2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33)

Hon. C. Hansen

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Partnership network for community fundraising

P. Wong

Nursing partnership program

P. Sahota

Museum Act and heritage legacy fund

S. Orr

Oral Questions

Availability of health supplements for disability benefits recipients

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. Coell

Renewing funding for the lower mainland treaty advisory committee (LMTAC)

H. Long

Hon. G. Plant

Comments on Accenture by Energy and Mines minister

P. Nettleton

Downstream benefits from power projects

G. Trumper

Hon. R. Thorpe

Transfer of patients from Gorge Road Hospital

S. Orr

Hon. K. Whittred

Salvage logging

J. Wilson

Hon. M. de Jong

Release of documents in former Agriculture, Food and Fisheries minister investigation

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Border crossings and B.C.–U.S. trade

J. Les

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

Reports from Committees

Special Committee of Selection, first report, fourth session of the thirty-seventh parliament

Hon. G. Collins

Committee of the Whole House

Procurement Services Act (Bill 23)

Hon. S. Santori

Reporting of Bills

Procurement Services Act (Bill 23)

Third Reading of Bills

Procurement Services Act (Bill 23)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Management of public funds and debt

Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Murray

B. Kerr

S. Orr

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services

(continued)

T. Christensen

Hon. G. Abbott

L. Mayencourt

R. Hawes

J. Bray

R. Stewart

P. Sahota

[ Page 5979 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

P. Wong:

I'm honoured to introduce several guests in the gallery today. They are all

attending a master's degree program for public administration at the University

of British Columbia since last fall. After graduating this summer, they will

return to our B.C. sister province, Guangdong province in the People's Republic

of China, to serve their government.

[1405]

The group

is led by Ms. Kaiyuan Tao, Senior Judge and Associate Chief Justice of the High

Court of Guangdong province. Other members include Bin Chen, Senior Judge and

Associate Chief Judge of Guangzhou Maritime Court, Guangdong province; Mr.

Yuliang Li, director of the organization division of Zhanjiang Port Affairs

Bureau; and Mr. Jian Chen, deputy director of the justice publicity division of

Guangdong Provincial Justice Department. May the House please make them most

welcome.

R. Lee:

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to introduce some officials from the

People's Republic of China who are pursuing advanced studies in British

Columbia. They are leaders in science and technology administration in China:

Dehua Chen, vice-president of administrative committee of Zhongkai high-tech

zone of Huizhou City; Zhihua Liang, director of science and technology division

of Guangdong Provincial Construction Department; and Yimin Lin, director-general

of Shantou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau.

Would the

House please join me to give our distinguished visitors the warmest welcome.

Brice: In the gallery today are 26 grade 5 students from Lochside Elementary

with their teacher, Ms. Keeb. Not only is Lochside Elementary in my riding of

Saanich South, it is also in my neighbourhood, so I ask the House to make them

welcome.

Chong: I join with my two colleagues, the members for Vancouver-Kensington

and for Burnaby North, in welcoming some visitors from the People's Republic of

China. We had the pleasure of having them join us for lunch today, and I know

they very much like being in our beautiful province and are enjoying their

studies at the University of British Columbia.

I would

like to introduce Huijun Chen. She's the vice-president of the Workers Union of

the Guangdong Provincial Economic and Trade Commission. She's commonly referred

to and has adopted the western name of Karen. Also, Zhixiong Shen, who is the

director, general planning office of the Guangdong Provincial Information

Industry Department, and Junfa Guo, director of science and technology division

of Guangdong Provincial Transportation Department, and he has a common western

name, known as Mike.

Would the

House please make them welcome.

B. Kerr:

In the gallery today is Lara Harker, Sara Kubica, Tannis McDonnell, Kelly McLeod

and Heather Russell. They're here from the Frances Kelsey Secondary School

debating team, along with their teacher, Phil Archer, and parent volunteer, C.J.

Kubica. They've done a tour of the museum; they've had a visit to the

Legislature. Because they're on the debating team, they've come to watch

question period to hear the thrust and parry of intelligent debate during

question period, so I hope the House will make them feel very welcome.

Suffredine: We have a member of this House who believes that under the

constitution and in accordance with the Magna Carta, everyone is entitled to

hunt and fish on their birthday. He's getting on in years. He's not as old as

the Minister of Sustainable Resources; he's not even as old as you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker: Order! [Laughter.]

Suffredine: He's not old enough to receive congratulatory letters from the

Prime Minister or the Queen, but he's well into the second half of his first

century. I know the member for East Kootenay would appreciate this House wishing

him a happy birthday or happy hunting and fishing on his birthday today, and a

happy birthday sitting by his coal-fired fireplace.

Mayencourt: I have a couple of friends here in the gallery, just looking up

there. The first is Daniel Fontaine. Daniel was the constituency assistant to

the Minister of Health in another life and is now with Western Brewers

Association. Beside him is Mark Jiles. Mark is an incredible campaigner who

worked very, very hard on the yes committee for the Olympic bid. He was also the

campaign manager for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and did a pretty good

job of getting him elected. So I would just ask the House to please make them

welcome.

[1410]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HEALTH SERVICES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. C.

Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

[ Page 5980 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce the Health Services Statutes Amendment Act,

2003, which will ensure appropriate MSP billings, update legislation around

hospital funding and improve our ability to ensure food safety.

I would

first like to mention the amendments to the Medicare Protection Act to better

protect our health care dollars. The amendment will speed up the process for

following up with physicians who have irregular billings. It will allow us

quicker remedies in those rare cases where the Medical Services Plan may have

been overbilled. Occasionally, there are cases where patients are overserviced,

and consequently the Medical Services Plan is billed for more care than is

appropriate. We expect these changes will result in faster resolution of

hearings that could potentially result in cancellation or restriction of a

physician's right to bill the Medical Services Plan.

The

ministry will also have recourse to order mediation to resolve disputes

regarding MSP billings, if necessary. These changes will reduce hurdles we face

currently in ensuring that there is proper accountability to the public.

Secondly,

the bill will update the language in the Hospital Insurance Act. Some of our

older legislation refers to outdated business practices that existed prior to

regionalization being introduced to our health care system. This bill will amend

the Hospital Insurance Act to reflect the fact that hospital funding now flows

through the health authorities, and previously these funds went directly to

hospitals.

Finally,

the bill will revise the Food Safety Act to protect the public from harm. The

amendment will allow licensing officers to review proposed alterations to

existing food preparation facilities and renovations to new and existing food

establishments. We are doing this to ensure that the public's well-being is not

adversely affected by construction practices in premises where food is being

prepared. These changes ensure that health-related legislation is up to date and

appropriate.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 33

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

PARTNERSHIP NETWORK

FOR COMMUNITY FUNDRAISING

P. Wong:

Having represented the riding of Vancouver-Kensington for nearly two years

now, I have met with many disadvantaged groups that are desperately in need of

financial help to build a better community. Parents have told me that they

recycled bottles and cans for three months to help students for a sports day,

yet they were able to raise only $300. They have drained their resources, but

the money generated was dismal. They are in need of assistance from the

community at large. The good news is that there are many individuals and

organizations willing to help. Several volunteers came to form the Better

Community Partnership Outreach Network, or BCPON. They are Johnny Fong, a

philanthropist; Bennie Yung, a businessman; and Bill Lim, a lawyer.

We intend

to use this network to breach the gap between groups in financial needs and

those groups that have the funds or means to help. I'm pleased to announce that

the Vancouver Oakridge Lions Club is the first sponsor partner and has agreed to

set up a fundraising event to raise $5,000 for the South Vancouver Police

Community Association. This is a good start for a community group to help each

other. There are several other groups that require financial help. They

understand the government is doing all it can to restore our province's fiscal

health and, as such, cannot provide funding to all the worthwhile groups.

However, they must continue their efforts to raise funds to make contributions

to the community.

I am

pleased to inform the House that we have received many inquiries that are

willing to participate in the partnership network. It's my sincere hope that if

this network pilot project is successful, I can share this working experience

with my colleagues. I will post this information on my constituency website

soon. I would also like to thank the individuals that form the community

network, BCPON, and the sponsor partners already on board.

[1415]

NURSING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Sahota: Recently I had the great pleasure to be part of a very special

ceremony at the UBC school of nursing. UBC hosted four exchange students from

the Guru Nanak college of nursing from Punjab, India. During their stay here the

four young women attended classes, observed clinical practice and learned about

some of the research projects that are underway at the school. Last week the

four students headed back to India, taking back with them knowledge, technical

know-how and a Canadian educational experience that will make them great

contributors to their own country.

These

relationships and partnerships are unique, special and inspirational. This

partnership is about a very special group of people who want to make the

education of young women a priority in a part of the world that is still

struggling. Due to the involvement of the UBC school of nursing and people like

the founder, Mr. Budh Singh Dhahan, this international partnership has

flourished. In addition, UBC is helping the college become an internationally

recognized baccalaureate degree institution of nursing, because then the

students are more prepared and eligible for registration internationally.

This

partnership is also very aware that there are many challenges with brain drain,

so it has put specific

[ Page 5981 ]

strategies in place to avoid the potential to drain human or other resources.

The active participation of people like Dr. Sally Thorn, who is a director at

UBC school of nursing, Sarup Mann, Ajmer Mann, Ajit Thandi, Barj Dhahan, Balbir

Gurm and many others not only contributes greatly to our society here in Canada,

but they rise to the occasion to address the challenges that are global. These

people have the foresight and the vision to help foster the development of

education for women in India, so they, too, can reach their highest potential.

I am

privileged to know them, and I wish them much success in the future.

MUSEUM ACT AND

HERITAGE LEGACY FUND

S. Orr:

When I get excited about something, I like to make sure that everyone knows

about it.

Krueger: It's true.

S. Orr:

I think if I was younger, fitter, cuter and had different coloured hair, I would

be a cheerleader. Let me tell you what I'm pumped about: the new Museum Act and

the new B.C. heritage legacy fund. Both of these initiatives have been

championed by the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Our culture

is the soul of our society. Everything we can do to protect it enhances our

lives. I know that the constituents of Victoria-Hillside would agree with me.

The Museum Act now opens the doors to enable our museum to go after bigger and

better exhibits. Many world-famous exhibits are hesitant to come, as they do not

want to deal with governments but prefer to negotiate with independent bodies.

The museum

is a treasure, and it now has the tools to deal on the world stage. We will all

benefit from this when we get to experience all sorts of large, exciting,

interesting and world-famous exhibits.

The

heritage legacy fund with its partners, the Heritage Society of B.C. and the

Land Conservancy, now allows communities to take leadership in heritage

conservation. Again, we will all benefit as we protect our history.

Well done,

minister. It was long overdue. In another cultural language — Australia:

"Good on ya."

Oral Questions

AVAILABILITY OF HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS

FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS RECIPIENTS

MacPhail: My questions follow up on the theme of the private statement from

the member from Kensington.

Corrinnia

Laurie is a constituent of mine. She's a single mom with two kids. She's on

disability assistance. The ministry, thankfully, didn't force her to go through

the disability review. Ms. Laurie needs a kidney transplant and must stay on a

low-sodium diet. She needs expensive nutritional supplements merely to stay

alive, but the Minister of Human Resources will not help cover the cost.

