British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, April 6, 2006

H0406am-04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, April 6, 2006 Morning Sitting Volume 9, Number 4 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Iona V. Campagnolo, CM, OBC SECOND SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations .......................................................................................................... Hon.

John van Dongen Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ..........................................................................................................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Bill Bennett Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon. Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services .......................................................................................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General................................................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts .........................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole.................................................................................................................................................

Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon. Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Hon.

Bill (L) ............................................................... East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, Dave (NDP)........................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................

Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)..............................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Kevin (L)..............................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)............................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas...................................................................... Hon. John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay....................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson .....................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S.

Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock .....................................................................Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Thursday, April 6, 2006 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 3795 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ......................................... 3795 Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 25) Hon. J.

Les Petitions...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3795 R. Lee Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................... 3795 Apology Act (Bill 16) (continued) L. Krog R. Chouhan J. Brar H. Lali L. Mayencourt A. Dix Hon. M. de Jong Hon. W. Oppal M.

Farnworth Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 3802 Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities (continued) S. Simpson Hon. B.

Penner Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 3806 Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued) C. Evans Hon. R. Neufeld G. Gentner G. Coons

3795 THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 The House met at 10:04 a.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. J. Les: In the gallery with us this morning are three individuals that I have the pleasure to introduce. They are Richard Lawrie, the fire chief of the city of Abbotsford, who is also the president of the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia; Len Garis, who is the fire chief in the city of Su rrey; and Glen Sanders, the fire chief of Shawnigan Lake Volunteer Fire Depart- ment, who is a past president of the Fire Chiefs Asso- ciation of British Columbia.

I would ask the House to please make them welcome. [1005] Introduction and First Reading of Bills SAFETY STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Safety Stan- dards Amendment Act, 2006. Hon. J. Les: On behalf of the Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing, I move that Bill 25 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. J. Les: Bill 25 proposes an amendment to the Safety Standards Act.

This amendment will help local authorities target and shut down marijuana grow op- erations more quickly and more efficiently. Grow ops are a rising concern in British Columbia. They are more likely to catch fire, they are more likely to have guns inside, they are more likely to be robbed, they pose a danger to our neighbourhoods, and we're determined to shut them down. Members may recall that ju st two days ago there was an explosion in a residential area in Vancouver. It turned out that it was a grow operation, and the explosion actu- ally damaged neighbouring properties significantly.

With these amendments, municipalities will now be able to obtain information from electricity companies about residences with unusual power consumption. The names and addresses of the account-holders will be given to local authorities so that they can target grow-op houses. We believe that British Columbians have a right to feel safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods. This proposed amendment will help give people that peace of mind. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 25, Safety Standa rds Amendment Act, 2006, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sit- ting of the House after today. Petitions R. Lee: I would like to seek leave to present a peti- tion from 16 residents of Burnaby, regarding the Gate- way project. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: In

Section A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continuing debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum. In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 16. Second Reading of Bills APOLOGY ACT (continued) L. Krog: With most of the members of this House…. I think it's safe to say that the opposition supports, gen- erally, the principles of the Apology Act. This represents a reform in British Columbia law and a very interesting and important step.

However, the opposition does take the view that because of the unique history of British Columbia as a coastal province, a province with a long history of immigration and, unfortunately, a fairly long history of a sometimes racist reaction to that immigra- tion, in fact this bill is more important than it might ap- pear to be on the face. It is of concern particularly in many of the commu- nities who represent the wo nderful, cultural ethnic diversity of this province.

It is for that reason — be- cause those communities have not had an opportunity to be consulted in a meaningful way and because this does represent a fairly dramatic change in the law — that I wish to move a motion with respect to amending the second reading of the Apology Act. [1010] [that the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 16) intit- uled Apology Act, be amended by striking out all the words after "that" and substituting "the bill not be read a second time now because, generally, the content and sub- ject matter of the bill require further study and discus- sion, including public hearings and consultations, and specifically: (

a) statutory protection for an apology is a novel con- cept in British Columbia and Canada and must be the subject of further public debate before proceeding with legislation; (

b) the purposes and implications of providing statutory protection for an apology are understood dif- ferently by different individuals and groups in British Columbia and have not been fully and fairly consid- ered; (

c) the bill is vague and its scope and application are unclear; and

3796 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 (

d) the bill's omissions must be studied and dis- cussed, including the omission of exceptions to prohibit statutory protection for an apology in relation to liability in connection with specific matters, such as (

i) intentional acts meant to cause personal in- jury or death, (ii) sexual offences, and (iii) personal injury or death resulting from the use of tobacco products.] Mr. Speaker: The member for Nanaimo continues. On the amendment. L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, the concept of apologizing is a wonderful concept, and it's important. My com- pliments to the member for Vancouver-Burrard for having initially brought this matter to the House by way of a private member's bill, which has been fol- lowed up with the introduction of the bill before us today, introduced by the hon. Attorney General.

However, given the history of this province, and given the communities that have suffered persecution and discrimination at variou s times throughout British Columbia's 133 years as a part of Confederation, we on this side of the House think it is appropriate that there be a community consultation process, that people un- derstand what this bill means, that they have an oppor- tunity to comment upon it and to raise with this gov- ernment — o n b e h a l f o f t h o s e c o m m u n i t i e s — their significant and important concerns.

It is, therefore, for that reason that I have brought this motion before the House today. I would ask all members to consider it carefully and realize that what we are asking for is simply an opportunity to discuss. This is not a bill that requires immediate passage. This is not a bill which will, in a matter of a few weeks' delay, result in some tre- mendous injustice. The only injustice that will in fact arise is if we do not consult with those communities who feel they deserve consultation. I support that concept. R.

Chouhan: I a l s o r i s e i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s a m e n d - ment moved by my colleague. It's important to under- stand that the wrongs done in the past were not done by accident. They were well -thought-out laws passed by the government at the time, such as the Chinese head tax, the Komagata Maru incident and the seizing of Doukhobor children in 1950. It's im portant t hat if we want to m ove ahea d with this act of apology, which I support…. Before we rush into making another decision, why don't we go back and consult with those communities who were nega- tively affected by the past actions?

If we are going to work on a concept to correct the past wrongs, then it's important that we make sure that people who are af- fected were consulted with. If we are not going to do that, then those communities are going to feel left out. [1015] You know, the pain caused by many of those gov- ernment actions in the past probably never can be taken away by any amount of money. However, that may be necessary. It could be a token gesture on the part of the government to extend that to heal those wounds, but we must not rush into it.

It's important that we step back and reach out to those people and tell them, "Look, the mistakes th a t w e h a v e m a d e i n t h e past…. Let's sit together; let's talk about it; let's see what the best solution is," so that generations to come will be able to work together, and we can proudly say that we were able to work together and work out the solution necessary. J. Brar: I also rise to speak in favour of the motion of my colleague here as it relates to Bill 16.

I would like, first of all, to say that I appreciate the initiative of the member for Vancouver-Burrard in introducing, at the initial stage, this bill. This is a unique concept, and I think this will go a long way towards how we resolve our conflicts. I totally support the basic principle of the act and the intent of the act. At the same time, I think this will be a significant change in the way we resolv e the conflicts among indi- viduals, as well as among di fferent institutions, and as well as conflict between the government and the public of British Columbia.

So I think it's very important — this is going to have a long-lasting impact on the com- munity, on the people of British Columbia — to go back and ask the people of British Columbia as to how, and to get their feedback to ma ke sure this bill, when it goes to the implementation stage, actually makes sense and makes a positive change to the way we deal with the conflicts. As my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds said, we certainly have a lot of work to do.

We have done a lot of good work during the la st over a hundred years to bring together different communities, particularly, you know, in dealing with the issues of discrimination, racism. We have done an extraordinary job in this province, including the job done by this government and by our predecessors. But I think there are still probably some outstanding issues, and we don't want to be in a situation where we will not have any opportunity to sit with those commu- nities and resolve those issues in a satisfactory manner.

For example, the story of the Komagata Maru is hugely important, and there are sentiments out there in the community that we need to deal with on that issue. It is very important because that ship came here meeting all the immigration requirements of the government of that day, but it was not allowed to land in Vancouver for almost two months and had to go back. W e h a v e , m a y b e , m o r e i s s u e s w h i c h w e n e e d t o resolve as a community or as a government as well.

We certainly don't want to see this Apology Act closing the doors to those opportunities, so it's important for us to go back and consult with the community so that at the end of the day, when this bill passes, it makes real sense and practical sense and a positive change for all of us. [1020] H. Lali: I rise to support the amendment put for- ward by the critic for the Attorney General. I'm not

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3797 rising to actually speak against the bill. All us folks on this side of the House, in principle, are supporting the bill. Apology is a good thing. As you know, a little dose of humility and sometimes just taking responsibility for past actions and wrongs that were done is a good thing. So we're not rising to actually speak against the bill, but rather to support the amendment that has been posed. My colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds mentioned that they were not an accident, some of the wrongs that were done in Canada, in British Columbia.

