May 15, 2008 - Estimates Debates:  Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
On Vote 27: ministry operations, $70,694,000 (continued)
Budget Estimates Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources   (system requirements) 

J. Horgan: In the Kelowna Capital News, April 8, 2008, "Lakeshore Gravel Pit Nixed," it says: "The concerns noted in the deliberations relate to the lack of sidewalks, small road shoulder area, no guarding, lack of sightlines and significant presence of recreational - parks and beach accesses - facilities along the road." So: "The chief inspector, in his deliberations, has judged that the risk to public safety outweighs the value of the resource." That was in Kelowna, a government constituency.

           In Malahat-Juan de Fuca, the Dale Arden Log Hauling Ltd. application to open up another 8.3 hectares of aggregate production was met at a public meeting in my constituency by 80 people talking about sightlines, about no sidewalks, about road safety and about access to Muir Creek, a proposed protected area. They talked about kelp harvesting, new economies for the west coast of Vancouver Island and a bed-and-breakfast that had been in place for some considerable period of time.

           Now faced with an increased number of trucks and pups coming out of what has become and what was initially a residential area, 70 people were speaking against a proposal to expand an existing facility - which, I am led to believe, has been in contravention of their permit a number of times since it was granted back in the 1980s.

           I'm curious, because it is a bit of a crapshoot when it comes to aggregate approvals in British Columbia. Some make it; some don't. It seems to me that the good people of Kelowna, according to the quotes in this news clipping, are absolutely delighted with the outcome of the process there. But in my community, where multiple piles of correspondence... The minister would have seen them, and certainly the inspector would have seen them.

           It's an actor who - I'm led to believe by the capital regional district - is in violation of some ordinances at the local zoning level, yet the government, through the inspector, issues an extension of a permit to the same player, who does not respond to concerns by the capital regional district. This is a big deal. I mean, it's not just in my constituency.

           I would suggest, and the minister would know.... I know he's going to get up and talk about the value of the resource and its importance to construction - roadbuilding in particular - and on and on. I understand all of that, Minister, and I don't want to begrudge you your moments to say those things.

           But there has to be a better way to have a public process than to encourage the public to engage and have them go through tremendous amounts of work, time and resources; come to public hearings; make their case; make compelling arguments about new economies in locations like my community in Otter Point and Shirley. The Muir Creek Protection Society is absolutely apoplectic at the prospect of more aggregate production in an area that should and soon will be designated as a protected area.

           If the good people of Kelowna can be successful with the Ministry of Highways stepping into the breach and saying that road safety, traffic safety, is a concern, I'm wondering in this instance if the minister can tell me why it is that sightlines, road safety, children catching the bus to school in the morning.... There are some restrictions on the new permit. In fact, there are significant restrictions on the new permit. But it doesn't seem to matter, because there are no site visits anyway.

           Can the minister explain to me so that I can advise the people in my constituency and, in fact, right across British Columbia that...? When they see a notice of meeting for a gravel application in their community, is there any point at all in coming out? Will the government listen to the concerns of communities?

           Hon. K. Krueger: Our process is a very, very careful process for evaluation of an application for a permit. I think that the critic knows that. Although I appreciate his attempt to inoculate against me talking about the value of the industry, I think it's important to put it on record, because he has put criticisms on record.

           Depending on what's going on in the economy, British Columbians use between nine and 15 tonnes of aggregate each, per capita, per year, just maintaining and rehabilitating existing infrastructure. Yes, we need this material for roads, hospitals, schools, bridges - everything we do. And it is the least expensive construction material. The biggest user of it is government.

           In some parts of the province it's in scarce supply. In other parts of the province it's plentiful. Although it's cheap, it's very heavy to transport, so you try to make sure that the resource is not sterilized close to areas that are going to be having a lot of construction.

           Kelowna, the Okanagan Valley, are under tremendous pressure from construction. People's decisions in Kelowna in the past have sterilized a good deal of the resource, and it's putting pressure on neighbouring communities, especially Lake Country. We in the division probably spend an inordinate amount of our time on aggregate issues, because these concerns come up very commonly.

