about this development.

Rod Blair of Waterton Lakes National Park, with reference to the terms of reference in the environmental assessment, made note that it refers to reasonable, foreseeable, projects without those being defined.

There is a desire to have more definition about what is going to happen there or is planned. He noticed the previous environmental assessment noted that some of the impacts could affect the whole crown of the continent ecosystem. It's a wide area that could be affected, notwithstanding what might be put forward by the proponent.

I wanted to also read a little bit from the same news item in the Vancouver Sun today that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin mentioned, with comments by Goldcorp chairman Ian Telfer, who said, "Mining companies must take into account all environmental costs associated with their operations," and: "Vancouver could and should become the centre of excellence on the environmental side."

What is being looked at here is an area that mining needs to take into full account, the environmental side. That's the concern. Cline Mining has stated their intention to be in full production by the end of this year, and I wanted to ask the minister if they are still on track for that.

Hon. K. Krueger: Before I commence answering the member's question, I wanted to introduce another highly respected civil servant who has joined us to assist us in this debate. His name is Ron Bronstein, seated on my right. His title is the executive director of regional operations, and he's helping make sure I have a fulsome answer.

Before I directly answer the member's question, I'd like to talk a little bit about Montana, which doesn't have a very good record as far as developing its own natural resources. They plunged into coalbed gas extraction. They've done a lot of coal mining. A lot of Americans are very unhappy with the results.

Frankly, British Columbia is far, far ahead of what Montana has demonstrated in its ability to harvest natural resources. It's galling to hear Senator Max Baucus — who has spent much of his career attacking British Columbia and British Columbian industries and British Columbians' employment — hotly involved in the whole softwood lumber hassle, bringing on the tariffs and duties on our lumber, and very much taking advantage of the BSE situation.

Canada is so good at keeping track of its cattle, and Canadians are so honest about standing up when there is a problem. Canada immediately made it public when a problem animal was detected. I feel certain that proportionately there have been far more animals in the U.S.A., but we haven't necessarily heard about those.

We have been beaten up very badly as a province by Senator Baucus, and he's caused us tremendous costs in jobs. The ranching community is still reeling from what he brought upon us when he caused the border to be closed.

I have a farming family at Vavenby, the Moilliets. They have a 1,600-lambs-a-year operation, one of the biggest sheep ranches in British Columbia. They started the ranch a hundred years ago. The same family operates it. They almost went bankrupt after a hundred years of operation because of that man's shenanigans. The price of lambs dropped to the price of 40 years ago because it has been an integrated industry across the border, and they couldn't get their lambs out for slaughter to where they needed to go.

It's been very tough for them. They've hung on by diversification into agritourism and through the help of my constituents, who rallied and purchased their lambs. But it's been a very tough go.

So I think any member of this House wants to be very careful about taking the side of the Montana electors on anything.

Of the land area of the Flathead Valley, British Columbia owns 6 percent and Montana 94 percent. We have kept our 6 percent pristine, and pure mountain water flows down to the border. Other things happen to it when it gets over the border.

If the member looks at Montana's own website for the Flathead Valley, you'll see alarming things there. The rural population of the Flathead Valley is growing at double the rate of the urban population. While more sophisticated governments are urging people to settle in urban areas where there are full services, people who settle in the Flathead Valley in Montana in the rural areas want to live along the lakes and the rivers, of course. They want to have septic fields.

We deliver that pure mountain water to the border, and it gets flushed into septic fields by a population that's growing twice as fast as urban populations. It's really galling to the people who live in southeast British Columbia to hear anybody in British Columbia speaking in any way that's in favour of the things that Senator Baucus has brought upon us and the criticisms that he levels.

British Columbia is a model to Montana of how to do things right. There has been a land management planning process in that corner of the province. There are lots of people who live around there — the member is right — but not many of them actually live in the Flathead Valley. But they live around there. Many of them are coalminers.

The Elk Valley mining operation is exemplary. A river literally runs through it, and it runs out of it. It's a prime fishing stream. It's famous. We know how to mine coal in British Columbia without destroying the environment. It's a huge employer — up to $2 billion of economic activity a year.

Our province is the second-largest source of metallurgical coal in the whole world, and people want to buy our coal. It's high-quality coal. It employs a lot of people. In the short time I've been minister I've had delegations from India, China, Korea, Japan — people interested in being our customers for coal and other commodities, but certainly coal.

People are interested in investing, and we have huge potential for that. We are developing the Port of Prince Rupert. Up in our northeast sector we have a reinvigorated coal industry. We're proud of our coal industry and the way they do their jobs. We're very pleased for the huge contribution they are making to provincial revenues.

I'm not saying that the member was taking the side of Montana, but I'd like him and all members to take the criticisms you hear from elected people in Montana with a very large grain of salt.

I have mentioned that we have the best environmental assessment process in the world, and that environmental process will be brought fully to bear on the application. The Lodgepole coal project is currently in the pre-application stage of the B.C. environmental assessment process. It's a long, long way from approval, but they're doing the things they need to do to be considered for approval.

The B.C. environmental assessment office held three open-house meetings in January 2007 as part of the gathering of public input, including input from Montana residents. That was input to what the terms of reference should be for the environmental assessment of the Lodgepole coal project.

The end of the year, the goal that the member referred to…. I frankly don't recall exactly how he worded it. It sounded like he thought the project might actually be under construction by then. That certainly won't be happening.

I should finish about the Lodgepole project. It's in the very early stage of the environmental assessment process. A 30-day public review period ended on February 1, and we're just at the beginning of drafting the terms of reference.

The speaker from Waterton that the member referred to was referring to that process, drafting the terms of reference. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has triggered the federal review process as well — the CEAA. So, Member, we'll probably be talking about this next year in estimates as well.

There are activities at other Flathead sites that are at an earlier stage, and those are being managed through the Mines Act permitting process for exploration. There are two coal deposits in the Flathead that are under a moratorium, and the people of the area, in their land use plan, confirmed that the area, with the exception of protected areas, is available for responsible exploration and development.

They are doing it well. They're doing it right and so will the government, and your scrutiny will be welcome.

M. Sather: Well, it certainly is the clear mountain water that is flowing down the Flathead that the people of that region want to maintain, so that's what this is all about.

I was rather surprised at the tenor of some of the minister's remarks, especially with regard to the relationship between B.C. and Montana, because it's no less than the Premier of this province that has extended a hand of friendship, as I understood it, to Montana to participate in the environmental assessment process.