Rather, it was some deliberate policy on behalf of the state. He talked about the Komagata Maru and the Chinese head tax and also the seizure of Doukhobor children. I would add to that, obviously, the whole issue of the residential schools with the aboriginal children, and the abuse that they suffered. Japanese internment dur- ing World War II was another incident. Also, the pre- vention of women and Asians and aboriginal people from voting, amongst others, are some of the other past wrongs which were deliberate state policy. Members on this side of the House are not trying to derail the bill in any way.

What we're asking for is a delay of a few weeks, because we feel that it's not going to jeopardize the intent or the purpose of the bill in any way. Rather, we want to be able to put this out into the communities and have a full discussion, where people who want to be consulted and have their voice heard get that chance. Obviously, a delay of a few weeks will not in any way jeopardize the passage of this bill. It will pass eventually, but we're asking the government to give a chance because all of these incidents that I men- tioned….

Komagata Maru , obviously, is an incident which is very, very fundamental to South Asians, and I know there are a lot of South Asian people that have some concern that they did not have any chance to voice their concerns and be consulted on this issue. Speaking up on behalf of all of those communities, some of which I've mentioned, they want to have a voice. They want to have their say. This is something that we're asking the government: just delay for a while so that the people out in the communities have a chance to have their voice. Then it can come back to the House, and it can be passed then, again. Hon.

Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers…. Oh, sorry. The member for Vancouver-Burrard. L. Mayencourt: I m u s t s a y t h a t t h i s i s o n e o f t h e saddest amendments I've ever heard of. It causes me a great deal of sadness to see that individuals on the op- position bench think that we should wait to apologize, that we shou ld wait to consult. I brought this bill for- ward in October of last year. That's October, Novem- ber, December, January, February, March, April — seven months ago.

And members on that side say: "Well, we think we should consult with our communi- ties." What in the heck have you guys been doing for seven months? How dare you come in here and tell the Chinese Canadians that they are not entitled to an apology? How dare you come in here and say that the…? How dare you do this! You spoke up in favour of this bill not less than three weeks ag o, and today you put the brakes on? It is a shame. You should be ashamed of your- selves, members. You are not honourable members when you decide to tell our government…. Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, one thing is: through the Chair.

Will you withdraw that statement? L. Mayencourt: The statement with regard to…? Mr. Speaker: Not being honourable. L. Mayencourt: Absolutely I will withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. There is something really sick about what I'm see- ing here this morning, sir. I've got to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, as I look at members on that side, I am greatly troubled, and I apologize that I think that their behav- iour is reprehensible. [1025] I need to speak about the people in our community that have waited years and years and years for an apology, have waited years and years and years for an acknowledgment from this government, from the pre- vious government, from governments of 50 years ago, of their pain and suffering . The members over there think we should go out and talk to people about it first.

How many months, how many years have mem- b e r s o n t h a t s i d e o f t h e H o u s e h a d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o consult? Who do they want to consult with? Did they not talk to their wives or their husbands or their neighbours? Did they not talk to the constituents when they campaigned in the communities less than a year ago? What are you talking about? What are those mem- bers speaking about? They are talking about delay. They are talking about saying: "We don't want to do this yet." They say: "Yes, we understand that people need to be apologized to.

Yes, there have been wrongs that have been done to the people of British Columbia." Then, what do we gain by putting this silly little mo- tion forward? We put it on the back burner yet again. Members over there, this is a very, very sneaky, despicable, awful, awful am endment that has been put forward by the member…. Mr. Speaker: Member. It's unparliamentary, and I wish you would withdraw that statement again. L. Mayencourt: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the passion that I feel for this…. Mr. Speaker: Member.

3798 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 L. Mayencourt: I'm going to withdraw that com- ment for you, Mr. Speaker. But I'm going to tell you, as I will tell members on that side of the House outside of this chamber and everywhere else what I think about this. I've got to tell you…. Mr. Speaker: Member. L. Mayencourt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Please withdraw that statement. L. Mayencourt: I did offer to withdraw the state- ment, Mr. Speaker, and I do withdraw it. Mr. Speaker: Unconditionally withdraw the state- ment, please. L. Mayencourt: I have not put any condition on it, sir. Mr.

Speaker: Don't speak to it. Please speak to the motion. L. Mayencourt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. H. Lali: I don't believe the member has uncondi- tionally withdrawn that stat ement, and if he would do so, it would please this House. Mr. Speaker: The member has unconditionally withdrawn. Member, continue. L. Mayencourt: A few years ago I sat in this cham- b e r , a n d I w a t c h e d s o m e p e o p l e c o m e h e r e f r o m t h e Kootenays. They were the Doukhobors. Their kids had been abducted. The member from Trail came in this House, and he talked about knowing people on both sides of the conflict.

You see, the government moved in the '50s to take children away from their families, largely because of a difference of opinion and some fear that religion was interfering or what have you. People had their kids taken away from them. I remember the member talking about the fact that one child was found in a hayloft, hiding. The authorities used a pitchfork to find her. What kind of consultation do we have to do to find out whether that little girl is deserving of an apology? What kind of consultation do we need? I've had a lot of time to talk with the Ombudsman about this particular issue.

He put forward a report called The Power of an Apology: Removing the Legal Barri- ers. I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, he didn't say wait. H e d i d n ' t s a y d e l a y . H e d i d n ' t s a y t h a t p e o p l e a r e n ' t entitled to an apology or that they're entitled to an apology, but maybe we'll get to that in six weeks, a year, a month, five years, ten years.

This province, through th is chamber, has already delayed saying sorry to first nations, has already de- layed saying sorry to Chinese people for the head tax, saying sorry to the children of Jericho Hill School for the Deaf, saying sorry to ordinary citizens whose only thing that they did was to come to government.

They were turned away with callous disregard — not by this government, perhaps not by the last government, but by government and, by extension, by all of us who are in this chamber today. [1030] I cannot fathom why any in dividual in this cham- ber today would think we should go out and study whether we owe an apology to those people. I cannot understand for a moment why anybody would think that.

There are children here in the chamber today, and I would venture to guess that these children know that when they have wronged so meone, when they have harmed someone in some way, they should do what is right and natural and just. They should say: "I am sorry." What happens when someone says they are sorry is that two parties can finally come to a successful conclusion, can finally say to each other: "How do we make the problem better?" As you know, Mr. Speaker, I worked a lot on school bullying and harassment an d intimidation in our school system.

I look at families — Hamed Nastoh's family and Dawn Wesley's family — and I see school districts that haven't been able to say they're sorry be- cause of liability. That's what this bill is about. This bill is about say- ing to someone who's been wronged: "We're sorry." That's all that it is. It is a powerful and empowering tool that members on that side of the House could use as well. All members would benefit from the legislation that has been brought forward by the Attorney General to allow people to apologize without the fear of in- creasing their liability.

It does not take away from the liability, but it does not add to it either. It is time for members on both sides of this House to get over it. There is a time for everything, and the time for the Apology Act is now. We are not prepared to delay this any longer. People deserve an apology. We're going to give it to them. We're going to give people the ability — everybody in British Columbia — to say sorry when they have wronged someone, with- out increasing their liability. That cannot wait any longer. I thank you for the opportunity, and I do apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I know I got a little carried away there, and I really do apologize. I meant no disrespect either to members in this House or to you, sir, but I cannot tell you how sad this amendment makes me. I just think that if members vote for this amend- ment, they are making a huge mistake to the communi- ties that have been wronged in British Columbia and they take a step backward for something that has been recognized across Canada as innovative law reform that makes a difference to every single citizen. Hon. L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I might beg leave to make an introduction. Mr. Speaker: Continue.

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3799 Introductions by Members Hon. L. Reid: We're joined in the gallery today by the Richmond Christian School, a glorious organization in my riding. They have guests today visiting from the Christian school in Ottawa. There are approximately 64 students. There are, I believe, five adults with them, and their teacher is Mr. Brian Roodnick. I would ask the House to please make them welcome. Debate Continued A. Dix: It's my honour today to speak on the amendment.

I guess it's ironic that the member for Vancouver- Burrard had to apologize half a dozen times during his speech on the Apology Act. I don't know. But I think his comments are not only in appropriate; they're disre- spectful to democratic debate. This amendment calls for us to listen to people. This legislation was introduced , I think, in the last two weeks. Interjection. A. Dix: Last week? This legislation was introduced last week. All the history of legislation in this chamber, and suddenly the government decides, five years into its mandate, to table an Apology Act last week.

Has there been an opportunity for groups in the community to respond to that? No, there hasn't. Has there been an opportunity for groups who have serious concerns or who may want to strengthen or say some- thing about the legislation to have their words said? No, there hasn't. In fact, we're now debating second reading within a week of the bill being tabled. [1035] The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard goes on some sort of a rant about the fact that listening to peo- ple means that we don't believe in the serious concerns of communities. It's the opposite.