To the

minister: can he explain why Ms. Laurie would be turned down for nutritional

supplements that will save her life, and how many more people like Ms. Laurie

are being turned away?

Hon. M.

Coell: As the member knows, I can't discuss individual cases, but I will

assure her that I will review that case for her.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

[1420]

MacPhail: One of Ms. Laurie's children, Isabella, was born prematurely, and

she suffers from serious health issues. She's one year old, and her pediatrician

says she needs expensive, special baby formula. Her pediatrician submitted a

letter asking the ministry to provide Isabella with the necessary formula, but

the ministry wrote back and denied the request. They said that the baby was too

old, just over a year, and therefore ineligible. They said there was no medical

justification. They told her she should use her disability funds to buy

regularly priced formula.

Can the

Minister of Human Resources explain why his ministry would deny a baby a special

supplement for baby formula? How much could that possibly cost?

Hon. M.

Coell: As I've said to the member, I will have that case reviewed for her.

MacPhail: Well, I appreciate that the minister says he will look into this

issue, but he'd better move quickly. In desperation, Ms. Lorry is asking for

money on the street to buy formula for her child's needs. She is not willing to

compromise the health of her baby daughter by waiting for the appeal process.

She is on the street panhandling right now.

Again to

the Minister of Human Resources. Can he explain how his government could be so

cold-hearted that it would deny a baby specialized formula that it needs to stay

healthy, forcing that baby's mother to ask for money on the street?

Hon. M.

Coell: As I said, privacy laws in this province don't allow me to speak

about individual cases in this House, but I'll assure the member I will review

the situation.

RENEWING FUNDING FOR THE

LOWER MAINLAND TREATY

ADVISORY COMMITTEE (LMTAC)

H. Long:

I'd like to ask a public written question submitted by Ed Steeves, chairman of

the Sunshine Coast regional district, to the Minister Responsible for Treaty

Negotiations.

Further to

the declaration made in the February 11 Speech from the Throne, the Minister

Responsible for

[ Page 5982 ]

Treaty Negotiations emphasized the government's renewed commitment to

revitalize the treaty process. Given the fact that your government is committed

to recognizing local government as a legitimate third level of government and

that the local government considerations are a crucial aspect in treaty

settlements, when will the provincial government renew their previous funding

commitment to the lower mainland treaty advisory committee to ensure that local

governments' positions and positive input into these critical negotiations will

again be articulated?

Hon. G.

Plant: I want to express my thanks to Mr. Steeves for submitting the

question. Yes, government is committed to doing what we can to revitalize and

reinvigorate the treaty process in British Columbia, and local governments have

a very important role. We have an obligation, as a provincial government, to

listen to local government and to try to give effect to their interests at the

table.

We don't

have the funds at the moment that will allow us to support the very good work

that is being done by the lower mainland treaty advisory committee. From time to

time we have been able to fund specific tables around the province in a few

areas where that's been needed to ensure that the local government discussion is

a good one, and we are always willing to look at those opportunities when they

arise.

I have to

say that government truly appreciates the work of the lower mainland treaty

advisory committee, and I hope they will continue. I hope the individuals who

are the members of that committee will continue to devote the time and the

energy that they do devote to ensuring that we, as a provincial government, get

the benefit of their insight into these important questions.

COMMENTS ON ACCENTURE

BY ENERGY AND MINES MINISTER

Nettleton: I was absolutely astounded at the answers I received from the

Minister of Energy and Mines in the late sitting of the Legislature Wednesday

night, which was last night. I was confronting the minister on the issue of

Accenture appointments to the board of newly formed Accenture Business Services

of British Columbia, which has taken over the management services of B.C. Hydro.

Responding

to my questions regarding whether the minister was aware of Accenture's history,

especially in connection to the reported connections with Arthur Andersen and

Enron, the minister stated: "It's obviously no secret that Accenture and

Arthur Andersen were a business before. I think we have to move forward from

there, and we should not say that anyone that ever worked for Andersen

Consulting, Arthur Andersen or Enron are all bad people. Obviously we know the

name," he went on to say. "I've confirmed the name, and that should

answer the question."

[1425]

My question

is: will someone, will anyone on the government side of the House, act

immediately to protect the interests of British Columbians in this sordid affair

and demand this minister's resignation?

DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS

FROM POWER PROJECTS

Trumper: I have a question for the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. On Vancouver Island there has been a great deal of discussion about

the need for more power generation, and within the discussions around power

generation, the potential for downstream benefits is often emphasized. Could the

minister explain to my constituents what the downstream benefits are, who owns

them and how the province benefits from them?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Downstream benefits are half of the additional electricity generated

in the United States as a result of dams built in the Kootenays during the

1960s. These benefits are owned by the province of British Columbia. These

benefits returned almost $360 million to the provincial government when sold on

the open market in the fiscal year 2001-02. That's $360 million that went to the

priorities of our government — namely, health care and education.

Government

must ensure that it gets the greatest return from these assets that is possible

from the downstream benefits. For example, in the past two months we have

received upwards of $85 per megawatt-hour of electricity through sales of the

downstream benefits. This is almost three times what we would have received if

these benefits had been sold at B.C. Hydro's current industrial rate.

Government

must ensure that this legacy for British Columbians is there for all the

interests of all British Columbians. That is why we are focusing our efforts on

getting the best financial return for all British Columbians.

TRANSFER OF PATIENTS

FROM GORGE ROAD HOSPITAL

S. Orr:

My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home

Care. Patients from the Gorge Road Hospital, which is in my riding, are

currently being transferred to other local facilities. Some of my constituents

have expressed concern that the residents of the Gorge Road Hospital, who have

received excellent care at that facility over many years, will not receive the

same quality of care at the facilities they are being transferred to. I ask the

minister: where are these patients going, and what level of care will they

receive?

Hon. K.

Whittred: I would like to assure the member that the patients from Gorge

Road will certainly be cared for at the same level they have been accustomed to.

In fact, Gorge Road Hospital is quite an obsolete facility. It has been slated

for closure for several years. I'm really happy to announce that the new Mount

St. Mary facility has been opened. I had the pleasure of attending the opening

just the other week, and the

[ Page 5983 ]

residents were delighted with their new surroundings. They are in a modern,

up-to-date facility suitable for their care.

SALVAGE LOGGING

Wilson: My question today is for the Minister of Forests. A major part of

good forest stewardship involves the removal of windthrown and insect- or

beetle-infested timber known as salvage timber. It provides three major benefits

if it's addressed properly. First, it adds a valuable source of fibre to the

market. Second, and importantly, it protects the health of our aging forests.

Third, it provides a considerable number of jobs in the harvesting sector

because of the low-volume production.

Many people

have been pleading for a good salvage program for years. Up until now it has

been ad hoc at best, varying from district to district. Can the Minister of

Forests tell us if he is prepared to address the small-scale salvage in British

Columbia?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. He alludes to an issue that

has not received a great deal of public attention since the forest

revitalization plan was unveiled last week but is a very important part. The

member has correctly identified the fact that not only do British Columbians

expect the fibre we grow here to be processed here, but they expect us to

maximize the fibre that we harvest, including salvage.

[1430]

I'm pleased

to remind all members that thanks to the work of the members for Cariboo North,

Okanagan-Vernon, Prince George North, Skeena and other members — Kamloops, as

well, the shy, retiring member from Kamloops — that small-scale salvage is

very much a part of this revitalization program to the extent that we have, on

the advice of communities, created or are in the process of creating a new

community salvage tenure that will ensure there is enhanced access to that

salvaged fibre and ensure that we implement this in a way that maximizes those

benefits. The member for Prince George North and the member for Cariboo North

will serve on a committee of MLAs to liaise with all members of the salvage

community to ensure we meet our objectives.

RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS IN FORMER

AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND

FISHERIES MINISTER INVESTIGATION

MacPhail: Given that the special prosecutor has decided not to press

criminal charges against the former Fisheries minister, the government should

have no trouble tabling all documents relating to the investigation. British

Columbians still have the right to know why the former minister tipped off a

fish farmer about an investigation into its practices. Will the Attorney General

please table those documents today?

Hon. G.

Plant: The usual practice, which is going to be followed in this case, is

that the work done by a special prosecutor in respect of potential criminal

investigation is privileged, and as I say, I think it would be good to respect

that practice in this case. I'm not aware of any documents the member refers to

that would fall outside the scope of the work done to investigate a criminal

matter by the special prosecutor, but if there are documents she believes are in

the hands of other ministries that are or ought to be a matter of public record,

then she could certainly make inquiries of those ministries.

BORDER CROSSINGS

AND B.C.–U.S. TRADE

J. Les:

My question is for the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. My

constituency, like most of British Columbia, is heavily dependent on trade with

the United States. However, in the light of current events, many of my

constituents are concerned that cross-border trade will suffer, costing

individuals and businesses time and money. Can the minister inform this House

what is being done by our government to ensure that the free flow of goods

across the U.S. border is maintained?

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: As the member is aware, the border is a federal

responsibility. However, the provincial government has been actively engaging

many American officials on this issue. As you know, the Premier met just last

week met with Ambassador Cellucci to convey the importance to the Americans of

the free flow of goods across our border. I also attend the Canadian-American

Border Trade Alliance meetings and continue to push Canadian and American

officials wherever possible to create a more efficient border.

We've

recognized the legitimate concerns that both Canadians and Americans have over

security, and in fact the province has been actively working with Canadian and

U.S. security officials to make sure that any cargo leaving the port of

Vancouver and going across the border is, in fact, secure.

Finally,

I'm very proud, as has been mentioned before, that our government has approved

$130 million towards the improvement of border infrastructure. This investment

will significantly increase the capacity of our border crossings.

[End

of question period.]

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order.

Point of Order

J. MacPhail:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek your guidance with respect to a

matter raised in the estimates debate of the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection.

Last night

in debate I asked the minister if she was the lead for this government on making

submissions to

[ Page 5984 ]

the National Energy Board's hearings on the Sumas 2 project. The minister

replied: "The political lead on this issue is John van Dongen." I know

the minister meant to say the member for Abbotsford-Clayburn, but my question to

you is this. If ministers of this government are passing on ministerial

responsibilities to government caucus, private members, MLAs of the government,

in what forum are those backbench MLAs accountable to the public for those

responsibilities?

[1435]

understanding of the standing orders of this House is that I am only able to put

questions to the members of the executive council. I'm well aware that the line

has been almost eliminated between this government's ability to distinguish

between executive and legislative functions of the government. But perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, after giving this some thought, you can shed some light on how the

opposition can have questions answered in estimates or in question period when

the ministers of the Crown have abdicated their responsibilities to a private

member. I seek your guidance on it, and I await the answer.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. I'll take your point of order under advisement.

Hon. G.

Collins: First of all, the member opposite should raise a matter of order

that occurred in committee in the committee, not in the whole House, and I think

she's aware of that.

Second of

all, I know that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection will be prepared

to answer her questions with regard to that issue to the best of her ability. If

we require staff from the other ministries to provide answers, we'll endeavour

to do that, as well, to make sure that the questions can be answered to the best

of the ability or the willingness of the minister to provide answers to the

member.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you for your input. We'll come back to the House with a

response in due course.

Reports from Committees

Hon. G.

Collins: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special

Committee of Selection for the fourth session of the thirty-seventh parliament.