           Every one of us lives in a clearcut. We know that. We've got a basement, because there aren't trees growing there anymore. Our basement is almost always made out of concrete, and that uses aggregate. Aggregate is sand, gravel and crushed rock, and it's a huge and burgeoning industry in British Columbia.

           We get these applications, and more and more we try to put the onus on the proponent. You talk to your neighbours. You find out what the issues are. You try and find out what people's objections are and think about how you could ameliorate those, satisfy your neighbours. We put a huge amount of time into this permitting process. Some permits are refused. On others, people eventually give up on their application because they don't want to meet all the conditions.

           Dealing with the Arden situation. As I understand it, this is private land divided into three lots. It's actually been a gravel site since the 1970s. There was a full public process, even though it wasn't actually required. There were 51 conditions imposed on the operator. There were several site visits during the review process by our personnel, who met with the owner twice when the permit was issued to make sure that he understands all the conditions. He'll be closely monitored, and the input of the member's constituents will be taken seriously.

           The member says that he is certain that I had an accumulation of correspondence. He made sure of that by giving my direct e-mail to his constituents, I think, because I got about 50 communications directly to me, and that hardly ever happens. Nor could my system really deal with it if everybody did that.

           There have not been any compliance issues found with this operator with regard to the new permit conditions. We know that people don't want to see gravel trucks in their neighbourhood and that they're fearful of dust. They don't like the idea of noise. We impose all sorts of conditions to try and deal with those things. At some sites we find the concerns of neighbours and of residents to be concerns that we can't find a solution to.

           The Kelowna operation that the member started out talking about.... That road absolutely, in our view, would be unsafe as far as the many other users of the road. It's not built for the kind of heavy truck traffic we are talking about. That operator could still come back for a permit if they find an alternate way in from the other side of their property. That's probably not likely, but if they do, it won't put neighbours in danger.

           We take all of these issues very seriously. The permitting process is very thorough. I thought that the critic came fairly close to suggesting that the decisions of the chief inspector of mines might be influenced by elected people. They aren't.

           I had people inviting me to take credit for the outcome in Kelowna, and I told the media that that was a decision of the chief inspector of mines. I don't get involved, and if I did, I'd have to shoulder the blame from unhappy constituents as well. But I'm no expert. He is, and so are the people who work for them. They do their job. They impose conditions; then they monitor to make sure the conditions are met.

           J. Horgan: Is there a duty to consult with first nations before giving mine aggregate permits?

           Hon. K. Krueger: I have been involved in some of those consultations with first nations myself. They've come to me - or proponents have - upset that first nations are consulted, and that's even on private land. My people assure me that yes, in every case first nations input is invited and that there are consultations with first nations.

           J. Horgan: Will the minister confirm that the Beecher Bay band, the Pacheedaht band and the T'sou-ke Nation were consulted before this permit was issued?

           Hon. K. Krueger: The Pacheedaht and the Te'mexw First Nations were consulted, and my people believe that those designations include the other first nation that the member named.

           J. Horgan: That consultation - what did it consist of? Was it correspondence? Was it visits? Was it a telephone call?

           Hon. K. Krueger: The consultation was by correspondence in this case, and that is routine with private land consultations.

           J. Horgan: Would the minister provide me with copies of the responses from those first nations?

           Hon. K. Krueger: We're not sure that there were responses, but if there were and if the first nations consent to it, we would release that correspondence.

           J. Horgan: Well, I had a discussion yesterday with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations in the truncated estimates process for that ministry. We talked about a duty to consult and accommodate on issues right across British Columbia. As a former Forests Minister who had, in the quote from the Supreme Court, dishonoured the Crown in a deletion of a tree farm licence in 2004, he is acutely aware of the responsibilities and obligations - not just as the minister now, but from a previous interaction with the courts.

           For the minister to stand and tell me that consultation took place is fair enough. Letters were sent. Capacity is the challenge. The minister knows this, and certainly, the Minister of Energy knows that capacity within various bands is uneven at best.

           Is the minister saying that letters were sent and we don't know if there were answers? We don't know if the first nations received that correspondence? Was it registered mail? Was there a read receipt on an e-mail?