There is nothing wrong, surely, with inviting communities in support or who might have concerns about this to come to a par- liamentary committee or to come and talk to us about their views on the legislation. That seems perfectly reasonable. Let's think about it — for years and years the discussion of these issu es, many of these issues before us. You know, I've met regularly with Woodlands sur- vivors. We all know what happened in 2002. There was a report. They fought for years to get their claims rec- ognized.

They're not claims against a political party; they're claims against the province of British Columbia over a period of years — both parties in government, all parties in government, real claims, real concerns, fundamental concerns. They fought to get a report by the former Ombudsman, Dulcie McCallum, who rec- ognized their claim to be systemic abuse. This is, generally speaking, not a group of people who are going to succeed in a court of law. We know what happened.

We know that the government has denied the report of the Ombudsman, that after the years of fighting for that, they've acknowledged: "Oh, there were some problems." They offered $2 million, which no one's received. We haven't heard from the member for Vancouver-Burrard or anybody else on this question. We know what happened. Those groups are going to have — and those peo- ple, I can tell you, would like to have — something to say about this legislation, and I think it's reasonable to h e a r t h e m b e f o r e w e p a s s i t .

I t d o e s n ' t m e a n w e c a n ' t pass it in this legislative session; it doesn't mean we can't pass it soon. But surely this is a democratic place, and surely if there are conc erns in the community and community groups want to come and speak to us about a piece of legislation, we might take the oppor- tunity, take the care to listen rather than introducing it one week, passing it the next week and having the member for Vancouver-Burrard lecture the community about democratic values. Maybe we should stop and just listen for a couple of weeks. Maybe members of this House would do well to listen. Hon.

Speaker, I support the principle of the Apol- ogy Act, and I hadn't anticipated speaking in this de- bate until inspired by the member for Vancouver- Burrard. But it seems to me that it is our obligation. You know, every session — members will know this; people who observe the Legislature will know this — governments come into this Legislature with stat- utes amendment acts. Often — the Attorney General will know this — it's because public servants look at legislation, and it's not working. They need to tweak it, they need to make changes, and they make statutes amendment acts. This is a new piece of legislation.

One of the ideas of bringing groups forward and having them talk about it now is to avoid having to correct bills later, to get it right the first time. Every government does this. Every government brings in statutes amendment acts in the future, and what we're say- ing is: "Let's have a discussion before we put this into law. Let's have th at discussion. Let's have groups come and bring their considered opinion to bear on this question." If the belief of the Attorney General and the mem- ber for Vancouver-Burrard is, "We bring in the legisla- tion, and by gosh, we're the government, so it must be right.

We shouldn't have any public discussion or con- sideration of it, and we should ram it through…." You know, this is our parliament, our provincial parlia- ment. This is the Legislature of British Columbia. It's not a sausage factory. We have an opportunity to duly consider legisla- tion and its implications. I think that this amendment for referral of this legislatio n for public hearings before we go forward is not intended to delay the legislation unduly.

It's simply intended to give groups in the community — who want an opportunity to have their voices heard — to be heard, and it gives us, as legisla- tors, an opportunity to hear those voices, to consider them, potentially to consider them in the context of making amendments to the legislation.

3800 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 That seems to me to be a fair and democratic and reasonable approach. To bring in a new idea, which until last week was not the policy of the government…. Then suddenly, they bring it in, they thwack it down on the table, and they say: "Here's the Apology Act, and we're going to jam it through the next week." Well, I don't think, in this case, given the serious issues and the serious concerns of some groups, those groups who, indeed, merit an apology in this society….

I think it's fair to say to them before we do this: "You have a right to be heard." If, in fact, they don't want to be heard and we present to groups the opportunity to be heard and they say, "No, we're fine," well, that tells us something too. [1040] I heard the extraordinary speech of the member for Vancouver-Burrard, which I think puts this debate into kind of a vicious and partisan mode that is totally in- appropriate to the subject matter. I think it's completely wrong. Let's listen to the community. Let's do our jobs as representatives. Let's take this opportunity. This is not uncommon.

The id ea that a bill is tabled at second reading in other Le gislatures is quite normal. The Government House Leader will recognize this as much as anyone else. It's qu ite normal to table a bill, then hear from the public and then proceed at commit- tee stage. The fact that the government has tabled very little legislation of consequence since the election has meant that we haven't had to consider that process very much.

But in the case of this bill, which is new and innovative, it seems reasonable to me that we give the people of British Columbia an opportunity to be heard in the coming weeks before we proceed. Hon. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to support the amendment. Hon. M. de Jong: Who says there is no spontaneity left in the life of a parliament? Let me offer this by way of response to the amendm ent and the exchange that has taken place thus far in the House.

I understand that people come here with differing notions both of impor- tant concepts of public policy and of the process by which those concepts become, or don't become, law. I have tried to listen, when the critic for the official opposition was making his submissions around the amendment, and get to the crux of what was driving the argument in support of what we around here usu- ally refer to as a hoist motion — consider a hoist mo- tion.

I'm not certain I heard an argument that went beyond: "We want to talk to some people." That is al- ways, in my view, a valid expression of interest on the part of a member and, generally speaking, for those of us in public life, a legitimate use of the offices that we hold. Here's where I think the disconnect may exist a little bit. During the course of the second reading de- bate, I would urge all members to understand and, hopefully, accept this. What the bill creates is a tool, a legal instrument, which governments and individual litigants will have to decide whether or not they want to make use of.

Yes, the use of that tool will engage the interest of a variety of people and a variety of groups. I can't imagine a government making use of the tool without having extensive discussions and extensive consultation with those it would impact. But that is a different thing.

What we heard from the member for Vancouver- Burrard is, I think, an expression of the passion, obvi- ously, that he has brought over some time now for the development and the existence and the creation of that legal instrument so that those discussions and that con- sultation can go forward, not in the guise of some faint hope that maybe one day this will happen but in the context of understanding that there is now a law on the books that allows for it to happen. [1045] If I were to urge members to reconsider the con- sidered amendment that has been tabled today, it would be on that basis — that the use of the instru- ment, the tool that this bill seeks to create, is some- thing that will very much be the subject of discussion between governments, thos e communities or groups of people it would impact and individual litigants or potential litigants.

I'm hopeful that we can yet understand what has motivated the creation of th e idea. I actually have had occasion to review the comments that members made a month ago — I think, in fact, a month ago today — in a discussion that took place around the private member's bill. With one exception — I think the member for Surrey-Newton pointed out some con- cerns he had, not necessaril y around the concept, but some additional concerns — virtually everyone that spoke, including the official opposition critic, said that this is a concept whose time is long overdue. Those were his words.

Undoubtedly, the use of that concept and the legal instrument that passage of this bill will create is some- thing that will require great care and great sensitivity to the interests of the communities that would be im- pacted. But in speaking against the reasoned amend- ment, I am going to urge upon all members of the House that we create this tool, create for ourselves the option of making use of it. Hon. W. Oppal: I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment.

I fully appreciate some of the comments that have been advanced by the members of the opposition, par- ticularly in relation to acts passed — such as the Koma- gata Maru, the Chinese head tax, the Oriental exclusion acts of the 1920s — that are representative of our racist past. But I would suggest, with respect, that this legis- lation is relevant to advancing apologies. We've al- ready seen that. We've already seen where there are apologies for legislation. We've seen where institutions do apologize. Let's not lose sight of why this bill, or the intent of this bill, was advanced at the outset.

It was really a part of this government's intent to make the civil justice system more accessible and to promote an early and

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3801 effective resolution of disputes by removing acrimony and an adversarial process where none was necessary. An apology encourages people to come together. Very often it is a healing process. This bill would help communities in that healing process. I would be more sympathetic to the arguments advanced by the opposi- tion if the legislation were in some way found to be wanting — if i t was vag u e, u ncertain or if t he leg isla- tion contained other weaknesses, either by omission or by inclusion.

If this legislation becomes law, it will not take away from any person's right to sue for damages. That right will still exist. This legislation will promote early set- tlement of disputes. Many pe ople are satisfied with an apology rather than an acri monious litigation process. That's the purpose of the bill. [1050] In my respectful view, delaying this bill without any valid reason, such as th ose that I have alluded to, would not really be in the public interest. This is not a case where we're rushing to judgment by railroading legislation through.

There has been a reasoned debate on this, and by and large, th e opposition has, with the exception of the amendment today, promoted this leg- islation. I commend the opposition for what they've done during the debate. In my respectful view, nothing would be gained by delaying this matter any further. In these circum- stances I rise here to speak in opposition to the amendment. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the comments of the Attorney General and the Government House Leader around this bill. There has been, I think, general sup- port for the concept of the bill. No one disputes that. The question is: is this

an act whose time has come? Again, there is widespread support. At the same time, there have been voices that have said they have some concerns. They have questions they want to have addressed. It is important that the opposi- tion and members of this House have the ability to bring those concerns forward.