I move that

the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to

permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave

granted.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services. In this House, I call committee stage debate of

Bill 23.

Committee of the Whole House

PROCUREMENT SERVICES ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:39 p.m.

Sections 1

to 8 inclusive approved.

On

section

[1440]

Hon. S.

Santori: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 9 standing in my name

on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 9, in the proposed

section 9 by deleting "Minister

of Finance and Corporate Relations" and substituting

"Minister of Management Services".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 9

as amended approved.

Sections 10

to 12 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. S.

Santori: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:41 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 23,

Procurement Services Act, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. S.

Santori: With leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Bill

23, Procurement Services Act, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 5985 ]

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:42 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MANAGEMENT

OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND DEBT

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm moving an amendment. I've already advised the Leader of the

Opposition — a vote that was missed during the earlier estimates. I move vote

Vote 41:

management of public funds and debt, $926,000,000 — approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

— or advise members that that will be taking place. I move the committee

recess until 3 p.m. to await the arrival of the minister as well as the Leader

of the Opposition.

The

committee recessed from 2:42 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION

(continued)

On vote 40:

ministry operations, $98,712,000 (continued) .

Hayer: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 11 students from the

Fraser Heights Secondary School in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead and their

teachers, Mr. Tino D'Alfonso, Miss Sharon Shilliday and Glen Payne, visiting the

House and parliament buildings today. Would the House please make them very

welcome.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: Under goal 1 of the service plan of the Ministry of Water, Land,

and Air Protection, the ministry promises to protect the environment and human

health and safety by ensuring clean and safe water, land and air. A subcategory

of this goal is the objective to limit air pollution and contribute to meeting

global atmospheric objectives. Could the minister detail some of the policy that

she hopes will achieve this objective?

Point of Order

Hon. J.

Murray: The member opposite raised a point of order today in the House. I

would like leave to respond to that before answering the question that was

posed.

The

Chair: Proceed.

Hon. J.

Murray: The question was raised about the government's intervention in Sumas

2 and the National Energy Board hearings. There's a joint intervention. The

province is working closely with the city of Abbotsford. On the province's side,

this complex issue is a team effort. I am the lead on air quality issues. The

Attorney General is the lead on legal issues. The Minister of State for

Intergovernmental Relations leads with issues around the relationship between

British Columbia and Washington State, and the Minister of Energy and Mines

leads on energy and power policy. The ministers work together as a team.

If the

member opposite has questions relating to air quality — those technical

aspects — I would advise the member to direct those questions to me; if the

member has issues around legal complexities, to the Attorney General, and so

forth. The group works as a team. They bring together a number of the pieces of

the puzzle. Because of the many aspects of this issue, the group is chaired by

the member for Abbotsford-Clayburn, who is also the link with Abbotsford city

and the other Fraser Valley MLAs.

My comments

yesterday attempted to reflect this complexity in this approach. We believe it's

a sensible approach, and the appropriate minister can be asked about the

appropriate aspect of this very important issue — stopping the SE2 power plant

from being built in the Fraser Valley airway. I expect that the member opposite

will continue to support those efforts of this government.

[1515]

MacPhail: Well, thanks for the clarification. That was the question I asked

last night. I was asking questions on air quality, airshed. I was asking the

minister that, and she referred me to someone else. Thank you for finally

getting it right, I guess.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: My question stands.

Hon. J.

Murray: To support the goal of cleaner and safer air, the ministry is part

of the team opposing the SE2 power plant. The ministry leads local airshed

planning with other partners in local areas where there are concerns. The

ministry is doing technical work to improve our understanding of these issues.

The ministry is leading a set of airshed characterizations as part of its work

to develop a framework for improving air quality in British Columbia.

[ Page 5986 ]

MacPhail: Is there a workplan that the ministry has developed — a

coordinated and cohesive workplan to combat climate change?

Hon. J.

Murray: Government is working on a climate change plan, yes.

MacPhail: The government is working on a climate change plan. Is that work

being done in accordance with the federal government's commitments to the Kyoto

protocol?

Hon. J.

Murray: That work is being done in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

in British Columbia, which supports the federal government's Kyoto protocol

work.

MacPhail: What aspects of the workplan will incorporate the federal

government's commitments on Kyoto?

Hon. J.

Murray: The provincial plan will seek to work with the federal approach and

not have overlaps and not have gaps. The federal plan has not been fully

identified at this point.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister can clarify: what are the province-specific

policies?

Hon. J.

Murray: That policy is under development.

MacPhail: Is there a time frame for release?

Hon. J.

Murray: Our target is to have something by the end of June of this year.

MacPhail: When is the next provincial-territorial ministers meeting dealing

with this matter that either includes the federal government or doesn't?

Hon. J.

Murray: There are no joint ministers meetings on this planned at this point.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment will be meeting in

September, and that agenda has not yet been set.

MacPhail: Is the minister implementing the recommendations of the report

contained in Updating B.C. Provincial Air Quality Objectives and Options

discussion paper? I think that was commissioned by the government.

Hon. J.

Murray: Government is seeking advice from a number of sources, and we don't

recognize the particular study that the member has mentioned.

[1520]

MacPhail: Updating B.C. Provincial Air Quality Objectives and Options

discussion paper. Okay, I'll get you a copy. It's a government-commissioned

report, but I'd be happy to give the minister a copy.

Well, let's

just carry on then. Does the government intend to reach the Kyoto targets by the

year 2008?

Hon. J.

Murray: The setting of a target is something that will be part of our plan,

which we intend to have in June.

MacPhail: Yes, except that the plan doesn't decide the targets. I would

assume that the minister starts by planning with a specific goal in mind. Or is

it the reverse?

Hon. J.

Murray: We're still working to develop our target. The federal government

did not assign targets to the provinces. The federal government's focus is

working with the sectors across the country.

MacPhail: Okay. So it's the minister's view that the Kyoto protocol doesn't

determine targets for 2008?

Hon. J.

Murray: The Kyoto protocol determines a national target for 2008. The

federal government is creating an implementation plan to determine how to meet

that target for Canada, and the federal government at this point has not

assigned that target to each of the provinces.

MacPhail: Is that a role the federal government is to play?

Hon. J.

Murray: The federal government is working actively with the various sectors

and is having bilateral negotiations with those sectors as to how their

contribution to greenhouse gases can be reduced.

MacPhail: How much money is the provincial government dedicating to

combatting climate change in this budget?

Hon. J.

Murray: My ministry has seven staff dedicated to this. We will follow up

with the actual dollars assigned to the climate change group.

MacPhail: To go back to the point the minister just made about the federal

involvement with the provinces and territories on setting targets. Have the

bilateral meetings begun between the federal government and B.C. on setting

targets?

Hon. J.

Murray: There have been no discussions with the federal government about a

provincial target at this point. We are having a meeting with the federal

government representatives next week.

MacPhail: How did the bilateral meetings start? Is this the beginning of the

bilateral meetings to set targets on a provincial level?

Hon. J.

Murray: This is the beginning of the bilateral discussions with Canada. The

subject of those discussions and the agenda are yet to be determined.

[ Page 5987 ]

[1525]

MacPhail: Just so the ministry can find this report that I just referred to,

it's entitled Updating B.C. Provincial Air Quality Objectives and Options, discussion

paper, May 2002. It was commissioned by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection — the water, air and climate change branch. It was prepared by

Robert Caton and David Bates.

Hon. J.

Murray: That discussion paper, as well as a number of other sets of

information, will be looked at as we develop our airshed management strategy.

MacPhail: Is this government monitoring sea level rise?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, our staff are monitoring sea level rise. That was one of the

factors in our climate change indicators report released last spring.

MacPhail: Could the minister update the House on the results of the

monitoring — changes, if any?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's technical information we don't have here. We will send the

member a copy of that report.

MacPhail: Is the government monitoring sea surface temperature? What, if

any, are the results?

Hon. J.

Murray: We can confirm whether sea surface temperatures are a part of the

indicators being measured. Just for the member's benefit, that will be in the

report. We'll make sure that she has a copy of it.

MacPhail: Yesterday, in a very interesting discussion with the Minister of

Energy around matters of air quality and greenhouse gas, he said that I should

be reminded that the greatest contribution to greenhouse gas comes from

vehicles. What has the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection done to reduce

transportation emissions?

Hon. J.

Murray: The ministry has supported programs like Go Green, bike awareness

and commuter challenges, and has engaged with partners that have a delegated

responsibility for air quality and emissions reduction, such as the GVRD. In

terms of airshed management and the work with the communities that have

threatened airsheds, there is a transportation component. The ministry is

working on a climate change plan that will bring together some of the issues

around transportation emissions.

[1530]

MacPhail: What's the current status of vehicle emissions being regulated by

the provincial government? What has been the change in that area in the last

year or whatever? I'm thinking more of the trends that are occurring,

particularly on the west coast of the United States, about change in vehicle

emissions. There's going to be a substantial change in regulation in that area,

I think, next year — 2005. Where do we stand here in British Columbia?

Hon. J.

Murray: The federal government regulates vehicle emission standards. As they

have become tougher, the provincial government is harmonizing with those

standards.

MacPhail: Could the minister please outline the trends that are occurring in

that area?

Hon. J.

Murray: For the member's information, there is an environmental trends

report, 2002, that the ministry published in December. That has a wealth of

information about environmental trends. I'd be happy to give the member the

website address where that trends report and the technical information about

what's happening with air quality trends will be — on that indicators report.

MacPhail: Well, sorry. I was just wanting to put the information on the

record for the public about what the trends are in vehicle emissions. Yes, I

have been to the website at length. What does the Minister of Water, Land and

Air Protection think of the Minister of Energy's plan to pursue a voluntary goal

to acquire 50 percent of new supply from alternative electricity sources? Is

that sufficient, does she think, in addressing the climate change issues faced

by the province of greenhouse gases arising from energy production?

Hon. J.

Murray: British Columbia is one of the lowest greenhouse gas

emissions–producing provinces in the country, and I'm proud of that. In

British Columbia B.C. Hydro had a 10 percent renewable and clean energy

portfolio target prior to our energy policy, so I am very pleased to see a 500

percent increase in that goal. I know that is leading edge in North America. I

would like to see us in British Columbia exceeding that goal and producing more

than 50 percent of our new power from clean and renewable sources. The interest

the private sector has shown in offering green power projects to B.C. Hydro, I

think, is very encouraging in terms of the potential for green and clean and

renewable energy in B.C.

MacPhail: Yes, I would agree with the minister if it indeed becomes a

reality, as she subscribes. I subscribe to the same hope. It was interesting,

though — the discussion we had last night in the Energy estimates,

particularly around the Duke Point generating plant. I was pursuing with the

minister the fact that this was going to be a natural gas–generated

electricity plant.

[1535]

One of the

reasons why British Columbia has such a wonderful record of low greenhouse gas

emission is because most of our energy is produced by hydroelectricity. In fact,

beyond any other jurisdiction, I think, in North America, energy is produced by

hydroelectricity.