I'm kind of curious that the minister is taking a rather hard-line approach to elected officials in Montana, but there have been disputes, as we know, across the border.

Previously, when this government and the minister were in opposition, the opposition was very concerned about a gas-fired plant in the Fraser Valley and the effect that it was going to have on the airshed there.

Lo and behold, most recently, this same government is going to put in two coal-fired power plants in British Columbia. So I don't know whose side of the border has the better environmental record.

What I wanted to focus on in particular here, though, was this mine and what's going to be happening with it. It was interesting to hear the minister say

that we'll probably be in discussions on estimates about this same issue this time next year.

I wanted to ask the minister: what areas of uncertainty or concern about the proposal has the proponent brought forward?

Hon. K. Krueger: First, to comment on the member's initial comments. The hand of friendship is certainly there — mine, too, and the government's. It's a firm hand of friendship. We'll gladly shake their hands. We'll gladly include them in our processes.

But I want to make it clear to the people of British Columbia and the people who live in the southeast corner of British Columbia that the MLAs on the government side of the House represent British Columbians, and I think the members of the opposition do as well.

When elected people like Senator Baucus do damage to British Columbians and their economy…. They're our constituents — it hasn't been fair — and we'll stand up for them every time.

I am telling the member that the things Mr. Baucus has done in the past have hurt British Columbians. The criticisms that are levelled by him and the Governor are not valid, are not fair and come from a position of no credibility when you compare the environmental records of Montana and British Columbia.

As the Bible puts it, they should lay their hand upon their mouth. They should not be criticizing people with a far better record than theirs. They should take the beam out of their own eye before they go after the sliver that they think they see in British Columbia's.

The member I don't think grasped how early a stage we are at in this assessment process. The proponent is certainly not raising areas of concern. They're doing things like gathering baseline information about things like water quality, climate data and data about the air quality. We're not even near the stage of when government departments and experts, federal and provincial, begin doing technical reviews and so on. We're at a very, very early stage.

M. Sather: There are areas of concern with regard to this proposal, certainly — things like stability of the waste pit walls, unknown groundwater regime in the hydrogeology of the waste pit walls, stability of the foot walls, stability of the pit waste rock dumps, stability of the plant site, stability of waste retention ponds, and stability of the load-out facility and associated infrastructure.

It is British Columbians certainly that are concerned about it; it's not only Montanans. Obviously — and I don't think the minister was suggesting anything else; I hope not, anyway — this side of the House speaks for British Columbians and the concerns that they have.

One of the ways of looking at before and after.… That's what's being asked: is sufficient care being taken through the environmental assessment process, through this government's initiatives, to protect the environment of that area?

So one of the ways that that can be done…. The minister mentioned the active mining sites that we have in the Elk Valley. Have there been any studies done of water quality above those mines and below the mines?

Hon. K. Krueger: I assure the member that sufficient care is taken and will be taken in the environmental assessment process. We mean it when we say, "We believe it's the best environmental assessment process in the world" — and it's going to be. We take it very seriously.

Some of the member's questions would probably be better put to the Minister of Environment. Happily, I think there's still opportunity for that if he'd like to move to the other chamber when he's done questions here. The Minister of Environment will be dealing with questions like water studies.

But, in fact, the questions that the member quoted the public asking are questions that are asked with regard to every new project, as it comes under consideration, right from the early days. Those are standard questions. They are regularly asked, and they should be. They're good questions to ask, because all British Columbians want to make sure that if a project moves ahead, it's done right.

The company, as this process unfolds, will be required to carry out a whole suite of different studies — including wildlife, water quality, first nations concerns, all of those things. Those questions are being asked, should be asked and will have to be answered.

M. Sather: Quite frankly, it's not good enough to have faith that the environmental assessment process is the best in the world or North America or wherever. It has to, in fact, be the best.

What we've seen on this side of the House is a constant degrading of environmental protections since this government has been elected. We need to see the proof, Minister.

I know the minister is very fond of hearing about Montana. I wanted to read to him what the Montana Department of Natural Resources view of it is and what they would like to see done to satisfy them that they could be involved fully in this environmental assessment process, as the Premier had advised:

Some of these are particular issues to structures of mines. Some of them can be also asked of the Minister of Environment.

Montanans do have fear, as British Columbians do, but being downstream, they have more fear about the pollution of the Flathead. I think in that particular respect, British Columbians are particularly concerned

about the recreational and wildlife values of the area. I know when I was there and talked to an individual who has experience working in the Elk Valley mines, he said that the waste material–loading in that mine is very susceptible to a complete slump down into the Flathead River. Obviously, that kind of concern weighs heavily on them.

The Flathead is a river that supports a rich biota. Certainly the bull trout and cutthroat trout populations are considerable, and they are particularly vulnerable to the kind of disturbances that might occur with this mine. Wildlife issues, particularly with regard to the grizzly population in the area, are of concern.

The negotiations over the environmental agreement between B.C. and Montana, which I referred to earlier, have stalled since last year. The footprint that this mine is going to include is only seven kilometres around the mine and only a kilometre on either side of the haul road, yet the potential effects of the mine on both wildlife and fisheries populations are far greater.

Is the minister satisfied that the limited terms of reference that have been proposed for this mine are sufficient, and if so, why?

Hon. K. Krueger: For starters, I think it's very unwise for any elected member of this assembly to stand up and put on the record the sort of misguided statement that the member started with about a constant degrading of the environment. It's not true. In fact, this government has moved to clean up mistakes of the past that the NDP government of the '90s didn't touch. Copper sulphate that was pouring into Howe Sound out of the Britannia minesite, from a bygone era in how mining was done in British Columbia — now it is pure water. And it's one of the public-private partnerships that the member and his ilk decry all the time. It cost us far less than what we expected.

We've cleaned that site up, and there's a mining museum that's going to be entertaining tourists there for decades. I spoke with first nations from the Upper Similkameen recently. The old Hedley mine has become a tourist attraction that they operate and derive revenues from themselves.

I mentioned earlier — the member may not have been in the chamber yet — that the Minister of Agriculture and Lands has a budget for a cleanup of old sites, and first nations are actively engaged in doing so around the province. None of these things were done by the NDP government of the '90s. It didn't have any money, because it constantly ran up deficits and spent the revenues of the province on the wrong things.

The NDP has absolutely nothing to reproach this government about with regard to environmental records. Because we've been responsible financial managers, we've got the money to clean up the mistakes of the past, and we're being very careful about how industry moves forward in the present and in the future.