If the way in which to address those issues is to say we feel it's important that for the period of a month or five weeks we wait and delay fur- ther discussion of this unt il those concerns have been addressed and those indivi duals and groups in the community have had the opport unity to talk to us di- rectly, I think that is someth ing we should do. That is very much in keeping with what this place is about. This session runs until the 18th of May.

If we pass this bill right now, it wouldn't in fact become law until the Lieutenant-Governor gives it royal assent which, by tradition in this place, would usually be around the 17th or 18th of May — the last days of the session. There's no real compelling reason not to. I think the amendment moved by the o pposition is a reasoned one, is a reasonable one, is in keeping with the democ- ratic traditions of our Ho use and our jobs and what we're here to do.

That is to ensure that at the end of the day, the legislation we pass is as good as it can be and not only meets the needs of th ose of us here in terms of public-policy-makers but fu lly meets the needs of the communities and the people of British Columbia. That's why, on this side of the House, we're asking all members to support the amendment. Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the ques- tion is the amendment. [1055-1100] Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 27 S.

Simpson Evans Fleming Farnworth Kwan Brar Cubberley Hammell Coons Thorne Simons Puchmayr Gentner Routley Horgan Lali Dix Robertson Karagianis Ralston Krog Austin Chudnovsky Chouhan Wyse Sather Macdonald NAYS — 39 Falcon Reid Coell Ilich Chong Christensen Les Richmond Bell Bennett Roddick Hayer Lee Jarvis Nuraney Whittred Horning Cantelon Thorpe Hagen Oppal de Jong Taylor Bond Hansen Penner Neufeld Hogg Hawkins Krueger Lekstrom Mayencourt Polak Hawes Yap Bloy MacKay Black McIntyre Hon. W. Oppal: I move second reading of Bill 16. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, you've all heard the motion. Division has been called.

Government House Leader, do you want to waive the time? Hon. M. de Jong: I believe there is agreement to waive the usual time. Second reading of Bill 16 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.] Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

3802 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 Bill 16, Apology Act, read a second time and re- ferred to a Committee of the Whole House for consid- eration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment. [1105-1110] Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the chair. The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $152,559,000 (continued). S. Simpson: As the minister knows, we're going to move to a discussion of alternative energy issues now, and we'll come back to climate change later this afternoon. Could the minister tell us: what is the role of the Ministry of Environment in relation to discussions around alternative energy and renewables in terms of the government of British Columbia? [1115] Hon. B. Penner: First of all, I could say that at the cabinet table and in caucus discussions I am a frequent advocate, a relentless advocate, for alternative energy options.

It's something that is near and dear to my heart. I take a great deal of interest in that. Secondly, though, and more specific to the ministry itself, we have a water li- censing function that comes into play in terms of applica- tions for run-of-the-river or small hydroelectric projects. I know from some recent travels I made to the Peace River district of British Columbia that Ministry of Environment staff are called upon to provide com- ments and advice to another ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, when it comes to the possible siting of large wind power energy systems.

Ministry staff will be called on from time to time to provide their advice, in terms of their expertise in being biologists, about potential impacts from large-scale wind farm applications. In addition, of course, the environmental assess- ment office gets involved in reviewing projects over a certain threshold size. In ad dition, the ministry, at the staff level, is supporting wo rk that's currently under- way in terms of updating the province's energy plan. S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: is there a budget within the ministry to deal with alternate en- ergy and renewables? If so, what is that budget?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member will know from reviewing the ministry's budg et estimates, there isn't a specific line item entitled "Alternative energy." Rather, the ministry supports efforts across government in pursuing alternative energy initiatives through the staff and the resources that we have. For example, I mentioned the assistant deputy min- ister, seated next to me, who is in charge of our water stewardship division. He also wears another hat. He's the comptroller of water rights for the province. The budget for the water stewardship division is about $28 million, and ther e are 120 FTEs.

Some of those people are biologists. Across the ministry there are approximately 248 biol ogists, costing approxi- mately $20 million. As required, they are called upon t o a s s e s s a n d r e v i e w p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t s i n t h e f a s h i o n that I was just mentioning in my previous answer. S. Simpson: The minister spoke about run of the river and wind, and we know that there are ongoing discussions about the potentials around solar or tidal. We have a number of different alternate energy sources that are in the relatively formative years in terms of their development.

Could the minister tell us whether the ministry — or the ministry in conjunction, pre- sumably, with Energy — has done some assessment of which of those alternate energy options may be most effective in British Columbia? [1120] Hon. B. Penner: The approach that B.C. Hydro has taken to date has been to put out a call to the market- place for proposals and let the marketplace sort out which particular form of generation is the most appro- priate from a marketplace perspective. I think it was in 2002 — perhaps it was the fall of 2001 or 2002 — B.C. Hydro issued a specific green call for electricity.

That resulted in a number of proposals. The majority of them were run-of-the-river small hy- droelectric projects, which is not surprising, given B.C.'s topography, climate and the location of those rivers and streams in relation to existing transmission corridors and the load centre. However, proposals also came forward and re- ceived contracts for capturing methane gas from land- fills for the very first time in British Columbia and util- izing the methane gas to help generate electricity.

That's now happening in the lower mainland in the GVRD's landfill near Delta and, as well, just north of Victoria here at a landfill site where we're capturing the methane gases escaping from decomposing garbage and converting that methane gas into electricity. In addition, there was a wind power project that was successful in negotiating a contract with B.C. Hy- dro. But my understanding is that the Holberg wind project — which was, I think, a proposal by Stothert Engineering in conjunction with a partner — ran into economic difficulties.

They were not able to make that project work for the bid price that they were contracted to with B.C. Hydro. So the call was put forward, and different proposals came forward.

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3803 There are emerging technologies, as the member referred to, around tidal power or wave power, solar power. Those are sources of electricity that hold tre- mendous promise but are still in their infancy in some parts of the world. I know California has done some work on solar, but it's still quite expensive compared to other sources. In British Columbia our competitive advantage has been in terms of small run-of-the-river projects — again, given our geography and the location of those projects in relation to existing transmission corridors and the load centre.

S. Simpson: I would agree with certainly some of what the minister has sa id. I think our advantage probably has rested more with our larger hydroelectric power. As we know, the run of the river is relatively early in its stage, and the volume — the amount of power it creates — is certainly a contribution, but it's not overly significant, I don't believe, at this time. I'll get to talking about run of the river in a minute. I'd like to go back at this point to talk a little bit about some of those alternatives.

The minister spoke of wind, and of course, we know about tidal and solar and, probably, about issues around biomass and oth- ers. I understand that those are all being looked at — at this point, at least — as IPP possibilities.

As the minis- ter notes, Hydro has put out a call, and we'll wait to see whether there are, in fact, in dustries or businesses that step up with proposals for Hydro and the government to look at. [1125] The question I have, thou gh, in relation to those alternatives is: has the ministry looked at those models of alternate energy — whether it be wind, tidal, what- ever — and done some assessment of the kinds of envi- ronmental considerations that need to be looked at when a proposal like that comes forward? They have certain traits that, I guess, would be consistent within wind or solar or tidal.

Has the ministry looked and said: "Well, here are the kinds of issues that we need to keep our eyes open to when those proposals come for- ward, because these might be the impacts that we need to be looking at, whether they are negative, positive or whatever"? If so, has that work been done? Hon. B. Penner: In addition to the staff resources I mentioned earlier, in terms of what the Ministry of Environment is doing in terms of supporting and ad- vancing alternative energy…. I've just been reminded that last Thursday or Friday, I think it was, I was in the happy position of giving a $30,000 grant to the B.C.

Sustainable Energy Association to support their solar power initiative. They've got a goal of achieving 100,000 solar roofs in British Columbia to help supple- ment the heating of hot water for homes. That's a significant initiative, and I was pleased to be in the position to provide financia l support directly for that initiative. We've also provided grants to promote the use of biodiesel, which is an alternative fuel source.

I think the grant we awarded was about $25,000 to the Fraser Basin Council to assist in their marketing efforts to raise public awareness that th is fuel is now available at the pump at, at least three different distribution centres in British Columbia. It's there for motorists to use at a lower cost than traditional diesel fuel, due to the tax break the government has introduced for that bio- diesel. [1130] When a specific application comes forward for a run-of-river project, as I mentioned earlier, that triggers a need for a water licence. A project can't get built until they have the right to use the water.

When that process gets triggered, then the comp- troller of water rights and the water stewardship divi- sion of the ministry get to work looking at possible fish impacts, recreation impacts, access roads, conflict with wildlife. There's a referral process out to other ministries, because there may be the potential for con- flict with forest uses — forest tenures in the area. Ex- isting mining tenures would have to be checked with the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

An assessment is done about the overall ecosystem impact of a pro- posal on a specific watercourse if someone is seeking permission to have an allocation of water from that particular source for a particular project. That's an example of the reviews that are triggered around small hydro. I just want to respond to a comment the member made about the contribution being relatively small.