           Hon. K. Krueger: My staff assure me that letters were sent. They are unaware of responses. I hear from first nations - and I talked about it earlier - that they do have capacity issues. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did not write a letter on an application involving private land.

           Capacity is an issue for all of us. Government is moving to try and streamline the processes to make consultation less onerous for first nations. We will review the file, and we'll get back to you on these questions.

           The member had expressed an urgency in getting through the Mining estimates. We've spent a lot of time on one application. I recognize that it's his own constituents, and I'd do the same thing if I was in his shoes. But I really don't have anything more to tell him right now except that we will review our file and advise the member of what's pertinent.

           J. Horgan: Certainly, the Arden pit is in my constituency. I have many, many - in fact, 100-plus - constituents living in a rural community on the west coast of Vancouver Island that are profoundly unhappy that what had been....

           We talked in estimates last year about violations of the previous permit with respect to the Arden pit, so I use this as a symbol and as an example of the aggregate sector right across the province. I've spoken with the member from Mission who has been working on the Fraser Valley pilot.

           It's not confined to my constituency. It's a big, big problem - not just for us as elected representatives, but for the people in the communities that we represent. For people to come out in large numbers, to do massive amounts of research, to do land title searches, to explore alternative economic activities in their community, and to have someone who has - I'm advised - not lived up to the spirit and intent of the initial permit to be granted a second and additional permits on larger pieces of land.... It is disheartening, at best, for constituents who take government at face value.

           I am speaking as the critic, and I'm speaking as the MLA for this particular area, but a recent public opinion survey put us down well below lawyers in terms of public sympathy for the activities we undertake. It's in no small measure a result of decisions like the Arden gravel decision, where people came out in good conscience and expressed their concerns, and there were very, very few people that weren't being paid to say it was a good idea at the meeting.

           Representatives from the ministry were there. You can review the tapes of the discussions. There were very positive ideas put forward - people trying to find ways to make money on the west coast of the Island. It's a long way away from here as the crow flies. It's even further if you try to drive there on the West Coast Road.

           The Ministry of Transportation advises me that they have significant concerns about sightlines. The school bus stops right in front of where this pit is going to be.

           I guess, as I look at the clock, we want to move on. But I can't impress enough upon the minister that we all are suffering, certainly those in rural communities that have aggregate deposits, from a process that's not rigorous enough with respect to the public participation.

           If you're not going to listen to people, don't invite them. Just issue the permit, and then let the chips fall where they may. If you're going to genuinely listen to people and consult with people, you don't just send them a letter. If the first nations on the west coast of the Island have a genuine concern, if they don't have the capacity to get back to you, it's too late. This permit was issued in March. The public meeting - it's not a hearing - took place in December. When did the letter go out? What did you ask them to consult about? Was there an accommodation?

           I know that it's not the minister's responsibility, nor is it staff's in the Mines branch, but these very same people have had the Western Forest Products' private land deletion visited upon them as well. They were going about their business blissfully as citizens of British Columbia, assuming that the neighbourhood they lived in was a rural area that had resource lands dedicated to forestry - that are now going to become real estate lands.

           They thought that a bad actor was going to finish up his process. He was going to close his pit. That permit would expire, and the end of.... Aggregate collection at the mouth of Muir Creek would stop. Instead seven hectares of land has now been opened up for more production.

           Noting the time, hon. Chair, if the minister wants to respond, he can.

           The people in my community are profoundly unhappy, and they're not alone. I have members in the North Coast, in Powell River and in the Interior - all concerned - who have asked to speak, but we don't have the time. The minister can repeat it if he wants to put it on the record, but we understand the value of the commodity.

           As I said to someone in the restaurant today, if industry is going to have to pay a premium to get the product from a distance farther than a subdivision or a rural community, that's going to be put into the cost of whatever it is they're doing anyway. So it's passed on to the customer - whether it be government, whether it be real estate, whether it be construction - and to try and get the cheapest product possible at the expense of communities, in my opinion, is wrong.

           I would hope that the minister.... We have been on this for a couple of years now, since he was sworn in. In fact, the previous minister and I engaged in this discussion not three years ago. So it's a big deal. I'm not doing it just because it's my backyard. I hear it from everyone. The minister hears it from his colleagues as well. It's a problem. I would suggest that it might be useful for us to come up with a solution to what has become quite a challenge for people in our communities.