[ Page 5988 ]

My point to

the Minister of Energy was: couldn't we pursue a continuation of expansion of

energy production through hydroelectricity rather than through natural gas

production, which would continue our great record with greenhouse gas? I talked

about it in the context of the energy proposals that have come in, the green and

clean energy proposals, but he said that the proposals didn't provide a

consistent enough guarantee of supply in order to allow him to use those

projects to make up for the 250 megawatts required as replacement only — just

replacement megawatts — on Vancouver Island once the cables are no longer in

use from the mainland to Vancouver Island.

What's the

minister's role in approving those green and clean projects around energy

production?

Hon. J.

Murray: If the project is over 50 megawatts, the environmental assessment

process will be reviewing the project. My ministry permits projects and is

working on in-stream flows to ensure that there's adequate water flow for fish

in projects that involve microhydro.

I do want

to just remind the member that the B.C. Utilities Commission will be reviewing

any plans with respect to the Duke power plant. Considering that it was her

government that put this project on the books and made major, major financial

commitments and pushed forward with this project in a very aggressive way before

we were elected, I find it quite surprising — the vigour of her entreaties

that this government not go forward with it.

MacPhail: I wouldn't advise the minister to go down that road at all. We

thoroughly debated that and put that issue to rest during the Ministry of Energy

estimates. So I wouldn't advise her to go down that road at all.

I'd be

happy to review it with her again, but she's dead wrong. The project that was

put forward by the previous government bears absolutely no resemblance at all in

type of energy production, cost, location, jobs, cogeneration — no bearing

whatsoever. We've covered all of that. If the minister wants to get into it, I'd

be more than happy. She does seem to be a little touchy this afternoon on

looking to spoil for a fight. I'm not. But I'd be more than happy to do it. Is

the minister interested in reviewing the discussion?

Hon. J.

Murray: If the member believes that has been fully canvassed in other

estimates, then we'll leave it there.

MacPhail: I do have a question around the B.C. Utilities Commission hearing

that will occur around the Duke Point power plant. The minister revealed

yesterday — I was pleased to note — that B.C. Hydro will be putting forward

the costs of transmission lines as an alternative to the Vancouver Island gas

pipeline.

What

position will the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection take at the B.C.

Utilities Commission hearing on transmission lines or cable transmission of

hydroelectricity versus the natural gas pipeline?

Hon. J.

Murray: Our role is not to take a position at the hearings. Our role is

setting standards and making sure that they're enforced. Whichever project is

approved, that's what we'll be doing.

[1540]

MacPhail: Sorry — what standards? So the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection won't be participating in the B.C. Utilities Commission hearing on

the environmental aspects of the Duke Point plant. Is that left entirely to the

environmental assessment office?

Hon. J.

Murray: My information is that we provide technical information if asked at

the Utilities Commission hearings. We don't have a role as an intervener, and

this ministry hasn't in the past. With respect to the environmental assessment

office process, we work with the environmental assessment office and provide

information as needed.

MacPhail: The service plan of this ministry also establishes an objective to

protect water. How is the minister ensuring that the recent expansion of the

energy industry to include coalbed methane does not affect water quality?

The

Minister of Energy and I had quite a discussion on how coalbed methane

production proceeds, but discussions around standards were left to this

ministerial estimates debate.

Hon. J.

Murray: I have had ministry staff working with Energy and Mines and the Oil

and Gas Commission for the past 15 months to set standards for water with

respect to coalbed methane. We've had staff dedicated full-time to looking at

what the issues have been in other jurisdictions and how we can avoid

environmental problems.

We are

developing a code of practice. It will be used by the oil and gas commissioner.

Any developments for coalbed methane will need to take into account both the

quality and the quantity of the water that's being pumped out, and the receiving

environment.

MacPhail: What's the title of the job — the occupation classification of

the ministry staff dedicated to this full-time — and how many FTEs are there?

[1545]

Hon. J.

Murray: We had a biologist and an engineer from the Kootenay area leading

this project. We had environmental protection staff from Nanaimo, environmental

protection staff from Prince George and legislative staff in Victoria. Not all

of these were full-time. It was led by the two people in the Kootenays. We had a

biologist in Victoria and engineers in Prince George and Victoria working on

this.

MacPhail: Will coalbed methane be another results-based industry?

[ Page 5989 ]

Hon. J.

Murray: As with some of the other standards that the ministry has, some

would describe this as results-based, and some might describe it as too

prescriptive. That's a matter of perspective, I would say.

MacPhail: I just wondered how the government was describing it. I've got

some information from government here. I guess I'll ask more questions, then, in

terms of the stuff I have from the ministry.

Has the

minister committed resources to assess and combat dewatering? Just for those who

may be watching or for the record, dewatering is when millions of gallons are

removed from the ground and stored above the surface. That's what happens when

coalbed methane is produced. Dewatering removes a large amount of water from the

aquifer, which will not be replaced for over 200 years. Sometimes when this

occurs, the aquifer is permanently damaged and aggregate groundwater levels are

lowered. I'm sure the minister knows this, because I got this information from

the end of her service plan. What resources are committed to assess and combat

dewatering with coalbed methane production?

Hon. J.

Murray: Dewatering is a core issue that's addressed in the code of practice

that the ministry staff have been working on. We, as a government, believe that

this is an industry that can be done sustainably and without environmental

damage, and that's why we've been preparing this code of practice. We will work

with the Oil and Gas Commission to make sure that the monitoring and compliance

activities take place as this new industry grows and provides economic benefits

for heartlands communities across the province.

[1550]

MacPhail: It's the Oil and Gas Commission that will actually be doing the

compliance and enforcement around this code of practice? What is a code of

practice versus regulation? What is the difference?

Hon. J.

Murray: A code of practice identifies what's expected, and it is a voluntary

guideline. However, we are bringing amendments to the Waste Management Act to

ensure that we can, if necessary, bring codes of practice under the Waste

Management Act so that they can be enforced, if that's deemed necessary.

MacPhail: What's the timing of all of this? The government is going to be

moving forward, from what I understand, pretty quickly on allowing coalbed

methane production to expand. There are nine pilot projects in existence now,

but the government, as we've discussed yesterday — and many members have made

statements about — is going to expand it quickly.

I want to

know how quickly these codes of practice are going to be made enforceable,

because here's my concern — and that's why I asked the minister about the Oil

and Gas Commission doing the compliance and enforcement…. The last report that

they have out, January and March 2002, shows that 38 to 40 percent of drilling

companies active in B.C.'s north field failed to comply with sewage disposal and

water protection regulations. Those were from audits in '02. Then, of course,

that was in addition to the fact that the overall number of inspections in '02

totalled only about one-third of those undertaken in 2001. There were 186

inspections by the Oil and Gas Commission in 2002, and in the year 2001 there

had been 540 inspections — so fewer inspections, but a failing grade of

compliance of 38 to 44 percent of drilling companies.

As the

Minister of Energy points out very quickly, that's the oil and gas industry;

this is different. I'm wondering how the minister is going to ensure

(1) compliance and (2) that the trend isn't transferred to the coalbed methane

production.

Hon. J.

Murray: In response to the question of timing, the code of practice has been

signed off by both the deputies at this point, so this code of practice is

pretty much ready to go. I would say that non-compliance is not acceptable in

any industry. We strive to have 100 percent compliance in any activities that

impact the environment, and we will be working towards that end. We will be

cooperating with the Oil and Gas Commission to make sure that the compliance and

enforcement in this industry, as in other industries, is in place and is working

and is protecting the environment.

[1555]

MacPhail: The report on the Oil and Gas Commission review actually noted a

significant increase in water-related violations — up to 44 percent in '02

from 13 percent in 2001. Those included a failure to obtain permits to haul

water, taking excess volumes of water and removing water from beaver dams. Those

are a couple of examples. The report goes on to say that the latter results in

damage to wildlife must be stopped through all available means. The Minister of

Energy took comfort in the fact that there would be four more compliance and

enforcement officers hired by the Oil and Gas Commission. Am I correct in saying

that the compliance and enforcement around all of this will be in the hands of

the Oil and Gas Commission for coalbed methane production as well?

Hon. J.

Murray: In the past we've done compliance work jointly with the Oil and Gas

Commission, and we'll continue to do that.

MacPhail: So the ministry will have a role in compliance and enforcement

around the coalbed methane production, then?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, the ministry will have a role in auditing to ensure that

appropriate compliance and enforcement is taking place.

MacPhail: The Oil and Gas Commission says it's added four additional

compliance officers. Do you

[ Page 5990 ]

know how many in total there are, then, at the Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. J.

Murray: No, I don't.

MacPhail: On further issues around water quality and protection of water

quality as it relates to coalbed methane production, does the minister know if,

during coalbed methane production, water will be discharged into streams?

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

Hon. J.

Murray: I believe it will, and the code will make sure the quantity and

quality of water being discharged is within parameters that are safe for the

environment.

MacPhail: One of the areas we explored last night was concern by farmers —

ranchers, actually — in the area where there's also going to be coalbed

methane production. They cited Hudson's Hope and Peace River. The Minister of

Energy is up there tonight attending a public meeting on this matter. Their

concerns were that water would be discharged into streams, but they were also

concerned about water that maybe has a higher particle level in it being

discharged onto fields, etc. Will water be impounded with coalbed methane

production?

I was

wondering, then, if the answer is yes: will the ministry require holding areas

that would actually have to be lined with some sort of impermeable skin in order

to protect against leaching?

Hon. J.

Murray: We're confident this industry can be developed in a way that is

environmentally sustainable. We're working on a code of practice that will

ensure that, which will address water quantity, water quality, the receiving

environment — whether it's surface or ground. We will make sure that the code

of practice is taken into account in the development of this industry. We will

audit, and if the member would like technical answers to the questions she

posed, we can have staff brief her.

MacPhail: Who would I get that briefing from? I thought that's what I was

doing here. As I understand it, the expansion is going to happen very quickly.

I'll just keep asking my questions, and whatever the minister can answer is

fine; and if not, we can save it for written answers.

Will water

be used for crops or on land range?

[1600]

Hon. J.

Murray: Our intent is to have a result that is environmentally sustainable.

If the water is clean…. I understand some of the coalbed methane has drinking

water–quality water that is pumped out. We are looking for a particular

result, and that's what the code will address. If it's safe to use the water

that is emitted, then it will be used.

MacPhail: From my research on coalbed methane production, I've also learned

about methane venting. Who will monitor venting, and will there be any

chargeback to the industry for monitoring of venting?

Hon. J.

Murray: Venting of gas would be the responsibility of the Oil and Gas

Commission.

MacPhail: How does the ministry receive communication reports from the Oil

and Gas Commission? Are there regular meetings? Are there reports submitted back

and forth? How does it occur?

Hon. J.

Murray: The deputy minister and the oil and gas commissioner meet. Our staff

meet on a regular basis, particularly in Prince George and Fort St. John. The

agencies work cooperatively on a regular basis.

MacPhail: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection service plan

promises to reduce and remove toxins and waste that contaminate land. The

ministry's contaminated-sites panel produced an interim report in September 2002

and promised a final report in the spring of 2003. When does the minister expect

this report to be finished?

Hon. J.

Murray: We've received the final report from the panel. We're working with

it. When we make amendments to the Waste Management Act, we'll release that

report.

MacPhail: Is that expected in this spring session?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm certainly intending that it is going to take place in the spring

session.

MacPhail: What's the minister's opinion of the interim report?

Hon. J.

