2009
Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
COMMITTEE A BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(HANSARD)
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. McIntyre in the chair.
The committee met at 2:40 p.m.
On Vote 26: ministry operations, $146,521,000.
Hon. B. Penner: There are also three additional votes: Vote 27, Vote 28 and Vote 49. However, technically, we'll begin, I believe, debating Vote 26, which is for the ministry expenses generally for the operations of the ministry. I'll be prepared to entertain questions related to the other three votes that I've just mentioned as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Minister, did you want to make opening remarks or just go straight to debate? Okay. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I thank the minister. I think maybe as a courtesy, then, I will not, as well, make opening remarks and get, for the most part, straight to questions. Having just said that, I will make very brief opening remarks. We have a number of questions in areas around the budget for the Ministry of the Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is a budget that was cut for the ministry. I think there was a widespread sense of disappointment from environmental NGOs and fishing and wildlife organizations and others. We want to ask some questions about what that actually means on the ground, in our park system, for watershed protection, for all of the vital functions that this ministry provides to the citizens of B.C. and how it may also have an economic impact as it relates to tourism strategies and other things that other ministries are charged with heading up but to which this ministry is a contributor to their success or disappointment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have shared with the minister in advance and I hope that this is helpful to staff with the limited time we have what areas we might pursue and in what order. I apologize in advance if we do stray from that occasionally because there are a number of members who have indicated that they wish to ask questions at times during estimates debate, and I don't know what their House duties are or when they will always show up. So if I can ask the minister in advance for some indulgence of that fact of life, then it would be much appreciated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I will begin just with the overall operations and Vote 26 that the minister introduced and ask some general questions that we're looking for some answers for. The first would be around program areas being moved to other ministries. There have been various name changes of this ministry in recent years. In fact, for a time it wasn't called the Ministry of the Environment. I know that functions and personnel have shifted between ministries. I want to ask him if there is anything in this budget that has been moved to another ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1445]
Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the only program that moved out of the Ministry of Environment was a completion of a move that started last year and that had to do with water quality and air quality monitoring, which went to the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'll just respond very briefly to what the member said in his non-opening remarks, which expressed some disappointment at the Ministry of Environment's budget having to be reduced. I think that we all share a sense of disappointment that government revenues have been so adversely impacted by the global economic downturn. Certainly none of us were hoping that would occur. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've tried very hard as a government to try and diversify the provincial economy through a more competitive tax regime to try and make sure that we insulate ourselves from economic downturns, but this global economic downturn that started just over a year ago has been very broad in its reach and significant in its impact. Regrettably, the Ministry of Environment is not immune from that downturn in revenues that have flowed into the consolidated revenue fund. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As a result, the ministry budget for '09-10 has had to be reduced. That has meant a lot of challenging work, and decisions have had to be undertaken by senior ministry officials and staff throughout the ministry in the regions. I want to acknowledge the hard work that has been done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As much as possible we've done that without issuing layoff notices. We're trying to avoid having to do that and trying to keep as many staff working full-time as we can. We have had to then look at reducing discretionary spending and continually challenge ourselves to see if there are ways we can do things differently, to be more efficient, to get the best possible use out of every tax dollar we do get in our budget to spend. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I want to maybe just ask a follow-up question on that. How many FTEs, and what was the program budget for water quality and air quality that has been transferred to Healthy Living and Sport? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that any of the FTEs that were moved over to Healthy Living and Sport were moved last fiscal year. What remained to be done was to transfer $1.225 million in program funding, and that is what's occurring in this fiscal year following over to the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: Okay. I'm tempted to ask why that is a fit with that ministry as opposed to this one, but I think I'll leave that for another venue to do and ask about some of the bigger areas in the budget where we have seen reductions and hope to maybe get a more specific rationale from the minister than the global recession in terms of how this will be achieved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Environmental stewardship. The numbers I'm getting from the Supplement to the Estimates is that it's a program reduction of about $4 million. I wanted to ask the minister, given that that is a large area with a large share of the staff who work for the Ministry of Environment, if he could tell me how that is being achieved and why environmental stewardship is suffering a $4 million cut in this budget. What choices within the ministry is that going to mean? