The Cabinet Secretary wrapped-up the meeting by stressing the need to move forward.  He asked whether there was a direction which honours the intent of the options presented without locking into a single option: i.e., “we’re going to do it, until and if we figure out a better way.”

 

Can we continue on the understanding that construction will start in 2010. While this has significant cost implications over the long term, it does mean that the next 18 months are relatively cheap, with the focus on design and development work – which is less significant than a large scale construction project with the size of contracts that implies.

 

For that purpose, how about the following balancing of the options in the document: We will maintain the schedule as laid out in the Minister’s instructions, aimed at decisions on construction to be taken by 2010.  We will follow through with those plans then, unless we find something better in the meantime, in which case we will do better.  We will deal better with the GHG issue, and will look to new technology to deal better with the new risks.

 

We’ll recognize existing legal obligations and intergovernmental constraints, but will use existing resources to explore all new options.  We’ll also press hard within intergovernmental channels to ensure progress toward the longer-run goal of rational, outcomes-based Smart Regulations.  We’ll come back together toward the end of 2009 with the results of all that intervening work, when we will be significantly better informed, and may also have channels to invest in BC-based new technologies.

 

The question for the DM-Finance is whether the government can find the necessary resources, in the order of some tens of millions of dollars, to pursue this approach?

 

The DM-Finance answered that the answer is yes if he gets his way on the options that are going to be analysed and how formal those options are going to be. But the way it was framed, where the options were not precise enough, the answer is maybe, and maybe no. However, it may not be possible to offer alternatives with any precision until stage II.

 

Conclusion: MoE to rework the document; rather than a note for decision (do this, or do that), it becomes a note for information (we’re doing this, and this is how we can supplement it appropriately in light of GHG issues, new technologies, new circumstances, economic development objectives and the significance of this investment over the longer term.)