Murray: I thought the interim report was an effective articulation of some

of the problems and frustrations with the current regime. It gave some

recommendations for how we can clean up environmentally contaminated sites more

quickly and more effectively. I thought it had some useful information to offer.

MacPhail: I was interested to see how the interim report actually

concentrates on the polluter-pay objectives. I thought that was very

interesting. However, it also did suggest that business shouldn't be entirely

blamed, because the people of the province benefited from the efforts of the

businesses — interesting comment.

[1605]

I'm

wondering. It seems to me that there are several directions in which the final

report can go, one of which is that the polluter-pay objectives continue. If the

minister thinks the regime of administrating polluter-pay objectives is too

complex, then she can offer up an achievement of those polluter-pay objectives

in a more

[ Page 5991 ]

streamlined way. Or else they could have a reduced polluter-pay scheme, where

the emphasis is taken away from business to have to pay those costs, and the

public absorbs those costs. I'll be interested to see how the final report comes

out and how it's received by government.

If there is

a change in the polluter-pay concept such that business doesn't absorb those

costs but the public does, I will be very curious to see how there will actually

be remediation of contaminated sites, because, of course, that would cost money.

If the public is paying for it, that means, I hope, that it would be out of the

tax…. No, I'm sorry. I don't hope that at all. If it's a shift to the public,

it means the taxpayer would pay, and that would be through government revenues.

Government doesn't have the revenues to do that, so I certainly hope it's not

the latter.

How much

money has the ministry committed to contaminated sites?

Hon. J.

Murray: For the current year the ministry has 32 staff that have

responsibilities around contaminated sites, and it's approximately $2.5 million.

If the member needs….

MacPhail: I'm sorry. I missed that.

Hon. J.

Murray: Approximately $2.5 million, 32 staff people.

MacPhail: Does the ministry give the sites a ranking of no risk, limited

risk and high risk on contaminated sites?

Hon. J.

Murray: There are, effectively, high-risk, medium-risk and low-risk sites.

We don't have a formal categorization of those differences. Currently, the

regime requires us to treat all of them identically, no matter whether they are

in fact a higher-risk or a low-risk site.

MacPhail: Yes, but I do understand that internally that categorization takes

place. Can the minister break down the informal categorization of sites then,

according to how many are no-risk, how many are limited-risk and how many are

high-risk?

Hon. J.

Murray: We can get that information for the member.

MacPhail: Okay. Good.

When a site

is designated as high risk, what actions does the ministry take? I'm

particularly interested in what actions it takes when it's private land or Crown

land.

[1610]

Hon. J.

Murray: We're the regulator, whether it is Crown land or private land. There

are provisions for dealing with identifying and mediating contaminated sites

that are in the Waste Management Act and the contaminated-sites regulation. We

regulate according to those provisions.

MacPhail: How is the public informed about the risk category of lands?

Hon. J.

Murray: There are currently no requirements to distinguish high-risk sites

under the current regulatory scheme.

MacPhail: Yes, I'm aware it's an informal system. I have the information

here about the informal system.

Is the

public informed…? Let's just put this in full context. The auditor general

released his audit of contaminated sites, and that happened in the last year.

It's happened since the last time we've had a chance to talk.

The auditor

general asked this ministry, in conjunction with other ministries, to create a

plan of action for contaminated sites. Part of that dealt with the plan of

action of how the ministry would inform the public of contaminated sites.

Where's the ministry at in preparing that plan of action?

Hon. J.

Murray: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is the regulator for

contaminated sites. Sustainable Resource Management is actually the ministry

responsible for remediating and dealing with contamination on Crown land. The

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management will be leading the job of preparing

the plan of action and will be working with our ministry on the technical side.

The focus of that plan of action will be Crown land.

MacPhail: Is this minister part of that team?

Hon. J.

Murray: Our ministry is on that team. The deputy minister for Sustainable

Resource Management is working on that plan. It will be discussed with our

staff. Our staff will be involved. It will be signed off at the deputy minister

level. Then it will come to the ministers, and so I will have a role at that

time.

MacPhail: What's the time frame for having that ready?

Hon. J.

Murray: That would be a question to direct to the estimates for Sustainable

Resource Management.

MacPhail: Okay. I want to move to air quality and climate change now. I want

to discuss the air quality issues that are faced around the province.

The Sumas 2

power plant continues to be an issue for the people of the Fraser Valley. I know

this government has dedicated resources to contest the national energy system's

closeness to the U.S.–Canada border. I note that the Minister of Water, Land

and Air Protection service plan commits the ministry to oppose the Sumas 2 power

project. The minister clarified her role in that earlier today, for which I

thank her.

[ Page 5992 ]

How has the

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection continued to oppose the Sumas 2 power

project?

[1615]

Hon. J.

Murray: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was in the lead in

applying for intervener status. The process has moved on since then. We now have

the team working on the National Energy Board intervener process, and Water,

Land and Air Protection is the lead on air quality aspects of this process.

MacPhail: I'm going to continue to ask my questions, because the minister is

the one that stands up here in question period and answers these questions when

her own members ask them. She's quite comfortable answering those questions, so

I'm hoping she's going to be comfortable answering my questions.

Has the

minister or the government filed an appeal with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes. Our government did file an appeal, and it was denied.

MacPhail: How much money did the government spend on that request for

appeal?

Hon. J.

Murray: My ministry has invested approximately $750,000 in this project to

date.

MacPhail: I'm just going to take a moment to do an introduction. I'm looking

around here and trying to see where these people are. May I just have leave, Mr.

Chair, to make an introduction?

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

J. MacPhail:

Graeme Bowbrick, Julie Hewlett and their son Alex are in the gallery. Would the

House please make them welcome. And if they're not in the House, they should be.

Thank you very much.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: So $750,000 — that's what the ministry has dedicated to the

entire Sumas 2 project?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's correct.

MacPhail: How many FTEs has the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

dedicated to the Sumas 2 problem?

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J.

Murray: I would like the House to please welcome a friend and supporter and

enthusiast of our government, Daniel Fontaine from New Westminster. Please make

him welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. J.

Murray: The ministry has had between one half-time FTE and two FTEs,

full-time-equivalents, devoted to this. It will be various people at various

times depending on the need of the project.

MacPhail: One of the reasons why I'm exploring these issues…. I'll just

quote from the debate exactly a year ago on this matter — well, sort of air

quality, air pollution, etc. The minister said on April 11, 2002:

"My

view is that the issue really is about results and outcomes, and the results

and outcomes we're seeking to achieve with respect to air is cleaner air

quality. The ministry takes a lead on that issue. It's one of our top

priorities, and we will be working in a number of ways to ensure that the

quality of air in British Columbia improves.

[1620]

appreciate the member's obvious deep concern for the issue of air emissions

and air pollution. I concur that is one of the main focuses of environmental

protection in this day and age. Air quality is very directly related to human

health. In fact, the research is now showing that children's health is

directly impacted by smog and air pollution. That's a great deal of concern

for people in a number of airsheds in British Columbia. The research is

showing that air pollution doesn't just exacerbate conditions like asthma; it

actually causes asthma in children.

"Air

quality is one of the top priorities for this ministry. The

government has stated in the New Era document that cleaner air is one

of its commitments. The ministry has a number of actions and policies related

to air pollution and the reduction of air pollution, and that was canvassed in

the estimates yesterday.

"I'm

clear that reducing air pollution is a top priority. I

understand that in the government's energy policy, issues such as air

emissions and many, many other issues will be considered. That policy has not

been brought forward yet. I will not be commenting on the content of the

potential energy policy for this government at this time."

That was last year. We're a year later. We have Sumas 2 moving on,

and we have the energy policy in place. I'm just putting my questions in

context for the minister to know that we're a year later, and much has

changed.

Should I be

asking the Attorney General how many lawyers the government has committed to the

National Energy Board review on Sumas 2, or does the minister know?

Hon. J.

Murray: There is a lawyer that the city of Abbotsford and the province are

jointly funding in this intervention. I don't have the answer as to how many

lawyers in the AG staff have attended to this file.

[ Page 5993 ]

MacPhail: Has the government hired any expert witnesses? If so, how much did

the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection pay for those services?

Hon. J.

Murray: The expenditure on expert witnesses would be part of the $750,000

the ministry has expended on this. We can get that breakout if the member

wishes.

MacPhail: How much money has the minister dedicated to fighting Sumas 2 for

2003-04?

Hon. J.

Murray: The ministry has dedicated $175,000 to this fight.

MacPhail: If the government's appeals to the National Energy Board fail —

and we understand that…. Sorry. The minister gave me the information that the

appeal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has failed already. If the

government's appeals to the National Energy Board fail, does the government have

a contingency plan to reduce air pollution in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. J.

Murray: The ministry is developing its air planning framework. The ministry

is also developing a climate change plan that will be addressing transportation

issues. The ministry has a clean air issues paper on its website, which is a

discussion paper to solicit input and ideas about reducing air pollution.

I also know

the member is aware that air quality in the GVRD area is an issue that is

attended to by the GVRD, who have the delegated authority on that issue.

[1625]

MacPhail: Yes, TransLink is responsible for the GVRD area. However, it's my

understanding that the airshed is much bigger than the area covered by

transportation management, by TransLink. Is there no contingency plan

specifically for a failure to prevent Sumas 2? Will it just be part of the

overall air quality planning?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes.

MacPhail: How will that look? It's interesting. The member from Chilliwack

was quite assertive in the debate last night around Sumas 2. What's the timing

of the air quality planning in relationship to the coming on stream of Sumas 2,

if the appeal of this government fails?

Hon. J.

Murray: At this stage we're focused on winning the fight, as we have been

since we were first elected. We've been taking that a step at a time. We've been

taking a very vigorous approach, because we strongly believe that's the wrong

site for that facility, and we will continue to engage in that fight. We will

make every effort to succeed with that. If we don't succeed, then we will take

stock and look at what our next step is.

MacPhail: Will the FTEs within the ministry committed to the Sumas 2 power

plant be reassigned elsewhere after the conclusion, whatever the outcome of

this? Will they continue to concentrate on air quality in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes. These are air quality staff, and they will be able to focus on

improving air quality in other ways.

MacPhail: First of all, let me ask this: am I correct in saying that it's

TransLink that's responsible for air quality in the GVRD area, or is it the

GVRD?

Hon. J.

Murray: It's the GVRD.

MacPhail: What is the liaison between the GVRD and this ministry in ensuring

high air quality? Of course, the airshed does cover more than just the GVRD.

Hon. J.

Murray: There's a joint committee at the staff level that meets regularly,

which includes the GVRD and ministry staff. There's an executive committee that

meets twice a year. The ministry and GVRD meet as well, as needed, on an

issue-by-issue basis.

[1630]

MacPhail: I think it's safe to say in regard to Sumas 2, as the minister

just articulated, they're looking for a positive outcome on their appeal. It's

safe to say that the whole government is committed to improving air quality. The

Premier's letter to Governor Locke of Washington State says: "B.C.

recognizes its own opportunities for action in this regard, and the province has

undertaken a number of measures to improve air quality in the face of rapid

growth in the most populated regions." That's from the Premier of B.C.'s

letter to Governor Locke of Washington State.

I think

it's fair to say it looks like the government is living up to its commitment to

limit air pollution and contribute to meeting global atmospheric objectives.