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What does it mean in terms of full-time equivalents working in the fields across different regions of British Columbia, and again, are there any programs that are impacted or being wound down within that funding envelope? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Like all divisions of the ministry and probably like all divisions in government, the job has been to try and find savings where it is possible to do so while still providing a high level of service. Not an easy task, but that's what we all signed up to do when we got elected and when these people got hired within the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have sought to achieve the reductions without layoffs to permanent staff within the environmental stewardship division while protecting and maintaining core services. We've maintained the conservation corps program, although it has been trimmed from $2.4 million to $1.06 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There have been a number of other strategies that we've employed which are not unique to this division for example, reducing travel significantly. For this division a reduction of 50 percent is what is targeted in terms of travel. Fleet vehicle use is to be reduced by 25 percent. We have a goal of reducing contracting for services by 50 percent. Office-type expenses we're hoping to reduce by 60 percent. Grants and transfers are also to be reduced, and a number of other things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, one of the parameters is that we're trying to do this without laying off permanent staff. That means we have to find our savings in other ways. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
R. Fleming: I thank the minister for that answer. I think there's probably more in there, but one thing that grabbed me in his response was around the fleet downsizing. I'm wondering if that impacts in any way conservation officers and how they do their job. There have been a number of representations to me, by those who use the land recreationally, that conservation officers have to put up with a great deal when it comes to cuts that have been made in this regard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that in fact the number of vehicles for field officers has not been reduced. We have been looking to reduce the number of vehicles specifically designated for supervisors, so I think that there are a number who don't have a specific vehicle assigned to them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Due to the number of field staff that occasionally will be on leave or away from work, we believe that there are vehicles available to the supervisors. There are just not vehicles specifically assigned to all field supervisors at this point. But all the field officers who are out responding to calls have vehicles to make use of. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the ways we have reduced our expenditures so far, I'm advised, in terms of travel, is our greater use of teleconferencing and trying to avoid going to meetings that aren't absolutely necessary. A part of that has been a reduction in attendance at conferences or meetings taking place outside of the province as one way of reducing our overall travel budget within the conservation officer service. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
Another thing that has apparently helped to reduce expenditures this year is that there has been a fairly significant decrease in the number of calls to the conservation officer service to deal with problem wildlife. I'm advised that this year the number of human-bear conflicts has diminished, presumably because the bears are finding healthier things to eat elsewhere. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that last year there was considerable concern about a collapse of the wild berry crop in the mountains. I think that played a significant role in many of the bruins finding their way into communities to avail themselves of food that people haven't properly dealt with in their backyards in terms of fruit trees or in their front yards in terms of their garbage cans. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Happily, that decrease in the number of bear conflicts with people has resulted in a decrease in the number of call-outs and in the number of trips that officers have had to make using their vehicles, so that has saved us money in terms of fuel. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I would like to ask about the compliance branch. Again, there is a reduction, I think, for an area that in the past, it has been suggested, has been extremely tightly budgeted for. There is, again, a cut for compliance from last year's operating expenses of $16.7 million to $15.7 million this year. It's a $1 million cut, and I wanted to ask the minister to comment on that, on how he will accomplish that budget reduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I note that in all of these areas that we've asked questions on so far, there are salary pressures. Again, there is another salary lift next year of, I believe, 2 percent, so these cuts are even more difficult to achieve in that regard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I wanted to ask him, in the area of compliance, how he's going to manage and achieve those cuts. I think that the public has been very pleased with a number of enforcements, high-profile ones, that have been accomplished by his ministry this year. They would be worried, for example, that convictions of eagle poachers, prosecutions against CN Rail spills and those kinds of things where, you know, the government has recovered money, imposed fines and done work might be lost if compliance capacity is reduced. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