Certainly, in terms of the overall system in British Co- lumbia, the vast majority of our electricity does come from the network of dams that were built primarily in the 1960s and '70s, including the early 1980s with the Revelstoke Dam. An increasing share of elec tricity or at least a small increase in electricity has come over the last few years from a number of run-of-riv er projects. I think there's something in the order of 30 or 35 that have been given contracts over the last four years.

Not all of those pro- jects have been built, but they do hold the opportunity — much like a wind project does — to help backstop our existing large storage facilities. Wind is intermittent by nature. The opportunity in British Columbia is that when it's windy, there's the opportunity to store water behind our storage facilities — behind the big dams — and then draw it down and generate electricity when it's not as windy. Similarly, small hydro facilities tend to be in peak production for certain months of the year but not for others.

During those peak periods there's an opportu- nity to offset the amount of water we have to draw down from our large reservoir systems to generate electricity and save that water for when it's drier in those locations where the run-of-river projects operate. So far the majority of the run-of-river projects have been located in coastal regions. When it's wet around the coast, that power production is helping offset the amount of power that would otherwise have to be pulled down from our large da ms in the reservoirs in the interior of the province. O n c e i t g e t s d r i e r , w e r e - verse that flow.

3804 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 If there are further questi ons around this, I should also point out that the Ministry of Energy and Mines has an alternative energy divi sion, and there's an assis- tant deputy minister assigned to that role. I think there are eight staff or so. Those estimates debates are cur- rently taking place just down the hallway as we speak. S. Simpson: I do appreciate that they are taking place, and I'm hopeful that I have a colleague down the hallway asking questions about that right now.

The reason I ask the ques tion about this assessment is because as the minister pointed out, as we've had this discussion, we know that at this point renewables are a small portion of the power in British Columbia. But absolutely they are goin g to grow. I believe that Hydro has a long-term projection to have 50 percent of our power come from renewables at some point down the road, and that's a big challenge to get to 50 percent. I think it's also a very positive objective for the gov- ernment to have, and it's something that we should work hard to achieve — 50 percent from renewables.

If we're going to get there, it's going to require a variety of options. It's going to require some of them to be fairly intensively developed in order to get that vol- ume of power outside of conv entional methods. That's why I ask whether the work has been done within the Ministry of Environment to look at what the potential impacts of renewables are. We do know there are envi- ronmental issues — some of them not totally confirmed yet.

Obviously, with wind, I hear about challenges around turbines and birds. [1135] There's a number of thin gs, and some of that is open to debate as to whether in fact those are signifi- cant issues or not. My conc ern is that the ministry be doing as much preliminary work as possible to know the degree to which those concerns are legitimate and the degree to which they need to be addressed. I'll move to a particular project. When we talked about wind…. It would be a very interesting project I've been learning about, which is the Nai Kun project off of Haida Gwaii.

This is a project where they are talking about floating a wind farm off of Haida Gwaii. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he's had discussions around that proposal and what his thoughts are about its potential to meet some of our needs. This seems like an innovative approach, to float these farms. It seems to deal w i t h a n u m b e r o f i s s u e s that people have, but it may very well create additional ones. I wonder if the minister could tell us what his thoughts are about that. Hon. B.

Penner: I'll make a comment, and then I'll have a question for the critic just to get some clarifica- tion around his most recent question. I would correct the member and say that, in fact, in British Columbia today 90 percent of our electricity currently comes from renewable sources. There will be a debate and an ar- gument about whether it can be considered from green sources, given that a majority of it comes from large hydroelectric facilities that have resulted in the estab- lishment of significant reservoirs that carry with them environmental consequences.

But certainly, in British Columbia 90 percent of our electricity today, give or take, is generated on the basis of renewable energy sources. The member was asking ab out a proposal, I think, for a wind farm or a wind power project off Haida Gwaii. I just want to seek clarification from the mem- ber. Is he referring to the project also known as the Nai Kun wind project? He's indicating that he is. I don't think I've had any meetings with anybody representing that proposal since I became minister, but I am generally familiar with the proposal.

I'm not sure at what stage it is or even if it's gone forward in terms of an application to the environmental assessment of- fice. If the project is over a certain size and it's within the jurisdiction of the environmental assessment office, then it would have to go through that review process. I'm not aware at this point if it has started that process. S. Simpson: I'm sure they will be coming to see you soon. It does seem, from the materials I've seen and the discussions I've had, that it is a significant project.

In regard to the point the minister makes about hydroelectric power — clearly, that has been an advan- tage for us for a whole range of reasons in British Co- lumbia. The challenge around hydroelectric power, though, of course, is that th ere's not much that we can do to use that power…. That power kind of provides the opportunity it provides today. We don't afford changes in that power that will allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We're going to need to find ways to do that by using other methods and forms.

It's absolutely a very positive power source for us, but we need to move past that as we look to make better and further improvements in issues around those gases. I'll move back now…. The minister has spoken a fair amount about run of the river, so let's talk about that a little bit, and particularly around the projects in Squam- ish. The minister, I'm sure, is well aware of the Ashlu project and some of the concerns that have been raised by the Squamish-Lillooet regional district around that. The question that I'm particularly interested in is around the LRMP up there, the Sea to Sky LRMP.

I believe this identified about a dozen water sources, including the Ashlu and a number of others, that the regional district felt had broader interests than power generation to meet a number of concerns of the com- munity. Could the minister tell us whether he's aware of what the status of the Sea to Sky LRMP is at this point in time? [1140] Hon. B. Penner: I'd have to check with my col- league the Minister of Agriculture and Lands about the current status of the LRMP for that particular area, because that LRMP process is led, from the provincial government's side, by the Mi nistry of Agriculture and Lands.

The member mentioned the great potential we have for wind energy. It's obviously renewable and zero-

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3805 emission. I've always thought it would be a positive contribution to the province, but it's amazing what happens when a specific proposal comes forward. Im- mediately, critics emerge as well. I am aware of contro- versy in other parts of the province whenever we go from the general concept of, "Let's use wind energy and harness that renewable source," to "Let's actually locate a specific project next to somebody's farm or community." Immediately, people go from generally supporting the concept to having significant concerns.

One of the things that requires a great deal of con- sultation is helping people understand what the possi- ble impacts are and raising awareness. The environ- mental assessment office plays a role in that in coordi- nating public information sessions and assessing pro- jects from an environmental perspective. Like the member, I've also heard concerns about the potential for impacts on birds or other wildlife, so those are ob- viously things that need to be assessed.

I've been remiss in pointing out one of the other, of course, key components in consultation, and this is triggered whether it's an application for a small hydro project or other things. That 's the requirement for con- sultation with first nations. Certainly in terms of the water licensing side, if somebody comes forward with a specific application, we try to engage the local first nations as soon as possible to get them involved in the process.

I know that a number of proponents have been doing this in the Sea to Sky corridor — and with some success, in terms of getting support and, I think, even participation on the part of the Squamish First Nation, which has been actively involved in a number of pro- jects in that area. S. Simpson: I would agree with the comment that the minister made around wind and the challenge when you propose to build a wind farm near some- body's community or home. It often draws a negative response, and I must say that's one of the things that I found somewhat intriguing.

I certainly have a lot more to learn before I take a position in regard to the Nai Kun project, but one of th e most intriguing things about it is that they are floa ting it out there, and it is largely not the same kind of issue in terms of being on land based near communities or populated areas. They've told me in that case that they actually have had extensive discussi ons with the Haida, and they have a level of support in the leadership of the first nation there, though that 's what I've been told by proponents of the plan. I would certainly need to see more information.

I do agree that there are always challenges. I raised the question about the LRMP because, as the minister may know, the Ashlu has been particu- larly contentious — the question of the IPP around the Ashlu. Part of that contention has related to the LRMP, and it's related to this call by the community to protect or designate these 12 water bodies. It's my understanding that in fact the Sea to Sky LRMP has not been approved by cabinet. Now, I could be corrected on that, but I understand it's been sitting there for an extended period of time. It's not been approved.

I know I've seen correspondence from the Deputy Minister of Energy that suggests that there's some brokering to be done around the Ashlu and these other water bodies that the community wants to sup- port. The question I have for the Minister of Environ- ment is: what is the role of the Ministry of Environment in assessing those water bodies and, if necessary, inter- vening at the cabinet table to ensure that they are pro- tected, potentially in the wa y that the local community has asked for in their LRMP? [1145] Hon. B. Penner: The member mentioned again the status of the LRMP process.

Again, the lead minister for that would be the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. My understanding, though, is that for any LRMP, when it comes forward to government before it gets finalized or approved, there is a commitment on the part of government to engage in consultation with first nations for their perspective on what came out of the LRMP process. In terms of the specific application, I think the member is referring to the Ashlu River project. I'm advised that the water lice nsing division of the pro- vincial government actually first received an applica- tion back in October of 1989.

That's subject to check, but the information I have is that in 1994 this project was put forward to an application to the province under a B.C. Hydro call for proposals. I think that project was short-listed a year later by B.C. Hydro. I understand that Dan Miller, who was the Energy Minister at the tim e, undertook some kind of review process with some eminent persons and that the Ashlu project was ranked as the best short-listed run- of-river project based upon a number of criteria in- cluding socioeconomic considerations. Something happened.