The southern Rocky Mountain management plan, which was carefully conducted by the people who live in the area, with the assistance of government, does deal with issues like wildlife corridors, grizzly populations. The values that the member speaks of, that all British Columbians wish to be upheld and protected with regard to wildlife, are being taken into account in all our processes and will be in this one. But I repeat: we're at the very early stages. We are far from the issuance of a mine permit. When and if we do, that permit will include conditions that will require the proponent to constantly comply with a management plan that will protect those values.

It's clear from the member's question that he has — as I'd heard during the spring break in March that a number of NDP members were considering doing — gone and consulted people from Montana about the Flathead Valley, of all things. The member referred to the Elk Valley mine potentially slumping into the Flathead River. It is nowhere near the Flathead River; it's the Elk River that flows through that mine. Again, the member may have been absent when we were talking earlier about the fact that there is a prized sport fishing industry in that river after it flows out of the Elk Valley mines.

I caution the member that it isn't good for the world to hear someone who is supposed to represent British Columbians standing up and making allegations like that, which are false, and speaking the quotes of elected people from Montana when he clearly hasn't talked, I don't think, to the people who work in the mines that he is criticizing.

He probably doesn't know that there's a Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep population that lives on the tailings of those mines which have been reclaimed, and it's thriving. It's vibrant. People from out of country pay tens of thousands of dollars for the opportunity, through limited-entry hunt permits, to come up and take a prize ram off those reclaimed tailings. They do that because the population is thriving. There are so many animals. It's carefully administered by the government, and it is a program that benefits the people who live in the area. Whether the member has ever been a hunter or not, it is an activity that a lot of people throughout the province really enjoy and a lot of people derive a good living from.

To be quoting representatives from Montana — who, as I said earlier, have done far from an exemplary job of their own resource-extraction initiatives — at the expense, on the public record of British Columbia is not a very wise or productive thing for an elected representative of British Columbians, wherever he lives, to be doing.

The Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations is constantly working with the representatives from Montana. We, very unblushingly, will stand up and say, "They have no right to reproach us or to raise alarms," and I wish the member wouldn't join them in that.

In his question the member was naming impacts of the proposed mine before the study has even been done. How can that possibly be good — fearmonger-

ing? Montana's actually had unprecedented access to our process. It hasn't always worked the other way between our two countries. When Canada raises concerns about effects on the Great Lakes, Americans aren't particularly interested in hearing those concerns.

I'd caution the member to remember who he's elected to represent. I'll repeat: questions that have to do with the environment are best put to the Minister of Environment, who is currently conducting his estimates in the other chamber.

M. Sather: That's rich. Here you have the minister chastising this side of the House, reading scripture to this side of the House, and then he makes an unguarded, I suppose, comment about the members on this side and their ilk. Well, I must say that the minister is certainly living up to his advance billing for being completely unguarded and unregulated himself. So I would caution the minister to be a little more careful about what he says in this House and who he says it to.

As far as the environment goes, there is no doubt that this government has degraded the environmental regulations through and through, whether it's in forestry, with their so-called results-based code — "you go and do whatever you want, and then tell us later on how you're doing it" — or whether it's environmental stream regulations, where we had decent regulations. This government took them away, not for environmental concerns but to aid and abet development and nothing else.

Please. A lecture from this minister about the environment…. The twisting of the environmental record is quite extreme. Certainly we'll talk about elected officials from Montana because, on this issue, they are looking at the environmental aspects, unlike this government and this minister. The environmental assessment process has definitely been degraded under this government.

Last spring — last June, I believe — the Governor of Montana, Mr. Schweitzer, and the Premier of this province had a discussion about the issue. Subsequent to that, the Governor invited the Premier to come out to Fernie so they could have a look around and have a talk. That didn't happen, and I'm wondering if the minister can shed some light on what's going on there.

Hon. K. Krueger: The member, if he wants to talk about the Premier's plans, can raise those questions in the Premier's estimates, which are coming up.

I notice that the member — and I can't instantly play back the Hansard — has moved from what I think he said earlier, which was an allegation that the environment has been degraded, to saying that regulations have been degraded.

The fact is that our government does believe in results-based processes rather than process-based approaches. That's why we've been able to turn the economy around in British Columbia and enjoy the tremendous fiscal success that we have. But I challenge him to offer any evidence….

May I remind members that temperance and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language and debate. I'm sure we'll be able to maintain that in this House.

Hon. K. Krueger: I challenge the member to suggest what evidence there is that the environment has been degraded in British Columbia since the year 2001. And when he referred to the Montana representatives' demands of studies and processes from British Columbia, I expect there are people who would tie British Columbia up forever in expenditures and time-consuming studies and continually ask for more.

We do have the best environmental assessment process in the world, in our opinion. The member is welcome to talk to the Minister of Environment about that.

I don't think it's wise to suggest that British Columbia should jump through every hoop that a state suggests they'd like to see us do. The member might want to have a look at Montana's own record of doing environmental studies on their own resource development industries.

M. Sather: There is supposed to be a cooperative effort going on here between our province and Montana over the environmental assessment. The governor has said that they submitted a significant number of comments outlining known data gaps and the research necessary to accurately assess the impacts, and their comments haven't been included in the terms of reference. Why not, if this is a cooperative approach?

Hon. K. Krueger: As I mentioned to the member earlier, the terms of reference are being drafted, but he is asking questions that he should be asking the Minister of Environment, and his time may be running out. That's the place that he should ask that sort of question.

M. Sather: This has gone beyond just the minister's level and the Premier's level and, in fact, the Governor's level. Calls are being made for the federal government to be involved in this process, and there has been some indication from the federal government that they are going to become involved.

Michael Wilson, the ambassador to the U.S., announced last month that the Canadian government would initiate a federal review. He didn't specify what type of review. Can the minister shed some light on it? Has he had any conversations with the federal government on what that review would look like?

Hon. K. Krueger: There are two other ministries that will be involved in those interactions. The environmental assessment office is with the Ministry of Environment, and their estimates are underway right now. The Minister of State for Intergovernmental Rela-

M. Sather: The minister mentioned the process of engaging the public. I wanted to ask the minister: how many responses have been received from the public on this issue? How many of those are supporting the proposal, and how many are against?

Hon. K. Krueger: Those responses go to the environmental assessment office. We believe that the results are on their website. The Minister of Environment is the person to ask these questions.