Hon. B. Penner: The majority of intended savings, it looks like, is projected to come from a $1.265 million reduction in vehicle expenses, reductions to contracts, and other operating expenses in the range of $892,000. There are a number of other items, too, but that's where we're targeting a lot of our reductions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In order to maintain an effective compliance and enforcement presence and to actually expand and make more effective our presence, we have entered into something called the resource management coordination project, which is a collaborative effort between a number of ministries, particularly the Ministry of Forests and the conservation officer service. A memorandum of understanding was initialled in June of 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That allows us to designate a number of the compliance and enforcement personnel that work for the Ministry of Forests as special conservation officers, and 51 special conservation officer appointments are pending approval from the new chief conservation officer, who was appointed just a couple months ago. But already, through this MOU, 131 staff or government employees have been designated as special conservation officers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This enables us to get the best value, again, for taxpayers and to make sure that different ministries are utilizing personnel to the fullest extent. With the downturn in the forest sector, due to decreased prices in the United States and the collapse of their housing industry, I believe that there were a number of C and E, or compliance and enforcement, staff in the Ministry of Forests that weren't as busy as they previously had been. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So this was seen as an opportunity for us to work collaboratively with the conservation officer service and the Ministry of Forests C and E staff to fulfil a broader mandate than might just be the case if they were solely focused on their initial mandate of working for the Ministry of Forests. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I think that time will tell whether that may be successful or not. I wanted to ask the minister, just with regards to the last two program areas environmental stewardship and compliance if he could give me FTE numbers for the ministry in those two branches. That's something that was missing in the September budget update that we're debating now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think for the first time in budget history at least as far as I go back we do not have clearly defined FTE numbers in the ministry. So I want to ask him for '08-09 numbers and this budget's numbers for '09-10, particularly for environmental stewardship and for compliance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct that there has been a change in how individual ministries project full-time-equivalent numbers, as has been done in the past. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
For each ministry that's being reviewed, FTEs are routinely reported in the public accounts, and more detailed information will now be publicly reported in a new annual report on a corporate human resources plan, which is released each fall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, I can inform the member that there are 142 positions within the conservation officer service. That includes nine members who are assigned to the CEIU. If I remember my acronyms correctly, that stands for commercial environmental investigations unit. Is that approximately accurate? That's my first acronym for the day. There are two in the special investigations unit SIU, if you're keeping track which carries out undercover investigations, four positions in the CO service headquarters and two trainers who work from regional field offices but are considered part of the headquarters structure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've generally been, as the member noted, quite successful in a number of high profile investigations over the last year. I thank the move to a specific corporate environmental investigations unit dealing with things that are different than the typical hunting infractions or wildlife infractions. As important as those are, I think it did make sense to have a specially designated and trained unit to go after the commercial side, because, of course, the conservation officer service has responsibility for environmental enforcement with respect to spills caused by various corporate operations in the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that that strategic change a couple years ago has been paying dividends and is recognized by our federal counterparts too. The federal agencies have come to, I believe, appreciate some of the expertise that our members are able to bring to certain complex corporate investigations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In terms of the environmental stewardship division, I'm told that there are approximately a total of 340 positions. That includes a number of seasonal staff. So if you were to average that out over the course of a year, it would amount to about 314 people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: Just for comparables, did the minister have '08-09 FTE numbers readily available as well? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]
Hon. B. Penner: My staff are telling me that one of the good reasons for not dwelling so much on the official designated FTE count is because it often doesn't represent what is actually taking place. It's somewhat difficult to find at any given time just what the number of FTEs translates into when you want to find out how many people are actually working. It doesn't sound like it should be complicated, but evidently it is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Last year, according to a piece of paper we found, our budget called for 305 FTEs in environmental stewardship. Evidently, we had more than that working, and certainly this year we do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For compliance we had noted 146 FTEs. Some of those were working in a policy shop. That policy shop has now, apparently, been moved from the compliance and enforcement division to a centralized policy division, or shop, within the Ministry of Environment. It becomes a challenging thing to keep track of what the FTE numbers really mean in terms of how many people are working on any given day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about environmental protection in the budget. It goes from the '08-09 restated estimates as a $7.4 million expense to, by year three of this budget plan, a 90 percent reduction or so it appears and a $746,000 operation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, I realize that there is money that comes into this area of the ministry from the sustainable environment fund. All things being equal, it nevertheless looks like a $7 million cut to environmental protection and the operation of that service $4 million in year one but, by year three of this budget, $7 million. So I'm just wondering if the minister can explain how that will impact services provided by the environmental protection department. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