The government did not proceed with procurement, despite work that had been done to date, and the brakes were put on the project. Further work has been done since then, I think in response to the B.C. Hydro call for green en- ergy in 2001. That's when, again, the requirements of the Ministry of Environment through the water li- censing branch kicked in. By the way, those requirements are available on the Ministry of Environment website. You can find them listed there. I think there's a website address, which is perhaps somewhat lengthy, bu t it goes something like this: www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/bmp/instreamflow.

That will lead people, I'm told, to details around the require- ments for environmental review of proposed run-of- river projects that are seeking a water licence in British Columbia. Again, going back to the specific application, once that renewed application came forward again — I think it was in 2001 or 2002 — various aquatic vegetation and wildlife studies were required to be done, and that work carried on, as well as consultation with the Squamish First Nation. Ultimately, an agreement was

3806 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 reached, I'm told, with the Squamish First Nation, and they support the project. The project went through a Canadian Environ- mental Assessment Act review process with referrals to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada and others. I think from the provincial side, the Agricultural Land Commission, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, and the Ministry of Forests as well as the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, as it then was, were all involved in various aspects of reviewing potential impact from that project as proposed.

That work carried on from the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. During that period of time the Squamish-Lillooet regional district gave the project first and second read- ing approval, and the report came back from Environ- ment Canada and the Canadian wildlife service, pro- viding final approval. Fish eries and Oceans Canada also provided draft approval after assessing a potential for harmful alteration or disr uption of fish habitat in accordance with the SEA process. Even the Canadian Coast Guard provided final approval from a naviga- tion perspective.

Land and Wat er B.C, as it then was, was preparing to issue a la nd tenure by the end of 2004. [1150] Then, as the member will know, in January of 2005 the Squamish-Lillooet regional district denied third reading at that time. I think there were still some dis- cussions taking place with DFO. Perhaps a look was being given to the tree farm licence in that area. That's part of the referral proces s through the Ministry of Forests. And I think that's basically where we're at today. S. Simpson: We'll pursue this. There is more in- formation. I'll be happy to inform the minister of it later.

Noting the time, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:51 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Lekstrom in the chair. The committee met at 10:12 a.m. On Vote 26: ministry operations, $43,674,000 (continued). C. Evans: I want to start the day by just talking a little bit about where I think we might get to, so that maybe staff time could be adjusted accordingly.

Quite a few people wish to speak, and it is our wish to start with the question of tenure and deferral in oil and gas and then move on to the subject of alternate energy and finish the work that hon. members were starting yes- terday. Before the end of the day I hope to get on to Columbia Power. It is our wish that whatever ques- tions we might have for the Oil and Gas Commission, to get them in today so that they never have to come back. If there is a part of the estimates that we don't get to, it would be B.C. Hydro. I think that those people are least likely to be required today.

The Columbia Power people wouldn't be required until close to the end of the day. Can I just ask, through the Chair, if that's okay with the minister? The Chair: Certainly. Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. We'll act accord- ingly. I think probably what I'll do is keep B.C. Hydro here because of the alternative energy discussion. They'll probably lend some information to that. I'll con- firm with the member, then, that BCTC can go for the day and be back on the next Monday that we come in and that Columbia Power can leave till later this after- noon, after question period .

We'll come back in, and they should be here. I think the staff represen ting those agencies will have heard that. If that meet s with the critic, I'm fine with that too. C. Evans: That is as I understand it, and I appreci- ate that. G. Gentner: I'd like to thank the minister for agree- ing to our indulgences and respecting our request to just spend a little more time — not too much, I believe — on the notion of gas. This is relative to estimates in that it has to do with some revenue stream. Although in a precursory nature, it's sort of a case in point, so we

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3807 on this side get to better understand how the industry works. The question I have for the minister is: the suspen- sion of assigned natural gas leases — how is that de- termined? [1015] Hon. R. Neufeld: I might ask for some further clari- fication on the question around the suspension of natu- ral gas leases. I'm not sure whether he was referring to suspension of a well. That, actually, I believe, is deter- mined by industry or some other suspension or just…. Maybe he could help us a little bit here, so we can an- swer the question. G.

Gentner: Yes, the question was relative to a well. What role does the ministry play if there's a well that is non-performing? Hon. R. Neufeld: I believe I understand the mem- ber's question, so I'm going to preface it with this: if there is a well that's underperforming for a company, they have the ability to suspen d it and actually shut it in and keep it shut in, indefinitely. That does not release their obligation to make sure it meets all the regulations and rules that are around a suspended well.

The ministry — or the Oil and Gas Commission, actually — maintains a check to make sure that they are abiding by those rules and regula- tions for a well that's shut in. C. Evans: It's pretty much the same question ex- pressed differently. I wonder if the minister could give us an explanation of the criteria that the ministry uses — if they do — to determine when and where and how a deferred disposition or suspension of a lease would be done by the ministry. Hon. R. Neufeld: There is no deferred decision about a lease, so I think it's a different kind of a ques- tion.

I appreciate that people want to work around the edges, so I'll work around the edges until you finally get to the real question that you want to ask, and we'll move forward from there. C. Evans: I thought it was a real question, hon. Chair. I think that the minister presumes that what he calls working around the edges is some kind of beating around the bush in order to not be direct. For me, what he thinks is beating around the bush is trying to lay an educational platform on whic h to ask, perhaps, more intelligent questions. A person wants to understand how the ministry works and what the rules are.

Given that I don't, I've got to figure out how to ask it again. Firstly, does the ministry have the right, and in what circumstances would they choose to exercise that right, to suspend a lease during its term? [1020] Hon. R. Neufeld: Two things, and so…. All I'm trying to do is understand the member's question, be- cause to my folks in the ministry, some of it is inter- twined. Let me say this: a lease would be suspended if payment wasn't made. There's a payment

schedule that comes with a lease, and that's done by the ministry through the titles branch. A well that's not operating within the regulations that are in place, if it's been sus- pended by a company or even is operating…. The Oil and Gas Commission has the authority to actually sus- pend that well and stop pr oduction. We think that's a fairly big hammer to use on the industry if, in fact, they don't live up to the obligations that they have sur- rounding that particular well.

There are some basic obligations that they have, and with different wells, depending on where they are, they may have some further issues that they have to deal with in regards to noise abatement, dust control and those kinds of things. The Oil and Gas Commis- sion has the authority, then, to shut that well in. C. Evans: I appreciate the minister suggesting that it's a fairly heavy-handed step. I presume that means t h a t t h e r e i s s o m e f o r m o f prior steps that one would take before suspension, and that might be a fine for non- compliance or a letter on the file.

Maybe the minister could explain the steps that would precede suspension. Hon. R. Neufeld: I ' l l j u s t t a k e a h y p o th e t i c a l w e l l , as the order of how things would happen, and this would be with the Oil and Gas Commission…. There would be a notice of non-compliance to the company from the inspector from the Oil and Gas Commission. If, in fact, they don't do the things that are in that no- tice, then there's an orde r given by the Oil and Gas Commission with a date on it that says, "By this date you shall do," whatever they're out of compliance with. If they don't do that….

I mean, if they still don't get into compliance, then we ge t to the enforcement order, which may involve court or a combination of shutting in the well. We've never experienced that. To my knowledge, I don't believe we've had a shut-in well, so the companies have complied with the orders that have been laid down by the commission. Just a minute. I will get that. Eight separate companies, I might add, had en- forcement orders given against them. How many wells that represents…? They're going to dig that informa- tion out for you. C. Evans: That would be eight companies over what period of time? Hon. R.

Neufeld: One year. C. Evans: I have some confusion over the term "lease posting." Maybe the minister could explain if a lease is called a posting or if I'm misusing the word. [1025] Hon. R. Neufeld: I believe the term "posting" is when land is actually posted for sale through the titles

3808 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 division for auction. That's what I would refer to as a posting. C. Evans: Is it possible that between the posting of the land for auction and its actual auction, the auction itself could be suspended due to some complication in the process, or once it's posted, does it necessarily need to proceed to auction? Hon. R. Neufeld: On this item, the titles division attempts to…. I think we discussed this yesterday — when they involve different regional districts and first nations and those kinds of people to settle those differ- ences.

The titles division has the authority to pull the posting right up until the time that the auction is to take place, because that's part of the posting. There is a s p e c i f i c d a y a n d t i m e w h e n t h o s e b i d s h a v e t o b e r e - ceived in the ministry office, and even after the bids are in, that doesn't obligate the ministry to actually allow those parcels to be acquired. C. Evans: The period of time between the posting and the auction averages what? Hon. R. Neufeld: Approximately six weeks. C. Evans: The term of the lease averages what? Hon. R. Neufeld: They are five to ten years. C.