M. Sather: I see the minister is doing what he motioned and mentioned here the other day in the House — ask somebody else to get the answers. It's a good dodge. Anyway, we will ask the minister that.

One other question I wanted to ask, finally, to the minister: is Cline Mining content with the location of the mine? Are they looking at moving the location of the actual development site, and are they content with the load-out site? Are they also looking — currently Alcor — at other destinations?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member asks if the company is content with the location of its proposed site for the mine and the load-out site. I'm told that public concerns were raised in the process thus far with regard to potential noise, dust and truck traffic at the load-out site. We don't know that they are presently looking at other sites.

The permitting process — if the proponent takes the proposal that far — is, as I said earlier, a long way down the road. Long before that, the environmental assessment office may well be suggesting that the proponent have a look at some different site. Normally, when that is suggested to a proponent, that's what they do. They may well choose a different site.

The site that they have proposed is a very small footprint on the landscape. But again, the EAO — the environmental assessment office — is a better place to be asking those questions. That's where the process is right now, and it's at early stages.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister and his staff for being here today. I missed the earlier section on the Kemess mine — Kemess North — and I apologize. I was in the other House. But the critic has updated me on that issue. So, hopefully, I will move forward on the questioning as opposed to going back on anything that was previously said.

I have attended the area. I've been invited up by Tsay Keh Dene nations and leaders and visited the…. Actually, I've had the opportunity to see the existing minesite, and it's quite an impressive, huge structure. A lot of people up there — very impressive.

I also had a chance to see the territory, which is a confluence of three or four different first nations. Historic rights, I think, have been established there. Certainly, historic use patterns have been established there. Can the minister tell me how much has been budgeted to addressing new relationship issues?

Hon. K. Krueger: The funds that have been provided to the first nations with regard to this process have come from a number of sources, including the environmental assessment office — that is, the provincial one. Again, the Ministry of Environment is having estimates right now as well. Also, the CEAA — the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency — and the company Northgate itself. The ministry has provided some funds, as well, but I think it would be best if we provided that answer to the member in writing when we can pull together more fulsome detail for him.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for that answer. Actually, that was sort of my next question, so you've taken one…. What I was referring to is: how much have you budgeted within your ministry — like your ministry staff — to effect a new relationship — capacity-building, if you will, within, not to, first nations?

Hon. K. Krueger: The ministry has budgeted $2.28 million for aboriginal and community relations in this budget year. We have a marketing and aboriginal relations branch which works very closely with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Pretty much everybody in the ministry is engaged in community and aboriginal relations as a part of their job. But that $2.28 million budget pays the salaries of 15 people who are specifically assigned, and we are hiring four new community relations managers.

If the member was asking how much we specifically budgeted for the Kemess North project, the budget isn't broken down that way. These are budgets for the ministry.

S. Fraser: Thank you for the answer. I've had a chance to visit the area, as I mentioned. The mine is impressive. The issue that's come up there that's of controversy, as you are probably aware, is the lake — Duncan Lake. It's called Amazay. It means "mother caribou," I believe, in the Tsay Keh Dene tongue.

It's a confluence of three or four different first nations, largely because it's a caribou migration route there. The lake itself…. The mine is impressive. The lake is magnificent. So the controversy is the use of the lake or the conversion of the lake to a tailing pond to accommodate several hundred million tonnes of acid tailings from the mine.

I know there is an EAO process happening, but the opposition that I've seen from the first nations in the area that do have claim to title in the region — certainly historically — is complete. I've seen the opposition also from the leadership council. How does that reconcile with the ministry? You've got some budget for dealing with first nations issues and the new relationship, so when you see complete opposition to a

plan to destroy a lake that's in a traditional territory, how does that work with your regulation process?

Hon. K. Krueger: I'd like to introduce another of our tremendous staff resources, Yvette Wells, the assistant deputy minister responsible for marketing, aboriginal and community relations division.

I think the member was in the other chamber when I spoke earlier about the Tsay Keh Dene and the fact that I, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands and representatives of several ministries, including Ms. Wells, met with the chiefs of the three first nations. We had an excellent meeting.

I haven't seen the lake yet. The critic and I were talking about this earlier. We both want to go and see it. We may well do it together. My understanding is the lake is magnificent and very dear to the first nations. I don't think it's good to use a term like "destroy" a lake. I don't think anyone would countenance the destruction of the lake. The policy usually is that the preferred way to deal with rocks such as these is to have them permanently immersed in water. As I understand it, it doesn't leach acid if that's the case.

But the first nations people have expressed profound concerns. The ministry has provided a $50,000 grant to the Tsay Keh Dene in order that they are able to engage in the process which is presently underway, and these concerns will be fully canvassed. This is exactly the issue that the panel is tasked to deal with.

S. Fraser: I wasn't trying to overstate. When I used the words "destroy the lake," the life in the lake is what I was referring to. Some 350 million — I've heard twice that, possibly more — tonnes of acid tailing in the lake will change the pH of the lake significantly. Certainly, if you fly over the mine or visit the current tailing pond which has been the repository of the acid tailings from the existing operation, you would…. It is beautiful in its own colourful nature, but it certainly wouldn't sustain life.

At the end of the day, the lake would not be sustaining life, against the expressed wishes of the first nations whose traditional territory it's in. Will the minister explain what he's heard as rationale? Will that lake stay in that state? Is that the plan? Will it stay permanently as a repository for those, or is there any obligation when the mine is finished in ten, 15 years and it closes down…? Will that lake remain as a sterile, lifeless repository forever?

Hon. K. Krueger: The considerations before us involve a number of different organizations and ministries. Those questions are best put to the Minister of Environment and the environmental assessment office.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the CEAA process, the federal process, weigh questions such as the ones that the member just asked — things like habitat loss and fisheries conservation. I hope that part of the MOE estimates is still open to the member. That's the place to go with those questions.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the advice, and I will go to the Ministry of Environment with this, probably next week. But I do have the question of the Minister for Mining. We're talking about a mine, and we're talking about mining regulations. Is there any problem — in the minister's opinion or the ministry's opinion — to subsidize a mining operation by killing a lake against the expressed wishes of first nations?

That's going to land on your table. An environmental assessment process…. This will kill the lake. I'm not too sure what that process involves — whether it's good to kill a lake or not. However, at some point the minister is going to have to sign off on killing a lake, if it's a yes on this, against the expressed wishes of the first nations in whose traditional territory that lake has meaning and history. How will the minister react to that situation?