           Hon. K. Krueger: My understanding is that this operation has been a gravel site for over 30 years. Two of the neighbours who are unhappy with the operation actually purchased their property from this operator and, obviously, knew that it was an industrial site and had been used for a long time. I sympathize with them, as I genuinely do with a lot of the people that I hear from.

           I get vociferous complaints from one site in the Okanagan where the people actually live in a reclaimed gravel pit, and they don't like to see gravel pits near them. Aggregate is a necessary thing, and it's very blithe for the opposition to say, as the member for Skeena said one day: "Ah, just pass all the costs on to industry. They've got to do business anyway." Well, that certainly drives up the cost of people's housing, of construction, of infrastructure for government. It also puts a lot of wear and tear on public roadways, and that has to be paid for somehow.

           I am told that some of the residents in the area declared a park on private property and just started calling it a park, when it is actually somebody else's property. People like to see everything left in its natural state around them, many times, but the very place they live in is not in its natural state. There is growth, and these things have to be worked out between people.

           It's completely unfair to suggest that the public process and the process itself did not have any result. There were 51 conditions imposed on the operator. That is onerous. He's being monitored. The inspectors went and checked for compliance on April 24 and May 12 and didn't find any violations, any non-compliance, on those conditions.

           I urge the member to be fair to the civil service - they're doing their jobs - and also to the operator. He had a pre-existing operation. I don't know how many of the constituents that the critic and I have heard from have been there longer than 30 years, but if not, then obviously they knew what was there when they decided that they were going to take up residence.

           J. Horgan: Just to round this out, then, and I'll send the minister on his way. I don't mean to besmirch his staff. I know he wasn't suggesting that. I know that it's a tough job.

           But the results seem to be consistently in favour of the applicant and against the community. Probability tells me that that shouldn't happen as regularly as it does. That tells me, then, that the process that our public servants are forced to comply with has some deficiencies in it with respect to community participation.

           It's not that they're not doing what they're supposed to do. I'm not suggesting that at all, and the minister isn't suggesting I said that. I'm saying that it's not working effectively for communities. We need to find some way to amend the process so that if people are going to dial in and engage in public debate.... We all want to encourage that, whether it be on these issues or other public policy issues. I think that makes for a vibrant democracy. But people are dialling out or tuning out of our processes in huge numbers, and the minister knows this. This is the sort of thing that feeds the cynicism of: "Why should I bother?"

           I guess I don't begrudge Mr. Arden his ability to make a couple of bucks, but it is right on the coast. It's on the beach. It's at the mouth of a creek that is at the headwaters, as drinking water for the community. It's industrial activity that's continuing beyond what had been contemplated 30 years ago.

           Thirty years ago it wasn't an industrial operation to the scale and extent that it will be as a result of this permit. It was a small operation. You dig up a bit of rock. You move it around. You send it to a buddy. You fill up a truck. That's fine. It's a lot more than that now. The roadway, I don't believe, will take it.

           As I say, I have discussed this with the Ministry of Transportation. I know they're part of the process. They don't have a veto - maybe they shouldn't have a veto - but they appeared to have something to say in Kelowna that had weight, and it didn't have the same weight on Vancouver Island. That's the contradiction I wanted to bring to the minister's attention.

           With that, I'll conclude my discussion on the mining section of this.

           Hon. K. Krueger: I have no burning desire to have the last word, but I do want to make it clear on the record that the Kelowna permit was denied because there was no way to impose conditions that would satisfy the concerns that the experts had with that site. In this case, a lot of conditions were imposed, and that's why the decision was made as it was.

           As far as economic activity in this province, if nothing was allowed to proceed unless there were no objections from anyone, very little would be happening. We would have a very sad economy. We're doing our best. We welcome public input. We are very genuine about our public input processes. The critic has raised some examples where that ended up in the project not being allowed, and others where projects have been allowed with conditions.

           I want to thank the critic and the members opposite and, certainly, all of the staff who joined me today and who work so hard for the people of British Columbia, every day. Thank you, everybody.