[1530]
Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I appreciate your indulgence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think I'll just start, first of all, by explaining the restated numbers, 2008-2009, compared to what was originally presented in 2008-2009 as part of the ministry budget for environmental protection. You'll see that the restated numbers show that instead of $14.029 million, the actual restated budget was $7.468 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reason for that change in the restatement is due to a $6.614 million reduction, including the reduction of centrally managed overheads to the corporate services division that accounted for $5.123 million and the transfer of the climate change branch to the climate action secretariat representing $1.491 million, including $1.3 million funding from the sustainable environment fund or SEF our second acronym for the afternoon. And there's a $1.252 million reduction due to a transfer of air and water quality monitoring to Healthy Living and Sport. That explains the '08-09 restated numbers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then the next column that we see is the estimates for '09-10. Just to walk the member through some of that . Primarily, there's a $3 million-and-some budget reduction, which is going to come from reductions due to attrition. Industrial air emissions and other operating costs are projecting a decrease and a $1.091 million reduction in intraministry transfers, including a transfer to water stewardship of $593,000. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In other words, the ministry executive identified a priority of moving some funding that had been earmarked it's an internal transfer, I guess nominally for the environmental protection division, and it's going over to the water stewardship division. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
R. Fleming: I think that answer was worth the wait. I appreciate that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just wanted to ask the minister to confirm some of the other broad areas in the budget, in particular executive and support services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sorry, I think I just want to focus in on the minister's office. Can the minister confirm ? We've just heard something about attrition in environmental protection. Am I reading this correctly that the operating expenses of $551,000 for the minister's office in '08-09 are set to rise to $773,000 this year? Could he explain how many additional staff will be working in the minister's office and where the rise of almost a quarter-million dollars of new expenditures is coming from in his own office? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: In fact, I'm advised that the budget for my office is actually going down. Of course, I knew that, but I was just reminded again that my office budget is decreasing somewhere in the range of about rough numbers 10 percent from '08-09 to '09-10. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1540]
Primarily, it's going to be through reduced travel and perhaps less photocopying. I've already instituted an officewide policy of only printing documents on two sides of a piece of paper, please. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I encourage all members of the Legislature to make use of that function, since we now have these fancy collating printers, purchased at considerable expense that we actually take the time to use that feature to print on both sides of a blank piece of paper. Few things frustrate me more than people not doing that. You just have to select properties before you print and choose the two-sided option. Anyway, I digress. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reason for the overall minister's office budget appearing to increase is because of the establishment of a Minister of State for Climate Action and the need to appropriately staff that office. This year that amount is $263,000. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I wish we had more time to spend on that area and others, but I want to move on a little bit and just ask about internal audits, external audits possibly, that are being conducted on any area of the ministry or ministry programs or agencies that you work with. Are there any that are currently underway, and if so, what are the reasons for those audits that are being conducted? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The ministry is not aware of any unusual outside audits being conducted certainly not any by the office of the comptroller general. Every year, I'm told, there's a standard audit performed by the Auditor General's staff on all ministries at the end of year to provide assurance that the balances to be reported at the Public Accounts are accurate and that the system of financial controls within the ministry is adequate. I'm advised that the most recent audit indicated that no material concerns were identified. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is an article today. I'm not sure if this is what the member is alluding to. There is a reference in a Vancouver Sun article today by reporter Larry Pynn about an employee within the Ministry of Environment being let go due to some concerns around financial issues. That matter has been referred to the RCMP for further investigation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