Hon. K. Krueger: The environmental assessment process will determine whether an environmental permit will be issued, so those questions need to go to the Ministry of Environment. Unless that is issued, there won't be any consideration of a mining permit.

S. Fraser: All right. I've done this before in previous estimates, where I'm getting moved from ministry to ministry, but I end up having no answers. So I'm going to try this a different way.

I have a copy of The New Relationship, and in its goals…. This is a very simple document in its size. It's quite amazing. It's only five pages. The third goal is to ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with first nations laws, knowledge and values and that resource development is carried out in a sustainable manner, including the primary responsibility of preserving healthy lands, resources and ecosystems for present and future generations.

A hypothetical situation. You get the green light to go ahead with converting Amazay, Duncan Lake, into an acid-tailing holding lake, thereby not ensuring that the lands and resources are being managed in accordance with first nations laws — actually contravening The New Relationship.

Do you have any instructions from…? The Premier stands behind this new relationship. Will you have to get sign-off with the Premier or the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to breach the third goal of the new relationship?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member who asked the question may also not have been here when I referenced the conversation I had with the member for Skeena in the Terrace airport last week, as I left the Minerals North Conference. He told me that he is in favour of this project, and he thinks that's the logical place to put the rock.

J. Horgan: Point of order. Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm just of the view that if the member for Skeena wishes to put his views on the record on any subject, he is entitled to do that as a member of this place. Relying on the minister's memory of a conversation in an airport doesn't appear to me to be appropriate or relevant to these estimates.

The Chair: Thank you for your comments, Member. I remind all members that we're on Vote 27 — that is, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and operations.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'd welcome the member for Skeena today. I'm sure he would confirm it. It was a very frank conversation.

As I was saying, that decision — whether or not this process will be approved by government — is a decision of the environmental assessment office, not of this ministry and not of this minister. We await the results of the process in which first nations are fully engaged.

S. Fraser: With all due respect, I disagree with the last statement. My discussions with the first nations of the region, my visit to the area, the ceremonies I attended at the lake, the blessing of the lake, the fishing derby the kids were having…. There was great discontent that they were not being meaningfully consulted.

They disagreed with the scant archaeological process that occurred. They were not included from the beginning. They were quite adamant that this was not going to happen in their traditional territories — that they would not allow the killing of Amazay.

So I'll ask the question again. I have this stuff in writing. You must have this. You got the opposition from the leadership council. That's the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, B.C. summit, and, of course, the Assembly of First Nations. They are opposing. They've strongly opposed this.

With that in mind, the killing of a lake within a traditional territory of three or four different first nations is directly in defiance of the directors of the leadership council and in defiance of the third goal of ensuring that "lands and resources are managed in accordance with first nations laws, knowledge and values and that resource development is carried out in a sustainable manner, including the primary responsibility of preserving healthy lands" — I think they also mean the water system there — "resources and ecosystems" — so it does — "for present and future generations."

This decision, if it were to go through, would fly in the face of that. How will the minister reconcile that? Will the new relationship goal take priority, or is the ministry willing to breach that goal?

Hon. K. Krueger: We believe that resource development, when it is authorized in British Columbia, is sustainable. It's only allowed to occur within the confines of the existing legislation, provincial and federal. We are undertaking consultations with the first nations. They are engaged. We met with them recently, as I've said. We provided $50,000 to assist them in their expenses to engage, and that was done in March.

The process that the proponent is going through is dealing with the question of the potential effect on the lake. That is the very subject of the process. If an environmental permit is not issued, there will be nothing done with regard to a mining permit.

S. Fraser: A mining question: 335 million tonnes of acid tailings in Amazay — Duncan Lake. That's a mining tailing pond. Will that kill the fish? Will that have an effect on caribou if they drink out of it? Is the water usable for human activity or consumption?

Hon. K. Krueger: The question that the member is asking is a very technical question. It merits an answer by experts. Government does have these experts. The government, our ministry, is quite prepared to ensure a technical briefing for the member, but I'm not qualified to answer questions about the effect of the rock on the lake.

S. Fraser: With the changes in regulations of this government dealing with mining, can lakes be sacrificed in the interest of a mining operation? If the mine is not viable unless you…. Can you use a lake, under new regulations, for mining operations? Can you pollute a lake, a body of water? Are you allowed to do that, if it facilitates the mine? Was that done…? Is there a precedent here?

Hon. K. Krueger: The impact on fisheries is a federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans issue and always has been. It hasn't been regulated by the province, and there has been no change in the regulation with regard to acid rock drainage issues since 1988, including the ten years in the '90s when the New Democratic Party held government.

S. Fraser: I'm almost finished with this line of questioning, and I appreciate the answer.

I assume we have mining experts here, so I'm going to try my last question in a different way. Do existing acid tailing ponds and materials of this nature…? Is there life there? Can you use the water? Can you drink it? Are there fish? Are there frogs? Does it sustain life?

Hon. K. Krueger: Tailing ponds can sustain life, but they likely aren't fully functioning ecosystems. This lake, Duncan Lake, is actually an acid lake now. It has been having acid deposited in it since the glaciers retreated.

S. Fraser: Being mindful of the time, I'm going to have to end this line of questioning. I'm just getting warmed up, so I'm disappointed.

I suggest that the fact that the pH is low in the lake from the natural geology is even more cause for concern — like a titration. At that point, if you add 350 million tonnes of acid tailings to a lake that's already of low pH, you're bound to have some devastating effects on its water quality, which to date does sustain life.

The fourth great goal is "to lead the world in sustainable environmental management, with the best air and water quality, and the best fisheries management, bar none." Now, I know that you are not DFO, but this is a goal. It's also written specifically in the new relationship document. So it is considered to be part of the new relationship document, which this side of the House has also agreed to support.

How will the minister reconcile adding 350 million tonnes of acid tailings with the fourth great goal of the best air and water quality and the best fish management, bar none?

Hon. K. Krueger: Staff has checked, and the executive director of the environmental assessment office is in the big House right now assisting the Minister of Environment in his estimates. That is the person who can provide the answers that the member is looking for, and this is the opportunity.

I've said repeatedly that this ministry and this minister will never have a permit to deal with unless the federal and provincial environmental assessment processes that are now underway conclude with the issuance of an environmental permit. Let's not keep putting the cart before the horse. That process has to complete before we even know if we'll have a process.