Could the minister outline in a little bit more detail the specific programs the

Premier was addressing?

Hon. J.

Murray: I won't presume to interpret the Premier's letter, because I was not

the author of that letter. The province has done a number of things that improve

air quality in the GVRD area and the Fraser Valley area as well. That will

include programs like AirCare. That will include the urban design. In British

Columbia in our lower mainland we've actually done a much better job than some

of our neighbours to the south in terms of urban growth that's concentrated in

such a way that people can bike and walk and take transit to work. That's been a

real focus at the regional level and at the provincial level, and I know that

air quality has improved in the lower mainland through some of these

initiatives.

MacPhail: Yes, but those two — the Livable Region strategy and now AirCare

— are both regional

[ Page 5994 ]

government initiatives. The Premier was very clear in saying that B.C.

recognizes its own opportunities for action. That's why I asked what the

relationship was between the GVRD and the provincial government. I mean, it's

safe to say that the GVRD…. What would happen if the GVRD stopped its air

quality improvement programs? What happens then?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm not sure it would be productive for me to speculate. The GVRD is

very committed to air quality and has that delegated responsibility. If I were

to write a letter that says B.C. is committed to something, I think that

includes actions of regional government. They are part of B.C., and the ministry

does work in partnership with the GVRD on projects like the air quality and

health study of the year 2002.

MacPhail: Well, actually, I don't think that's correct. But if it is, does

the minister think that what the Premier's letter meant was that the GVRD is

doing good work in this area?

Hon. J.

Murray: I interpret the letter to mean that the province is doing good work

in this area, and that includes various partners. Some of those partnerships

include local and regional government as well as non-governmental organizations,

businesses and the provincial government. Our focus is working in partnership to

identify problems and to make improvements, and I think the results that have

been obtained in the air quality in the GVRD are a testament to that partnership

approach being successful over the past years.

[1635]

MacPhail: Well, okay. I read the Premier's letter. I read the Hansard

debate from last year, where the minister says it's our top priority — air

quality — and then outlined…. "I'm clear that reducing air pollution is

a top priority." That's what the minister said a year ago. All I'm trying

to figure out is what it is that the B.C. government is doing to enhance air

quality and reduce air pollution. So far the minister hasn't given me anything.

I'm well aware of the regional programs, and the success or failure of those

will be the success or failure of the GVRD.

I'm looking

for government actions in this area. In fact, the only thing I can figure out is

that the government increased gas tax in the lower mainland to give to…. This

is not the 3.5-cent gas tax; it's the 2-cent increase in gas tax that the

government did, I think, in September 2002. Until very recently TransLink was

using that for road enhancements, not public transit enhancements. So that was

the provincial government's contribution.

Is there

anywhere else the minister can point me to in terms of enhancing air quality?

Hon. J.

Murray: The member's question is about improving air quality and what the

province has done. I've made the comment that the province works in partnerships

in a number of ways that have been effective.

appreciate the member pointing out that a 3.5-cent gas tax is actually a very

positive contribution to decisions that people make in terms of the kind of

vehicles they purchase. This government increased the tax credit for low

emission vehicles. In this past budget this government made a tax credit

available for cruise ships that use gas turbine engines, because they are far

less polluting than the diesel engines.

As I've

mentioned already, there are various projects that have to do with increasing

commuting, increasing the use of biking. We are working on our airshed planning

framework. We have a very progressive energy policy that is intended to address

air issues.

We are

putting money into transportation improvements. In my constituency alone, there

is $59 million — over half of which is coming from the province — for

transportation improvements that will reduce traffic jams and bottlenecks in New

Westminster, where we have trucks idling and creating air pollution. We'll be

improving our air quality through those transportation improvements, as well as

providing incentive for the public to use lower emissions vehicles or to park

their vehicles.

I am proud

to say that as well as our partnerships, we have a number of initiatives of all

kinds that are intended to reduce air pollution, because it is one of the

government's top priorities, and it is an issue of concern to the public.

MacPhail: Good, because the copy of the letter sent to Governor Locke from

the Premier is co-signed by the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. It

is actually a letter from the minister herself as well.

I'll just

read the paragraph again. It says: "I would like to add that British

Columbia fully recognizes its own opportunity for action in this regard and that

the province has undertaken a number of measures to improve air quality in the

face of rapid growth in the most populated regions." That's why I've been

pursuing this at length. It's signed by both the Premier and the Minister of

Water, Land and Air Protection.

What's the

$59 million of transportation improvement? Did the minister say it's coming out

of her budget?

[1640]

Hon. J.

Murray: It's $58 million, and that is a project that is…. What I said was

that it was more than half funded by the province, and this is through the

transportation initiative that has been recently announced. This will be part of

what the gas tax is dedicated to. It is not coming from my ministry's budget.

appreciate the member pointing out that that was a joint letter. There are a

number of initiatives — and I have listed off many of them — including the

support of local airshed planning, public outreach activities and our clean air

initiative where we are beginning the consultation through the clean air issues

in British Columbia paper.

MacPhail: Yes. Thank God we pursued that right to the very end.

[ Page 5995 ]

I'm just

wondering in terms of the transportation improvements, though, but that's not

the project…. The $58 million project still keeps vehicles on the road. It's

not actually the 3.5-cent gas tax increase I was talking about. It's the

2-cent-a-litre gas tax increase that the government imposed on the GVRD

residents to go into TransLink, and then TransLink, as far as I can tell….

Well, there's been a change at TransLink which I'm thrilled about, but that goes

into road improvements, and there's very little…. Well, how much extra money

is the government putting into public transit — this government, the B.C.

government?

Hon. J.

Murray: That is not a policy decision covered by Water, Land and Air

Protection's budget or estimates.

MacPhail: Well, the minister was more than happy to stand up and take credit

for a transportation improvement that didn't involve public transit. So I

thought she might know if there are any public transit investments that she

could take credit for — that she'd stand up and give them. The government

can't just deliver what they consider good news. When asked questions, they have

to give all the news.

The

Chair: Members, maybe we can try and keep the topic on vote 40.

MacPhail: It is — on its talk about air quality improvement. The Minister

of Energy said the greatest detractor from enhanced air quality is vehicle

emissions. That's what I'm exploring right now, Mr. Chair.

How does

raising the surtax threshold on luxury cars from $35,000 to $47,000, and thereby

eliminating a deterrent in the purchase of high-pollutant vehicles, limit air

pollution in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. J.

Murray: The question is of tax policy that the member can choose to direct

to the Minister of Finance.

[1645]

MacPhail: No, it's a question about air quality enhancement. It is noted by

almost every study that most of the SUVs being bought in this category are in

the lower mainland and that SUVs disproportionately contribute to airshed

issues. So it's not a tax question. It's an air quality question.

Hon. J.

Murray: Our ministry's objective is to see cleaner air, and we would like to

see more people using bikes, transit and other methods of getting where they

need to go. We encourage those choices.

MacPhail: How does the continued deployment of the Burrard Thermal plant

reflect recognition of the opportunities to limit air pollution?

Hon. J.

Murray: We have a new-era commitment to phase out the use of the Burrard

Thermal plant, and there's an in-house group of members who are looking at that

issue.

MacPhail: They've been looking at it for quite a while. I was wondering what

the minister can update us on, on Burrard Thermal. I know that the Minister of

Education has made a commitment to close it. I know that's what the new-era

commitment is. We're two years into a mandate to have a four-year term, so where

are we at on it?

Also, I

know that if it is closed, the issues facing the Minister of Energy will change

substantially. He didn't give us any indication that that was going to happen.

Hon. J.

Murray: Specific questions about a power plant would be best directed to the

Minister of Energy and Mines. The other place to seek information would be the

energy policy.

MacPhail: I don't want to read into the record again what the minister said

in April of 2002 — that reducing air pollution is a top priority. I read it

into the record. These are legitimate questions for the Minister of Water, Land

and Air Protection. Burrard Thermal and air quality are linked.

Now, in the

ten years of the NDP government, Burrard Thermal stayed powered, but there was a

huge investment in the context of Burrard Thermal staying open, for it to be

upgraded to reduce pollution as much as possible. In fact, it stands as a model,

given the context of it being a thermal-powered electricity generating plant.

But even in that context, the government made a new-era commitment to close it.

The Minister of Education made that commitment, and there's a committee struck.

It's inextricably linked. Why doesn't the minister have a view on this?

Hon. J.

Murray: Just to repeat to the member: we do have a commitment to phase out

the Burrard power plant. We also have a responsibility to the citizens of

British Columbia to ensure that we have adequate power to meet their needs.

Part of our

energy policy is a very aggressive approach to energy efficiency and energy

conservation. We have things like stepped power rates for industrial customers,

which will provide incentive for reducing any use of energy that they can avoid

and for them to find ways to reduce their energy usage. We have a commitment to

update our Energy Efficiency Act. We are seeking every possible way to manage

our energy demand in British Columbia as part of the whole package that will

include the phasing out of Burrard Thermal over time. There has been no decision

made as to the time frame for that at this point.

[1650]

MacPhail: How does the introduction of coal as a source of energy…? The

Minister of Energy and Mines said yesterday: "It's a bright future for the

coal industry in the province." How does that contribute to meeting global

atmospheric objectives?

[ Page 5996 ]

Just to

outline what the government has done in promoting the coal industry, it's

reduced taxes on the coal industry; it's cut taxes on exploration equipment; and

it has, of course, eliminated the corporation capital tax. How does the

promotion of coal as a source of energy meet with the minister's objectives?

Hon. J.

Murray: The reduction of taxes and the reduction of corporate capital taxes

are a very important part of our government's policy for revitalizing the

economy so that we can move from last place in Canada, which we have been in,

regrettably, in the past number of months. My ministry does air quality

permitting and sets ambient air quality guidelines and standards that any

facility, whether it is a coal-fired plant or a pulp mill, needs to adhere to.

Should there be an application, my ministry will make sure that any emissions

from that power plant are such that they don't exceed the ambient air quality

standards for that area.

MacPhail: Thank you. Yes, from this binder I do have the ministry's document

around Q & As for coal emission guidelines. I just want to go through them,

if I may.

There's the

question: "How do B.C.'s new guidelines compare to those in other provinces

and states?" Of course, for the public's information, this ministry will be

putting in place coal-fired power plants. B.C. doesn't have any existing

coal-fired power plants now, according to this document. Where do we stack up in

comparison to other provinces?

Hon. J.

Murray: I would like to correct something that the member just stated. The

ministry will not be putting in place coal-fired plants. Should the private

sector decide to invest in coal-fired electrical plants, that will be the

decision of the private sector.

The

guidelines are compatible with Alberta's guidelines, with the exception that

there is a higher allowable level of sulphur for the use of waste coal. That

waste coal has been being landfilled. It's been used as a waste, so turning it

into an energy source would reduce the pollution potential from the landfilling

of that material.

MacPhail: Yes, the minister is correct to say that it will be the private

sector providing coal-fired energy plants, except that it is the government's

plan for increasing power to allow the private sector to do that. That's the

only way this government is going to increase energy supply. It will be the

private sector, but it will be at the behest of this government to do it.

I'm not

sure why the minister would back away from the great pride that the Minister of

Energy and the member for East Kootenay took yesterday. I sat here and listened

to it, about how exciting it was that the government was moving in the direction

of coal-fired power plants.