Evans: Now, when a company bids on a posting, is the ministry obligated to pick the highest bidder, or is there a matrix or a scoring of past performance or other influences that would decide who would be awarded the lease? Hon. R. Neufeld: As I said earlier, the ministry doesn't have to accept any of them, and normally would accept the highest. Actually, I'll finish that off a little bit. Yesterday we had a lot of questions around: is the government getting the proper rent or royalties for a natural resource owned by the people?

So I would expect that when I say, "If, in fact, they do accept it, it's generally the highest bid," I'm sure that the opposition would agree with me that that's probably the right way to go, I would assume — right? C. Evans: Sure. It gives me great pleasure to agree. What would the exceptions be? The minister said that we normally award the highest bidder. What would be legitimate and legal criterion not to, and are there instances in the past five years where the Crown has not chosen the highest bidder? Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll be a little bit more definite.

When I say "normally", it's always the highest bidder — if, in fact, they accept it. [1030] C. Evans: I'm going to take that to mean that a company could theoretically be in non-compliance with a well, pay a fine, receive a letter on their file or even have their well shut in but still have the capacity to bid on a posting and be awarded a new licence. Is that correct? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, and we don't want to con- fuse a lease — meaning a well — with the authority to buy land. You're right.

If a company was out of com- pliance — in, let's say, the Fort Nelson area — and a piece of land or a posting came up for sale in another area of the province, and they were the high bidder and it was accepted by titles division, that in fact could happen. I want to stress, though, that if they're out of com- pliance anywhere in the province of British Columbia — not just northeastern Brit ish Columbia; if they have wells anyplace in the province — the Oil and Gas Commission will make sure that they get into compli- ance or their wells are shut in. C.

Evans: Given that the minister has said that 100 percent of the time we accept the high bidder, but we have had to suspend licences for eight companies in the last year — or perhaps the wording is "suspend lease, shut in a well" — have those companies who are not in compliance and have had wells shut in, the eight of them, proceeded during the interim in the last year to be awarded new leases? Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't know that without the ministry and the Oil and Gas Commission getting to- gether to figure that out; it could possibly be.

Hypo- thetically, a company that had a well suspended be- cause of non-compliance for a short period of time un- til they got into compliance, for whatever reason it was…. They are not held ransom to say they can't bid on another parcel in a neig hbouring jurisdiction or close to where the well is that is actually in question is. I think that takes the hammer pretty far.

It would be if I u se an ex am ple, lik e s ay ing that if an Esso ser- vice station happens to be out of compliance in Van- couver, you would actually shut down every service station and not allow any new service stations to be built anyplace in the provin ce. You know that there is an issue with one well. Let's get it resolved so that it meets the regulations, and get on with business. C. Evans: To the Oil and Gas Commission doing the research…. I'm not asking if any company that's ever been in non-compliance is ever allowed to bid again.

I'm simply asking, I think, a much simpler ques- tion: if a company has been awarded a lease during a period of suspension on anothe r lease. Is that clear? Is that simpler? Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll try to explain this again, be- cause I get what the member's asking. No, they're not disallowed from bidding on another piece of land that's posted — if, in fact, there is one posted. There's gener- ally one posted on a monthly basis, or there are post- i n g s o n a m o n t h l y b a s i s , s o i f t h e y w e r e i n n o n -

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3809 compliance on a well that they have, and the Oil and Gas Commission has ordered them to actually fix up that non-compliance, it do esn't preclude that same company from bidding on another posting somewhere else. Does that answer the question? [1035] C. Evans: It sure does, but I took it from the minis- ter's comments earlier that the Oil and Gas Commis- sion would provide us with the information. I precisely understand the minister's answer about the generaliza- tion. I'm just wondering about the specifics.

My next question has to do with the rationale for sus- pension. I am guessing that suspension usually has to do with the technical operation of a well rather than payment of moneys owed. To ask that in a specific question: do any of the eight suspensions in the past year have to do with financial relationships with the company? Hon. R. Neufeld: No. C.

Evans: The second half of the question is: would I b e c o r r e c t i n p r e s u m i n g t h a t t h e y h a v e t o d o w i t h technical operation of a well or the equipment on a well and some repairs or redesign that the Oil and Gas Commission requires of them to come into compliance? Is that correct? Hon. R. Neufeld: That would be correct. The Oil and Gas Commission is a regulator. G. Gentner: I just want to go over that, because I'm a little confused here. We do suspend leases based on a lack of payment.

I understand there may be some companies who have not been able to meet those requirements be- cause of a lack of production. Therefore, my question is: has the ministry in this last year suspended any company based on the fact that they have been unable to pay? Hon. R. Neufeld: I want to try to separate these two issues. To the knowle dge of titles division — and Gerald has been there for quite a few years — no one has ever forfeited a lease for not paying their lease rent — okay? A suspension of a well is a totally different thing, so maybe I'll leave that with the member, and we'll move forward from there. C.

Evans: We've been dealing with the idea of pen- alties and suspension, and I want to move to its equiva- lent in reward. If a company performs in an exemplary manner, either with community relationships or in terms of safety, or it is somehow operating in excel- lence, is there a form of re ward, either in terms of re- duced royalties or monetary credits or in terms of a scale that might be added to their bidding process that would make it easier for them to acquire tenure? Hon. R. Neufeld: No. C.

Evans: Am I correct in understanding, then, that the issues of compliance and relationships with com- munity and first nations an d environmental issues and the like are all managed solely with the stick and not with a carrot? [1040] Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I tend not to think of the stick so much. There is a set of rules and a set of regulations, and we expect the industry to live up to those rules and regulations. To get to the point where you may, for a good per- former, do something specia l for them…. I think that tends to go down a path that probably none of us wants to do.

We want to make sure we get the rent that w e s h o u l d b e g e t t i n g , w e w a n t t o m a k e s u r e t h a t w e get the royalties that we should be getting, and we want to make sure that the industry is safe and that they're abiding by the rules and regula tions that are in place. C. Evans: I don't want to belabour the point, be- cause when we debate, we eat up time. However, I've got to use the metaphor of what I actually understand, which is the forest industry.

When companies behave with excellence, they tend t o b e a l l o w e d t o w o r k i n watersheds, in viewsheds an d in environmentally sen- sitive areas. There is an expansion of their ability to bid when they behave with exce llence. When they have a tradition of non-compliance or difficult relationships with the community, the Forest Service tends not to award licences to those co mpanies where they would, in the jargon, interface with the community or a sensi- tive environment. I do not know of examples where that tendency to reward excellence has had a negative effect or resulted in lawsuits or claims of….

I think, when you offer business a carrot, it tends to attract some of the busi- ness people to want to achi eve a higher level in order to achieve more access. My question is simply: will the minister consider the possibility that there would be a concomitant opportunity in the gas industry that, I think, has existed for decades in the forest industry? Hon. R.

Neufeld: I guess if we look at the issue around the auction and getting the highest price — that's what auctions generally mean, regardless of whether you're selling a parcel of land to an oil com- pany for a term to go out and do some work, after they get approval from the Oil and Gas Commission to do it — I don't know how you would make it easier for a g o o d p e r f o r m e r t o a c t u a l l y h a v e a n e d g e i n t h a t p r o - cess. I think we want to maintain and make sure that we get the best dollar we can. It's the same.

The royalty structure is structured for everyone the same, and there's different royalty structures in the province to encourage the investment. I'm sure that the member is right. There are some folks that go beyond the call of duty, and we appreciate that. I know that, through the ministry and the Oil and Gas Commission, they constantly work with industry and the people to try — and in fact, where there are interfaces with the public — to do the best they can.

3810 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 I haven't said this up until now. Last year we drilled 1,300 wells in British Columbia. I believe that 150 were drilled on private land — 100 of those on ag- ricultural land. "Private land" could mean someone with a huge piece of land. There are large farms, large acreages in northeastern British Columbia, as the member knows. So very little of the total exploration that takes place in northeastern B.C…. It happens a long ways away from where people actually live, so the interface is reduced an awful lot.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some problems in the interface with those wells that are drilled where people live. That doesn't mean that the 100 wells were drilled right tight around the community. There are well over a million acres of farmland — cultivated land in northeastern British Columbia — and you have to take that into consideration when I say that a hundred of those wells were drilled on agricul- tural land. Some of those could be far removed from where anyone lives also. [1045] C. Evans: One more question to belabour this point, I guess. The minister references the royalty system.

Yesterday I thought the minister made quite a passion- ate argument that the way that he managed the portfo- lio best was not by making rigid rules but by talking to people. "Talk to people," the minister said, about: "Do they want the well in the centre of the hayfield or along the fenceline — or where do they want the road?" Logical things that might make the well more benign or pleas- ant or valuable or non-troublesome to the landowner. Would the minister consider, then, that…?

I won- der, after we talk to the company, what's the incentive — besides just being nice people — to work with the landowner in a way that's be neficial to the landowner? And if the company, in moving the well — say, at greater distance to a person who is at risk or, say, has asthma in their family — or putting the well outside of the hayfield or the grainfield….