J. Horgan: I'd like to now, in the time we have available this afternoon, shift the discussion to aggregate. For my part, the permitting process has been particularly vexing, and the minister will know that I've made a number of attempts to try and better understand this in a number of different ways. I'm hopeful that we won't have to spend too much time on this.

Regrettably, other business takes me away before we conclude today, so my colleagues from Coquitlam-Maillardville and North Island have a series of questions, as do others, on the process. We'll be able to take a look at Hansard on Monday — that's certainly what I'll be doing — and those colleagues of mine who have concerns about this file will be able to review that. If we have any further questions, I may well have to see you again on Monday.

Off the top, we have a news clipping from April 18 — not that long ago — from the Kelowna Capital News. The minister will know that that's not the centre of social democracy in British Columbia, so these aren't designed or intended to be partisan questions.

When I had the minister earlier on, we had, I thought, a very useful engagement where we tried to resist visitations to the 1990s and looking at slices of history out of context, so I'm hopeful that as we proceed from here and my blood sugar gets more balanced, we won't have to resort to those sorts of discussions.

My interest in these estimates is to expand my knowledge and the knowledge of British Columbians today about what we're going to do tomorrow, not what we did yesterday. If the minister could confine his comments to that….

Certainly, he's more than welcome to walk down memory lane, but if he does so, he should do it with the complete context of what commodity prices were — for example, in the 1990s, the 1980s or the 1940s if he wants to.

You can't look at the Battle of Hastings without looking at something that happened a little bit before that, and you can't interpret what happened in 1066 without looking many, many centuries into the future. So let's stick on topic….

J. Horgan: Well, sometimes I feel like that's where we're going, Minister, so let's stay on topic and go from there.

On April 18 in the Kelowna Capital News: "Gravel Pit Influx 'a Crisis', Says Kelowna Mayor." These are issues of pressing concern. I've had some discussions with members of the government caucus, particularly the government Whip, who I would suggest has the benefit of a pilot project in his constituency. In fact, I believe it extends to most of the Fraser Valley.

The minister need not spend a lot of time talking about the merits of aggregate and the importance of it to the economy. I understand that, and he's certainly welcome to touch upon that. But it does present challenges in communities, and communities are where we live.

The economy is a theoretical construct to many people when their property values and their quality of life are affected. These are issues that we have to grapple with as elected representatives, and that's what I hope to do, certainly in the time I have before I have to depart and perhaps upon reading Hansard on Monday.

I'll start with a simple question to the minister. I have before me a flow chart which explains the aggregate permit process. I'm wondering if the minister could start us from how a gravel pit gets started in British Columbia.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'll do that, but I do want to comment on the industry itself and the part that it plays in our society.

We wouldn't have the quality of life that we have without aggregate. It's the least expensive building material we have. It's very commonly used in virtually every dwelling in British Columbia. It's used in footings, foundations, basements, swimming pools, retaining walls, septic systems, water systems and, certainly, roads and hospitals and schools. We need it for everything we build in British Columbia, pretty much.

We do have a very robust economy. Parts of the province have been booming for years now. The

Okanagan stands out as an area that's been booming. A lot of people want to live there.

The member said that communities are where we live. They're also where we build our homes, where we build our infrastructure, where we build our roads. This is a pressure, and it's a pressure that communities feel. There has certainly been a lot of news and a lot of discussion about quarries and gravel pits — gravel pits, particularly, in the Okanagan.

To call it a crisis…. I don't know if the mayor also feels that the level of construction is a crisis, but when you have high levels of construction, you're going to have a high need for aggregate. It's very heavy. It's expensive to haul great distances. It also puts wear and tear on the roads.

Pretty much every community in British Columbia probably has a gravel pit that their construction has had access to over the years. Gravel pits get mined out. Where the gravel is gone, reclamation is required. The way we regulate gravel pits in this day and age is exactly the way they were regulated — as far as the flow chart the member has asked me about — throughout the '90s and before that.

I can certainly work through this. I don't want to spend more time on it than the member wants me to. I don't think the member wants me to read the document into the record. We're holding exactly the same document in our hands. My ministerial assistant provided it to him.

It starts, of course, with an application by a proponent who wants to develop the resource because they have property. They believe that there is a viable deposit of aggregate there, and they want government to allow it. Then it's this ministry's responsibility to review that application and assess it.

Anytime the member thinks I've gone as far as he wants me to for now, he can just give me a nod. Is that the nod? Okay.

J. Horgan: In this process an applicant approaches the government, the minister of state's ministry, and gets a yes or a no to the initial application, and then the process kicks in. There is a review process. There is an environmental assessment at what stage — or any stage?

Hon. K. Krueger: There are criteria for automatic environmental assessments. I'll just quickly read those into the record.

For sand and gravel, if the operation would have a capacity of greater than or equal to 500,000 tonnes a year of excavated sand or gravel or both during at least one year of operation, or if over a period of four or less years of operation, there will be one million tonnes or more of excavated sand or gravel — or both sand and gravel — then there automatically will be a full environmental assessment.

On construction stone and industrial mineral quarries, production capacity of greater than or equal to 250,000 tonnes a year of quarried product will trigger the full environmental assessment.

The operations that have been applied for in the Okanagan, which we started out talking about, are all much smaller than that. When a permit is requested for an operation that will be smaller than those, the ministry conducts the same process as an environmental assessment would.

When the public raises concerns in the process, those concerns are investigated. The proponent is required to answer to them. If the public requests a public hearing — the public has never been refused in the process — the proponent is required to hold a public hearing, and the ministry attends, sends representatives. The concerns have to be dealt with, and that is assured by the conditions of a permit.

J. Horgan: Just one question before I depart, and that is on the public participation component that the minister has arrived at.

In the Cowichan Valley, one of the areas that I represent that currently has aggregate interests, there is significant concern about the aquifer and its proximity to the surface and disruption of blasting and so on. Water issues are quite often fundamental in these discussions. There is also dust; there is also transportation.

In the process, as I see it on the spreadsheet that the minister and I are sharing, there is a referral to government agencies. Yet if the Ministry of Transportation were to say that the roadway to the proposed quarry was inadequate, would that be sufficient to stop the application? Or would the application be able to proceed, regardless of the inadequacies of the transportation infrastructure?

Hon. K. Krueger: If a ministry, such as the Ministry of Transportation, raised concerns, we would work with the ministry to work those concerns out, and we generally have been very successful in that regard.