[1655]

I'm just

looking at this document here. Sulphur dioxide. The emission guidelines for B.C.

for January of 2003, the emission limits, are 180 to 290. In Alberta they're at

180. Let me see. Saskatchewan allows 50 to 520 but then says 50 to 200 for the

same coal that B.C. would use. We're pretty much the highest of every

jurisdiction except for Washington. Why is that?

Mr. Chair,

I just want to make it clear to the public who's watching too. Lower is better

when we're talking about emissions, and we're at the highest level.

Hon. J.

Murray: I just want to clarify here that these guidelines are a starting

point for discussions with potential proponents. The actual levels will depend

on the ambient air quality objectives and the character of the airshed. This

ministry's guideline for sulphur dioxide is the same as Alberta's, which is 180.

The higher levels are for the potential of using waste coal to create energy.

Waste coal does produce more sulphur dioxide, so that's where the higher figure

comes from. It is not for the regular industrial quality of coal; in that case

it's the same as Alberta's standard.

MacPhail: Well, that's interesting. That certainly is a good explanation

beyond what this briefing note says.

What about

our other competitors like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana — Washington is higher —

Oregon…? What about that?

Hon. J.

Murray: B.C.'s guideline is similar to its nearest neighbours of Washington

and Alberta. This guideline is a starting point. The actual allowable levels of

emissions will depend on the character of the airshed and the ambient air

quality standards that the ministry has set.

MacPhail: Isn't the use of coal at odds with the goal of reducing greenhouse

gas emissions?

Hon. J.

Murray: Various ways of producing electricity do create various levels of

greenhouse gases. It is the federal government's negotiations with sectors that

will determine how those sectors across Canada help Canada to achieve the Kyoto

targets that it has agreed to and ratified recently. That discussion —

bilateral, between the federal government and the industry sectors, including

the coal sector — will determine what the allowable levels of greenhouse gases

are from that sector.

MacPhail: So the order of proceeding on these matters is important. Will

this government work out the standards to be met for the Kyoto protocol on a

provincial basis first and then determine whether it makes sense to proceed with

coal-fired energy plants?

Hon. J.

Murray: The federal government is engaged in negotiations with the various

sectors like the electricity sector, and those are not concluded yet. So it's

not clear at this point whether it will lead to a cap and tradable permit

system, whether it will lead to a requirement for offsets or whether there will

be particu-

[ Page 5997 ]

lar equipment required that will reduce greenhouse gases. That's a discussion

the federal government is having with the sector, and we will be watching with

interest as to what is concluded.

MacPhail: Well, is there anyone that says coal-fired power plants are

anything but at the upper end of greenhouse gas emissions?

[1700]

Hon. J.

Murray: I believe there is a higher level of emissions from coal-fired

plants than from natural gas plants. There's some question about whether the

full life cycle of the natural gas plant is taken into account when that

conclusion is reached. I think what's important is that no matter what the

energy source, proponents and businesses that produce energy use equipment that

as best as possible reduces the amount of greenhouse gases produced per unit of

energy created.

MacPhail: Did the Minister of Energy and Mines consult with the Minister of

Water, Land and Air Protection before he introduced the energy plan that

included coal?

Hon. J.

Murray: The Minister of Energy and Mines consulted with all of his cabinet

colleagues throughout the development of that plan.

MacPhail: I guess, because of the fact that there's such emphasis on

coal-fired power, the minister supports that direction. Is that right?

Hon. J.

Murray: I fully support the government's energy plan. I am very proud that

we are a leader in North America in terms of our 50 percent target for a clean

and renewable energy portfolio.

We are

doing some leading-edge policy-making in the planned step rates for industrial

energy users. We have a very focused energy conservation and efficiency approach

that's built into that plan. We can be proud of our energy plan, and I am proud

of it.

MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that the reintroduction of coal as an

energy source is consistent with the government's climate change strategy?

Hon. J.

Murray: At this point the provincial government has not concluded its

climate change plan. The energy policy is a part of government policy that we

fully endorse, and the climate change plan will build on our energy policy.

MacPhail: What is the minister's view on the ease of meeting the standards

of Kyoto with the introduction of, and quite heavy emphasis by her other

colleagues on proceeding with, coal-fired power plants?

Hon. J.

Murray: As I mentioned earlier, part of our plan development will be looking

at what target the province will aim for. The federal government has not

assigned targets to the provinces.

I do want

to point out to the member that by far the majority of British Columbia's energy

is produced by hydroelectric power. We can be proud to have very low per-capita

greenhouse gas emissions compared with the rest of Canada. Our level of

greenhouse gas emissions is one of the environmental measures that are being

tracked by our progress board. We are number one in terms of environmental

performance across this country, according to the measures the progress board is

tracking. And we intend to continue to be the number one environmental

jurisdiction in Canada.

MacPhail: Yes, and that terrible ranking of being number one in

environmental quality took place during that decade of decline in the 1990s. How

shameful that that great achievement occurred during that period of time.

The reason

why we're so low on greenhouse gas emissions is because most of the energy is

hydroelectricity, and that's about to change. That's about to change by this

government with its unbelievable enthusiasm…. I mean, I'm sure the minister

was in her office watching the discussion of almost…. Well, I won't describe

the kind of enthusiasm that was shown between the member for East Kootenay and

the Minister of Energy and Mines about the move toward coal-fired energy power

plants. It was a pleasure to watch, in some ways, in terms of its intimacy.

[1705]

However,

the Premier of Ontario has recently committed…. That's a lifting of the

moratoriums. What everybody is so excited about is that there's going to be a

lifting of the moratoriums on developing coal-fired power. The Premier of

Ontario just recently committed to phasing out coal-fired plants. The reason why

he did that was — at least, this is what he said — acknowledging their

contribution to greenhouse gases.

Was the

minister aware that the Premier of Ontario recently committed to phasing out

coal-fired plants? How does that jibe with this government removing the

moratorium on coal-fired power plants?

Hon. J.

Murray: There has been no moratorium on coal-fired power plants. In fact,

the previous government did have coal-fired emission guidelines, interim

guidelines, in place when this government was elected.

MacPhail: Yeah, but there were none in operation. I'm sorry. Maybe I missed

it. Could the minister repeat her last answer? My apologies.

Hon. J.

Murray: There are still none in operation.

MacPhail: If the minister is committing that there won't be any in

operation, I'd be happy to sit down and say thank you, but that's not what's

happening. The government is proceeding with coal-fired power plants. That's

what the debate was about all day yesterday. That's what this government takes

such great

[ Page 5998 ]

pride in. That's why all the changes made to the financial expenditures —

reducing the tax expenditures by the industry. That's why there was such

pleasure yesterday between the member for East Kootenay and the Minister of

Energy and Mines. It is going to happen.

I'm fine if

the minister is saying it's not going to happen, but I'm not sure she can give

that guarantee. In fact, she'd have to undo everything the Minister of Energy

and Mines said yesterday. Let's put it this way: what other jurisdiction is

going to grow coal-fired power plants?

Hon. J.

Murray: I just would like to remind the member that British Columbia has

very low per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases. We have an abundance of

clean, green energy production in British Columbia. We will continue to do that.

We have an energy policy that is leading edge in terms of the percentage of

green, clean and renewable energy in any new energy production. We're proud to

be setting the conditions where businesses choose to invest in British Columbia.

That's what our energy policy supports.

We will

continue to have a competitive advantage through our low power rates in British

Columbia, and we will continue to have low greenhouse gas emissions per-capita

compared with most of the other parts of Canada. We have a very committed group

of people in Water, Land and Air Protection who do the job of regulating in

terms of permits and allowable emissions and the setting of ambient air quality

standards in British Columbia.

MacPhail: Yes, I've got in my notes here that the government will probably

say that B.C. is the first jurisdiction to establish goals of generating 50

percent of its energy through clean sources. That's laudatory. Is that a

voluntary target?

[1710]

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, it is.

MacPhail: Are there any mandatory targets?

Hon. J.

Murray: No, there aren't.

MacPhail: How many coal facilities are going to be built, and what will they

contribute to the greenhouse gases in the province?

Hon. J.

Murray: The responsibility of the province is to ensure that the energy

needs of the people and the businesses of British Columbia are met. As far as I

am aware, the expressions of interest in coal-fired electricity production would

account for less than 2 percent of the entire production of energy in British

Columbia.

MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. The two plants that are in the making now

are about 1 percent, but energy production is not what we're talking about. I'm

talking about emission production. What will those plants contribute in terms of

greenhouse gas emissions compared to other sources of energy at the level of 1

percent?

Hon. J.

Murray: Insofar as the negotiations between the federal government and the

coal-fired electric producer sector have not been completed, I cannot speculate

as to what would be the constraints, what would be the technology requirements,

and what would be the offset potential and offset requirements of those

potential coal-fired power plants.

MacPhail: What are some of the potentials for technology available to reduce

emissions for coal-fired plants, and what determines the type and effectiveness

of the technology needed?

Hon. J.

Murray: Our ministry's job is to set the ambient air quality standards and

then to ensure that in the issuance of permits, those standards are met. It

would be the proponent's responsibility to make choices as to how to achieve

those air quality standards.

MacPhail: I'm reading here from the ministry that the main emission control

devices for coal-fired power plants include electrostatic precipitators and

fabric filters. Is there a potential that those could be demanded as part of the

guidelines?

Hon. J.

Murray: The ministry sets the air quality standard, the result that needs to

be achieved in terms of the air people actually breathe. Then the proponent

would need to make choices as to how to accomplish that result, including

choosing the technology.

MacPhail: I'm wondering if the government standards for air pollution apply

equally across the province.

[1715]

Hon. J.

Murray: The ministry has set a general objective for air quality that is

consistent across the province, and then there is another level of ambient air

quality standard that factors in air flows and characterization of the air in

that region.

MacPhail: In regard to the Vancouver Island generation project, the air

pollution created by this proposed plant is equivalent to, I'm told, adding

150,000 cars to the city of Nanaimo, and of course, the population of Nanaimo

now is only 73,000. Doctors in Nanaimo are speaking out en masse. They've made a

submission to the minister against the location of this power plant and on the

potential health impacts. Air quality in the region is already poor due to the

adjacent pulp mill.

Nanaimo

citizens are facing many of the same issues faced by the citizens of Chilliwack

and Abbotsford. Of course, the difference is that this government supports the

plant in Duke Point and opposes the plant in Sumas. Let me ask this of the

minister: will the same

[ Page 5999 ]

standards apply to the Vancouver Island generation project that this

government applied to the Sumas 2 project?

Hon. J.

Murray: This project is under review by the environmental assessment office,

and our ministry will be providing comments to the environmental assessment

office. The project also is being reviewed under the B.C. Utilities Commission.

MacPhail: I'm asking what position the government's taking on this. Are the

positions the same between what they're asking for out of Sumas 2 and what

they're asking for, for the Vancouver Island generation project?

Hon. J.

Murray: Could the member please clarify what she means by "holding it

to a standard"?

MacPhail: Well, my understanding is that part of the submission the

government of British Columbia has made to the National Energy Board is around

air quality and air emissions. I'm just wondering. A very strong position has

been put forward by the government in opposing Sumas 2. All I'm asking is: will

the same standards of air quality assurances be demanded on the Vancouver Island

generation project at Duke Point as they are demanding for the Sumas 2 project?