If the minister might not consider that there would be a benefit to a royalty credit in some way, so when that talk-to happens, there could be a negotiation, and the company could be left financially whole for good works either with the envi- ronment or with citizens…. Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I believe it's pretty obvious to the industry, and to most people that live up there, that the industry has to have a good relationship with the communities that they ar e going to work in. That's why they set up offices.

That's why EnCana set up an office in Dawson Creek, because they're doing an awful lot of work just south of Dawson Creek so that they can interface in the community. People can actually have access to their office. They know that if they're going to have…. They need a good re lationship with the public if they are going to be able to continue to work, be- cause if they don't, things go the other way. It's an interesting process.

We talked yesterday afternoon, at length, about th e fact that the opposition didn't think we were charging enough rent, that we weren't getting enough rent from the oil and gas indus- try. In fact, the member from Fairview brought up the fact that all the major oil companies are making too much money, so why would we actually have different royalty structures? We should be charging them more. Why do we have a base-nine rate that, he argued for a long time, has a ceiling of 27 percent? In fact, he was of the opinion it should go way up.

Today, interestingly, had a night's sleep, came back, and all of a sudden, we want to reduce those. We want to reduce the land grant fo r those companies, or it's being suggested to me that we should reduce the rent, and we should reduce the royalties and make it easier and all those kinds of things. It's interesting for me to listen to both ends of the spectrum from the same opposition party. But we will continue to monitor the indu stry. There's a set of rules and regulations that they have to live up to, and I think the Oil and Gas Commission does a good job of actu- ally enforcing those regulations. C.

Evans: I take the minister's comment to be a no. I think the minister just said to me: "No, I will not con- sider some form of financial benefit to companies for acting with excellence or in compliance or to accom- modate community. The system does not need me to consider…." Is that what the minister said? Hon. R. Neufeld: I mean, the member can say no. What I'm saying is that there is, clearly, in British Co- lumbia, an auction process. It's interesting that the op- position would feel that in an auction process…. I guess you would apply that to all kinds of auctions.

In a Ritchie Bros. auction sale, if you've got someone who buys a lot of equipment — guess what — you're the top bidder. But you know what, folks? We're going to give that bidder a 20-percent reduction because they are a good bidder in this process. You know, you can't have it both ways. There's an auction process. I know th e opposition, when they were in government, consta ntly moved into different places and did those kind of things with a whole host of things. Talk about giving breaks to people.

For one of the worst-performing pulp mills in the province, when the NDP were in office in Prince Rupert — I don't know, how many…? A few hundred million — they gave to the worst performer. K. Krueger: Probably about $300 million. [1050] Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm corrected — $300 million. They gave $300 million to the worst performer. Yester- day they argued that the royalty rates were far too low — that we weren't getting economic rent. They went home and had a sleep, came back today and said: "Guess what. We ought to give some of them some more."

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3811 What I'm saying is that there's an auction process that I don't think you can meddle in. There is a regula- tion process that I don't think you can meddle in. You know, companies that do a good job on the land base will have good relationships with both first nations and non–first nations wherever they work. They know that, and that's what they do. C. Evans: One more time. Again, the hon. minister has helped me to understa nd my job. I'm asking a straight-up question — just kind of like you would.

Is the minister saying, no, he will not consider some form of royalty credit or financial compensation to a com- pany operating in excellence? Hon. R. Neufeld: Through the Chair to the mem- ber: again, I'll make it clear for the member, who tends to not want to understand that there's an auction pro- cess for the land. We're not meddling in that. There are regulations that change from time to time, and there is legislation that changes from time to time. The member is aware that that can happen. Legislation has to be discussed in the House. If, in fact, it comes to that — that some legislation in the future….

Who knows? I'm not going to be here forever. I can tell you that. Interjection. Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm here now — exactly. That's the place where you argue those things. I think the regulations are in place for worker safety, people safety, the safety of the industry, for making sure that we actually maximize the benefit to British Columbians from the resource. Am I going to meddle in that? No. Not at the present time. I have no intention of meddling in that. Does that mean that regulations won't change for different things as technology changes or other things change? It could.

When we talk about interfacing with land owners and using common sense — exactly. I would like to do that, because you can't always set in place an absolute that works for absolutely everybody. I think the member knows that, and he's playing cute with that. I think he know s that fully, and he would agree with me that you can't just have a solid regula- tion for something that deal s with one individual thing when you're dealing with farmers or land owners in different areas of the province. So do you want to be flexible? Do you want to try and work with those people?

Yes, we do, and that's exactly why we've put in place the consultation process that we're doing now in the northern Rockies and in the Peace River regional district to get some input from those people who are affected on the land base. G. Gentner: Yesterday we did have discussions on the royalty rates. To the minister: I did sleep on it, and before coming here today, I filled up my car. It's $1.10 a litre — $1.10 to fill up here. The price for consumers keeps going up, but the royalty rates for oil companies stays the same as the 1990s. [The bells were rung.] G. Gentner: I think we have to take leave?

The Chair: Member, a division has been called in the big House. We will stand recessed until following that vote. The committee recessed from 10:54 a.m. to 11:07 a.m. [A. Horning in the chair.] On Vote 26 (continued). G. Gentner: I almost lost my train of thought here after having to make several apologies. I'd like to quickly go into…. I think we're pretty well wrapping down our position on oil and gas. I mean, there are so many things we could be dealing with, but we certainly suppo rt the indulgence of the m inister on thi s is su e.

It's ver y im portant for m any of us and for those who have some impacts, particularly those residents in the hon. minister's constituency. I have before me a piece of correspondence from the Oil and Gas Commission advisory committee to Richard Koechl and Linda Haugen, of July 20, 2005, relative to an application for a request for reconsid- eration of Terra Energy Corporation's application for re-entry of a well site, dated approval June 9, 2005. The application to re-enter a sour gas well was granted by the Oil and Gas Commission in favour of Terra Energy Corporation — as of, of course, June 9, 2005.

Terra was not able to reach an agreement with the landowner to lease the land required for the re-entry, so it applied to the Mediation and Arbitration Board for assistance. We did talk briefly about the Mediation and Arbitration Board, and I'm not about to hone in on that area. I just want to go strictly to some of the concerns expressed by the Oil and Gas Commission advisory committee on this particular file.

I quote from page 4: "From the file materials it appears that there is a lack of clarity around the Min- istry of Energy and Mines deferred disposition proc- ess, and that the Ministry of Energy and Mines has not directly responded to the applicant's request for clarifying the information." Could the minister explain to the House why that is? [1110] Hon. R. Neufeld: It takes a while. I don't have a copy of the letter that the member is relating to. But having been involved, to a degree, with the issue along the Old Hope Road…. There was a tenure on th at land. There was a well drilled.

This company wanted to re-enter that well. All the lease payments had been made. They had the au- thority to go ahead and do that, and there was an ex- planation made to…. In fact, I think we had staff go up there and meet with the grou p to explain to them how the deferral process works.

3812 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 The deferral has to be before the land is sold, not after the land is sold. I hope that answers the member's question. G. Gentner: It does shed some light on it, but it means…. The question was…. The Ministry of Energy and Mines did not directly respond to the applicant's requests for clarifying inform ation, so that's on record. Is that not correct? Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't have a copy of the letter that the member has. If he wishes to share it with me, or identify if there is a CLIFF number on it or anything, so that the ministry can go back….

We don't bring all the letters to this room that are written by the ministry. There are hundreds, or thousands, of them. So if he would be so kind as to do that…. [1115] I know that we have made numerous attempts to explain, on many occasions, how the process works. In fact, I have a copy of a letter that was sent to the re- gional district in Dawson Creek, because they also re- quested the information on how deferrals work and all those kinds of things.

To be honest, I believe — unless I'm mistaken and someone didn't answer a letter; that could be a possibil- ity, but that would be a complete oversight, not an in- tent by the ministry — we've tried to give everybody as much information as we possibly can as it relates to the deferral process and the ability for companies to actu- ally re-enter wells that were drilled a long time ago. In fact, I believe the staff tell me that the lease was sold as long ago as 1955. G. Gentner: I have two more questions relative to this documentation. However, I could quickly run off a copy so he knows what I'm talking about.

And I have a member here who wants to move into alternate energy. I don't know if you have th at capacity. Hopefully, I can get back to this before we leave for lunch, because I think we want to wrap up the gas part of it, and I do want to give the minister an opportunity to look at the correspondence. If that's agreeable, I'll ph otocopy this. Then the hon. member next to me can qu ickly move into alternate energy. I'm assured by my colleague here that we'll have time to quickly revisit this document, if that's okay. Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. We will do that.

We'll get a copy of the letter, and the ministry can start looking for the response to it. I'll commit to the mem- ber that we'll deal with that process. G. Coons: Again, a pleasure. Thank you for being here, minister and staff. Back in March 2002 there

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0406am-04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0406am 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c78e3baf2a104b958346b961ccb92ce3c3fc4b70

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).