Another interesting statistic I wanted to share with the members is that British Columbians, per capita, use between nine and 15 tonnes of aggregate every year. Between 70 and 75 percent of all our production goes just to rehabilitate and maintain existing infrastructure. We currently have $117 billion worth of major construction projects coming down the pipe through the processes for British Columbia, let alone all the smaller construction — home construction — that's going on.

The aggregate industry is tremendously important to British Columbia. We have 1,300 pits and quarries. Recently we issued a ministerial directive empowering operations to expand their hours of operation, asking them to stockpile aggregate against the potential flood risk that British Columbia is facing.

It's a very serious risk, and we're fortunate to have such a vibrant aggregate industry in British Columbia. They immediately responded to that and are stockpiling for us. We may need a whole lot more than we had in inventory, because the construction market has been consuming such high volumes.

I'm not sure if the members have any more questions about aggregate, but with that or any other subject, you're welcome to proceed.

D. Thorne: I do have some aggregate questions, actually. Unlike my colleague who just finished, my blood sugar is not as steady as his is, because I've been eating chocolate cement trucks all day. I think that's a really good entry into aggregate questions, particularly being from Coquitlam, where we have one of the few concrete roads in British Columbia. We okayed that road while I was a city councillor and have never been sorry, have never looked back.

I think it's something that the provincial government should look at seriously when they are putting out RFPs for roads. In some instances concrete roads do work better, particularly in high-use areas. Certainly Pinetree Way, where we have the road in Coquitlam, is very high-use, with the gravel trucks coming down from Pipeline Road — the area that I'm going to be asking about today.

Last year on April 4 I came to estimates, and of course it was a different minister then. I welcome the new minister of mines. The last minister of mines took my questions and at that time assured me that, were I to provide the information that was needed around which specific pits I was referring my questions to, they would get the answers to me.

To date I have not received the answers to my questions from April 4 of last year. On April 12 we faxed the information that was needed to the office, my constituency assistant spoke to the minister's assistant, and they assured us that they would get the answers to us very quickly.

In mid-June we were contacted by — I don't think I'm going to say the person's name because I don't think that's necessary — a staff person from the corporate policy branch of Energy and Mines, saying that he was following up on the questions from estimates and that he had been assigned to get the answers. They had misplaced all of the information. Would we resend it? We did that in mid-June and have heard nothing since, so I'm back here today to ask the questions again.

There may be some staff people here who may remember this. I don't know. In any case, I have another copy of the pits I'm referring to, which I will leave today when I'm finished, just in case they've been lost again. But I do still want this information. I have had inquiries from my constituents who originally asked me to find out this information, asking what was happening and why they weren't being supplied with the information.

This is around, of course, the Coquitlam River, its place for the last long number of years on the ten-most-endangered-rivers list and the problems we've had over the years with silt from the gravel mines and the different runoffs and the different problems. Coquitlam city has struck a task force, the Coquitlam Aggregate Task Force.

I'm giving you this information because I know you're new in this job. Your staff are on the aggregate task force, as are people from the federal government, the city of Coquitlam and the mining operations.

I have to say that in the beginning it was a slow go. I do understand. I had a long conversation this week with the chair of the aggregate task force, Councillor Donnelly in the city of Coquitlam, and he is feeling quite optimistic about the task force right now — that things are moving along much better than they have been in past years.

I wanted to pass that along so you think I'm not totally being negative about this situation. You know as well as I do that we have certainly got our fair share of gravel mines in Coquitlam, and a lot of the residents along Pipeline Road in certain areas of Coquitlam have put up with a lot over the years and will put up with a lot more because there's a lot of life left in those mines yet.

I'm also getting inquiries about the new mine that the government is planning to open for Gateway out near the Pitt Lake. That's not one of my questions from last year. I would like to just ask into the record: is this definitely going to be opened, or will you be trying to get more gravel from the mines on Pipeline Road? Or are you thinking that we're going to need more aggregate and that we'll definitely have to open that mine?

If so, I'd like some information as to a time line on that, how you anticipate that going. I don't need those answers today, but I would like to get them before next year at estimates.

Anyway, the questions I asked last year — I will just read them into the record again. My questions actually had to do with complaints against the mines. I wanted information on how many complaints have been received in the past ten years — so it would be 11 years now — from public or other government ministries and agencies regarding each of the mine pits that are on my list.

How were each of the complaints followed up? Which complaints resulted in investigations? — the names of the pits investigated and when. As a result of those investigations, how many orders were issued and to which pits? Were any pit violations taken to court? How many and which pits? When? How many fines were issued? What was the amount of each fine? Which pits were fined and when?

I'm also wondering if the above information is readily available to the public and if there is any cost to the public if they request this information. Or is this something that you can only get through the estimates process or through the ministry with an MLA?

Those are my questions. As I say, I don't necessarily expect, unless staff…. He's flicking paper, so if you want to give me some kind of an answer today, those are pretty involved questions, and I would expect something in writing.

Hon. K. Krueger: I wish to apologize to the member that her questions have gone unanswered for so long. It's hard to understand. I have in my hand six pages of written response that were prepared for the member. If the member is in Victoria tomorrow, we will have a letter to her. She's nodding, so we will. Perhaps she could review the letter and see if it satisfies all of those questions. Let us know otherwise, and we'll seek other answers.

I do wish to say to the member that government has limited resources. This ministry is delivering 30 percent of all the natural resource revenues that the province uses for health care and education with less than 300 people. We put in a budget request, and our request was honoured with an affirmative response. We're hiring dozens of people, but they're tough to find. We're competing with the private sector for resources in a very hot economy.

I only say that to the member as a caution that we really need to be providing service to the public as we're going on. They're very busy people, but I hope that this letter, which she should have received long ago, will give her the answers that she needs. If it doesn't, she's welcome to ask us any further questions in writing that she thinks appropriate, and we'll pursue those answers. We do apologize for the delay.

On the question about the new operation that the member is asking about at Pitt Lake. This is a Ministry of Transportation operation. They don't require permitting through our ministry, so perhaps she could write her questions to the Minister of Transportation.

D. Thorne: I think I've already missed the estimates on Transportation, but I will write a letter. I thank you for that. I will be here tomorrow, and I look forward to the letter. Perhaps it was mailed and I just never received it. I certainly accept the apology, and I'll remind the minister that the opposition has even fewer staff resources than the government.

C. Trevena: I want to just pick up on some questions that my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca started on. This regards the process for new aggregate.