Hon. J.

Murray: Sumas 2 did not go through the B.C. environmental assessment office

process, and the Duke power plant proposal will go through that. The

government's premise for intervening in Sumas 2 is that it is believed that the

plant would create an additional quantity of emissions in the Fraser Valley that

would lift the air quality above the Canadian standards.

This will

be something that will be assessed by the environmental assessment office, which

has the role of doing this kind of investigation. It will be assessing the

location of the Duke Point plant, the airshed and whether those kinds of

concerns in terms of air quality that the provincial government had with Sumas

— those same concerns — are had about the Duke Point project.

[1720]

MacPhail: Yes, thank you. Those were the assurances that I was looking for.

The reason the B.C. government is saying Sumas 2 can't proceed is because of the

damage or the degradation it will do to air quality. The minister has given me

assurances, and I'm pleased by that — that the same standard will apply to the

Vancouver Island generation project at Duke Point.

How many

FTEs are assigned from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to the

Vancouver Island generation project?

Hon. J.

Murray: Three staff people, on and off, will be doing work with respect to

the air quality modelling for the Duke Point power plant.

MacPhail: My understanding is that there was an air quality survey done by

the Vancouver Island generation project itself but that flaws were found in this

report. Will there be an independent survey done of present-day air quality in

that area?

Hon. J.

Murray: The environmental assessment office will be in the lead and will

make a decision as to whether the current information is adequate or whether

more is needed.

MacPhail: I read a report not that long ago. It's the Peer Review of VIGP

Air Quality Assessment done by — I only know it by its acronym — SENES.

Is the ministry aware of this air quality assessment?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'll accept the offer that the member made to get that for me.

MacPhail: How many FTEs are dedicated to air quality in the province as a

whole?

[R.

Stewart in the chair.]

Hon. J.

Murray: Approximately 28 FTEs are dedicated to air quality.

MacPhail: My understanding is that there have been some air quality warnings

issued in areas such as Prince George. I may not have it right, but have there

been air quality warnings issued in the Prince George area recently?

Hon. J.

Murray: I believe an air quality advisory may have been issued in December.

MacPhail: Are there FTEs, people dedicated to air quality issues,

specifically in Prince George? How are the 20 FTEs allocated?

[1725]

Hon. J.

Murray: The 28 air quality staff break down in this way. There are two per

region, and we have seven regions. There are six that work on policy, there are

six that work on air quality monitoring policy, and there are two that are

roving auditors who audit air quality monitoring. The policy group, of course,

is a resource for the whole province. Ministry staff do work with Prince George,

which has an airshed management plan.

MacPhail: The other areas I'm concerned about in terms of air quality are

Bulkley Valley and also Elk Valley. Have there been air quality warnings in

either of those areas recently?

Hon. J.

Murray: There may well have been. I don't have that information here. If the

minister would like, we can get that information for her.

MacPhail: I understand that this government extended the permitting of

beehive burners. Is that true?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's correct.

[ Page 6000 ]

MacPhail: Just for those urban socialists, beehive burners are hog fuel

burners used by the forest sector to burn off waste, and they tend to contribute

greatly to degradation of air quality. In fact, there have been physicians in

the area where beehive burners continue to be fired up complaining that air

quality is damaging the health of the residents. Why did the government extend

beehive burner permitting?

Hon. J.

Murray: The government extended the permits for, I believe, four of the

beehive burners that would have been required to shut down by December

otherwise. I do want to remind the member that some of these extensions have

been happening again and again, during the decade that she was a member of

government. Of course, we're looking for a goal of the shutdown of all beehive

burners, and we will see that over time. However, when a beehive burner is

unable to meet the time line and the choice is between shutting down and closing

down the sawmill or getting an extension so that they can put a plan in place to

use that resource in another way, it makes sense to give them the chance to do

that. That's what we did.

MacPhail: Well, I'm always curious that many of these government ministers

say, "We're just doing the same thing you did when you were in

government," and then they call that time the decade of decline. God.

Actually, budgets were balanced during that time, the economy was on the rise,

and job creation was up. Now we have all of this in decline, and the

government's only refuge is to say: "We're just doing the same thing as in

the 1990s."

How many

investigations did the ministry carry out in '01-02 regarding air quality?

[1730]

Hon. J.

Murray: Investigating compliance with respect to air quality is part of the

day-to-day work of the compliance officers in the ministry, so we don't have the

compliance reporting broken out that way.

MacPhail: But if there's a violation, doesn't there have to be a

non-compliance injunction issued? Were there any of those issued?

Hon. J.

Murray: I would be happy to have a report prepared on non-compliance

injunctions with respect to air quality and to forward that to the member.

MacPhail: My understanding is that investigations occur…. At least, this

is what I thought it was. Investigations regarding air quality compliance occur,

and investigations that find there's non-compliance issue an injunction. Then

there has to be a plan created to resolve the non-compliance — by the

polluter, so to speak. Am I correct in that? Would the minister's report to me

contain that information as well?

Hon. J.

Murray: I need to clarify with the member. When she says the word

"injunction," that means a legal enforcement action as opposed to a

compliance monitoring report. Is that correct?

MacPhail: Yes. I'm sorry. I may be saying the wrong words. But an

injunction, as I understand it, is a stop action. Then the polluter has to put

in place a plan to resolve the non-compliance before the injunction is lifted.

That's how I understand it. But if I'm incorrect…. I'm just looking for the

details around this issue.

Hon. J.

Murray: We'll provide the details in the report for the member and clarify

what the process is.

MacPhail: That ends my questions. I look forward to receiving the

information from the minister, and I thank the minister and her staff for the

debate.

B. Kerr:

My questions aren't going to be as lofty or as important as clean air or the

Kyoto accord, but they're important to my constituents nonetheless.

I'm

concerned about the fees that are being charged for marine parks in the southern

Gulf Islands. I have some concerns that the fees you're charging and the method

of collecting them are based on some ways that are going to be difficult and

costly and also aren't necessarily fair. I'm wondering if those fees have been

etched in stone or whether we can address that issue — what we can do about it

at this stage. I'll get more specific.

It's a

charge of $2 a metre. I'm thinking that if a person goes into a south island

park in the daytime with his family and kids, and they go into the park and play

all day and use the facilities and then leave, and then somebody that might be

passing through in the middle of the night and is just stopping puts his anchor

down, doesn't use any of the facilities…. He pays, but the other people don't.

Of course, these people who are just anchoring for the evening are not using any

of the facilities. They're not tying up to a buoy or a dock, and yet they're

going to be charged according to the size of the boat.

My other

concern is that $2 a metre…. Maybe if there is a charge, it should be just a

flat-rate charge or something to that effect. I'm just concerned whether there's

some method by which we can discuss that issue or not, or whether it's etched in

stone.

[1735]

Hon. J.

Murray: I appreciate the member's having brought this concern to my

attention. The ministry staff is meeting with the boating and yachting groups on

Friday in order to hear their concerns about the policy. I'll be meeting with

concerned MLAs next week. I do appreciate having this brought to my attention.

This has an

effect on 14 of the marine provincial parks in British Columbia, and I

understand there are some changes that have been made. I'm looking forward to

working with the boating and yachting groups to find out if the ministry's

objectives, which are to have the funds to be able to provide the kind of

services and facilities that our visitors enjoy in those ma-

[ Page 6001 ]

rine parks, can be satisfied in a way that the boating and yachting club

members believe is fair, equitable and appropriate. We'll be pursuing those

conversations with them this week.

B. Kerr:

That's great if there's going to be a meeting, so I won't hold us up now and ask

any more questions until after that meeting is done. Thank you very much.

S. Orr:

I actually just want to make a comment, because I want it on the record that I,

too, have had questions, e-mails and letters from constituents on exactly that

question. So I don't need to re-ask it. I just want it on the record that we do

have an answer, and we'll wait to hear from you.

Hon. J.

Murray: Thank you to the member. I have appreciated the members representing

the concerns of their constituents. We believe that collecting overnight fees

from all visitors in campsites but also in our marine park areas — making a

fair contribution by the overnight visitors — contributes to our continued

ability to provide safe, clean and sanitary operational facilities and, in the

case of marine parks, docks. It's important. We appreciate the users paying a

part of the cost of providing those services, but we are very willing to talk

with the yacht and boat owners as to what would be a balance and a method of

collecting those contributions that they would recommend to us.

S. Orr:

Thank you for that clarification, minister.

B. Kerr:

I just have to make one point. You can't compare the way marine parks are used

with the way that day parks are used, because in marine parks people come during

the day and then go home. With the other parks, they stay overnight. The people

using the facilities are the ones that are there during the day, not the ones

that are anchoring overnight. I just thought I'd bring that point up.

Vote 40

approved.

Vote 48:

Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $1,895,000 —

approved.

Hon. J.

Murray: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 5:39 p.m.

The House

resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

[1740]

Committee

of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee

of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R.

Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion

approved.

Deputy

Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock on Monday morning.

The House

adjourned at 5:43 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

The

House in Committee of Supply A; G. Trumper in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:43 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

(continued)

vote 16: ministry operations, $642,998,000 (continued) .

Christensen: Before the break we were talking a bit about housing and how

B.C. Housing and the ministry look at various communities and determine what the

need is in a particular community. Just in follow-up to that, can the minister

tell me whether there is any process in place or funding or assistance available

to try to match individuals who may need housing with available housing, to

identify available housing in particular communities so that it's not a case of

building new units but identifying what's already there?

[1445]

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm not entirely sure I captured the member's full question, but I

think the answer is this. If someone comes into a B.C. Housing office in

Penticton, Vancouver or wherever it may happen to be and they're looking for a

particular type of housing in a particular community, they can access a list of

all the social housing projects or facilities that exist around the province,

and they can move forward with that. There's also a link called, curiously, The

Link , which they can find at www.bchousing.org.

Christensen: What I'm hearing is that those services are within B.C.

Housing. They identify housing that B.C. Housing has in its inventory, either

that it operates itself or has assisted in bringing to market with a non-profit

organization.

Has there

at any time the minister is aware of — and perhaps the officials can help him

in terms of the

[ Page 6002 ]

history — been a proposal whereby funding would be available to non-profits

to try and draw those links in a community, so it's not a case of a non-profit

housing group proposing a new structure but of a non-profit group that may have

identified a population at risk of homelessness and then having some assistance

in identifying the housing market in their own community and trying to draw

those links together?

Hon. G.

Abbott: There is no overall reference program. Nor, to the staff's

knowledge, has there ever been a request to provide one. Within a number of

communities in British Columbia, though, there are local groups or community

groups that provide things, like the Seniors Housing Information Program and

that kind of stuff. We do provide ad hoc funding to some of those groups. On a

community-to-community basis, there may be some of that. There isn't an overall

program in that regard.

Mayencourt: On the topic that was raised by my colleague just a moment ago,

we have in the city of Vancouver, for example, a network of all the social

housing that's available within the community. Perhaps something as simple as

providing links through the B.C. Housing website to the various non-profit

housing providers would be of great benefit.

My question

to the minister is: could I get some sort of sense of how many units of

affordable housing we have in the province? When we take a look at the various

categories that B.C. Housing and t