We have in North Island the possibility of a new aggregate mine, Lehigh in Sayward. I was just wondering: when there is the internal assessment or the environmental assessment, depending on the size of the mine, what happens if the mine is just literally on the borderline? You know, they say, "Well, we're only going to get X thousand tonnes a year," and they end up getting more, so it should have knocked into the full assessment.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'll answer the member's general question first, and then I'll give her some detail about the specific application, at least the specific interest.

Generally — actually, firmly — an operation cannot exceed the size they are permitted for. It's just not allowed. If they had their permit cancelled, of course that would be of real concern to them. An operation is not likely to play around the edges.

This operation in Sayward that the member asked about is in the preliminary explorative stages. If it goes ahead, it will be very large project. We believe that it would automatically trigger the full environmental assessment process. There were concerns raised by Mayor Heather Sprout of the village of Sayward and her council, so we had ministry staff hold a public meeting in December where questions were answered, and we haven't been hearing concerns since then.

C. Trevena: I'm pleased to hear that that's the case. When the minister was talking to my colleague, he mentioned that if there are problems, for instance, with the roads, this would be an issue to be taken up by the Ministry of Transportation. In this instance, where the aggregate would be transported by road, if people had concerns about the dust and the impact that was coming from the roads, they would then have to complain to the Ministry of Transportation, who would then take that issue up with the Ministry for Mining. Is that the sequence? Or would they be able to just say: "It's because of the aggregate and because of the mining that we've got these trucks coming down through our community, so we're going to go straight to the Ministry for Mining"?

Hon. K. Krueger: The road in question is a privately owned road. We have heard those concerns. There are various mitigative approaches. There are sealers that can be applied; of course, paving is an option; dust repression systems of various kinds; a conveyor belt, perhaps, rather than using trucking.

It's very early going for this particular prospective project, and those questions are quite a ways down the road, not meaning to offer a pun. I mentioned earlier — possibly the member was in the other House — that we have never declined to have a public hearing when the public raises concerns, and we would have one. If those were concerns to the public, then the ministry would work with the proponent to see how those concerns could be resolved. Permit conditions can be included that assure us and the public that those concerns are dealt with. But that is a ways down the road on this particular matter.

C. Trevena: This is my last question about this particular aggregate issue. I have the other aggregate, the larger one, Orca Sand and Gravel, which I'd like to move on to in a moment.

On this particular one, if it is going to be a large development and there is the full environmental assessment of this, is there any stage where, if there is great public concern, the ministry would look around and say: "Despite the need for aggregate and despite the fact that this may or may not have an environmental impact, there is such concern about it that we would recommend that it doesn't go ahead"? Does it ever get into that state?

Hon. K. Krueger: The proponent knows when they go into the environmental assessment process that they're going to have to deal with public concerns that are raised, and they're anxious to do that. If they're investing substantial amounts of money in an operation that they hope to have, they're not doing it to waste their time or their money. There's considerable

incentive for them to address all of the issues — and to the satisfaction of the public who have the concerns.

We like to see the environmental assessment process run its full course, and only when the signature is received on the environmental assessment certificate — if it is — do we begin the permitting process for an aggregate mine. When we do that, we make sure the conditions are on the permit to satisfy the concerns that were verified through the environmental assessment process.

C. Trevena: I'd like to move on to the other very large aggregate project in my constituency, Orca Sand and Gravel in Port McNeill, which is actually not so much supplying B.C.'s need but is supplying the U.S. market. I understand that Orca is looking to expand. It's already got huge plans for its present site, but it's planning to expand. I wanted to ask the minister on that whether the company would have to go through the process again, looking at a new site?

Hon. K. Krueger: As the member no doubt is aware, first nations are a partner in this project. I heard the member make the point that this material, she believes, is mainly for export. The operations do generate wealth in British Columbia, however, and employment.

I just toured one at a place called Swamp Point, which is on the Portland Canal just across from Alaska. It was preparing its first ship's worth of aggregate, and most of the people running the brand-new heavy equipment were Nisga'a people, very happy to be employed at a place that's close to their homes.

That site is going to produce $800 million worth of material over 15 years. But it's only impacting 62 acres, which will have to be reclaimed at the end of it. I think these export operations are very valuable contributors to the economy.

Also, the Orca Sand and Gravel operation was expected from the beginning to be built out in a series of phases, and they could have applied for a permit right from the beginning for all of it. But even if they had, we require an update every five years. Along the way, the ministry personnel do frequent mine inspections and health and safety monitoring.

The mining industry in British Columbia, and certainly the ministry of mines and all of its employees, takes tremendous pride in the environmental record of the modern industry and the health and safety with regard to both employees and communities — first nations and all communities. We take the responsibility very seriously.

It is arguably the safest heavy industry in Canada. We have one competitor, which is our own oil and gas industry. So we usually say it's one of the safest. But we're talking about those two: the oil and gas industry in B.C. and the mining industry.

Orca Sand and Gravel may well be approaching the time when they want the ministry to consider the next phase, and it would be part of the whole project. But they would still need a revised permit.

C. Trevena: I have about three more questions. Very quickly, one is just continuing on Orca Sand and Gravel. I have no dispute. I know that it is very good for the community, very good for the constituency, very good for the first nations. The fact that it is being exported was not a comment on whether that was bad or good. It was just a comment on what the minister had been saying.

However, I don't believe that the minister answered my question. Will we have to have the environmental assessment program again with an expansion, or is it that because it's a working quarry, it can now just be gone through without the environmental assessment, and you are looking at almost rubber-stamping permits?

Hon. K. Krueger: The environmental assessment that was conducted was for the entire project, as planned.

I don't mean to split hairs with the member, and I wasn't over the question of export. But certain words sometimes raise flags. Perhaps people have some concerns on either side. The term "rubber-stamping" that the member used raised some alarm bells in the minds of senior staff, because we would never want a member — or any members of the public — to think that we rubber-stamp anything.

In fact, I'd mentioned that there are and already have been many visits by my inspectors and people looking at health and safety considerations. All of that would be done — the company's record of performance thus far, how they conduct their internal operations. An updated mine plan would be required by a professional engineer.

The whole process of due diligence the ministry takes very seriously. But we wouldn't need to have another environmental assessment process. We would do our own due diligence for the permitting process and then, likely, issue another permit.

C. Trevena: Noting the hour, Mr. Chair, I will save my question about the coal industry for, I imagine, Monday.

On that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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