At this point, I'm advised that I should probably not say anything more out of interest of not jeopardizing or compromising the ongoing RCMP investigation related to that matter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I want to just switch over now to talk about species-at-risk initiatives. The throne speech this year committed the minister to undertake or lead a species-at-risk task force that will report out to government with recommendations by June 2010. Obviously, it will have a number of measurable outcomes attached to it, recommendations. I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions around this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The throne speech was some months ago, so surely there's been some work done. As far as I know, the task force has not been named yet, but if I'm wrong, the minister can inform me otherwise. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just wondering if the minister can make some comments on the timeliness of the species-at-risk task force. This is something that conservation organizations . It's something that the opposition has worked on and tabled legislation a couple of years ago. It's that the task force has been named now, this fall, and will report out next year. If the minister could just maybe describe the scope and terms of reference for the committee that he has been asked be produced. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Maybe I'll just start my answer by referencing what the throne speech commitment in August was. The quote from the throne speech is as follows: "A species-at-risk task force will be established to report out to the government with recommendations by June 2010. Following the example of our climate initiative, it will be asked to suggest a new defining vision with an overarching measurable outcome that British Columbians can work together to achieve within the next decade." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's a matter that is currently under active consideration and discussion within government. We are working on the terms of reference as well as the composition of the task forces. I hope to have something to say about this in the near future something further, that is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I asked the minister about the timing of the announcement that was in the throne speech. The minister was minister in 2007, when there was a Wildlife Act review. The government specifically decided that species at risk not be included in the policy dialogue that it was conducting with respect to wildlife at that time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to ask the minister: why did he not include species at risk in that review in 2007? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
The Chair: Committee A will recess for three minutes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee recessed from 3:52 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
Hon. B. Penner: When we cast our minds back to 2007, when the Wildlife Act review was underway, government had just approved and launched the new conservation framework, which is a tool to help wildlife managers and people within the ministry and outside the ministry identify where we should place our priorities in terms of dedicating government resources for identifying priority species and ecosystems for conservation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The framework assigns key actions to each priority species and ecosystem, based on the best conservation science available and best estimation of what is required to maintain or recover the species. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The framework was intended to improve our performance by allowing us to act sooner, before species and ecosystems become at risk; to act smarter by following a preventative, science-based conservation approach; and to act and invest in a more coordinated way to make sure that we are aligning our resources with the highest conservation priorities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1605]
At the time, I know that the conservation framework was greeted generally by . Well, it was well received. I think the experience has shown in the last two years that it's been an effective additional tool for government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not sure I completely accept the member's characterization of the Wildlife Act review and certainly not of the results, because we more than doubled the fines under the Wildlife Act for anyone convicted of deliberately harming or killing endangered species or species at risk. I'm going by memory now, but I believe that the maximum fine now is in the order of $500,000 and up to two years in jail if it's an endangered species. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you're convicted of other types of wildlife offences, the maximum penalty is $250,000. But for anyone convicted of deliberately harming or killing endangered species, the penalty went up very significantly and, I believe, is now on par with the highest, or the highest, in Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I don't disagree with the minister about some of the compliance accomplishments of the act. Obviously, there were some good things in that review. Our concern and our reasons for asking about the species-at-risk task force that was announced in the throne speech as to which we have no details yet here in mid-November our intention of asking about that is because there have been missed opportunities in the past to provide real protection for species at risk. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the 2004 amendment act, to be fair, did list and make possible in regulation the listing of species at risk, but this has never been done. Then 2007 came along, and the Wildlife Act was reviewed again, and species at risk again were not included in the scope of that review. Now it's 2010. A lot of years can go by, and this is an opportunity to get it right. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The questions I want to ask about are on the scope of the task force and what it will be able to recommend. For example and these are my actual questions to the minister for him to respond on the record to: will the task force cover habitat in the scope of the task force mandate? Will it look at the impact of resource extraction, the cumulative impact? Will it look at forestry? There was a recent Forest Practices Board report where there were concerns about increased harvesting in old-growth forests that have an effect on biodiversity, so will government policy regarding forestry be included as well? And will the task force be able to make recommendations to all government ministries? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those are some things that I think are critically important to a task force that is going to accomplish what have been missed opportunities over the last six years. I'd be curious to see how the minister could answer whether the task force will have that within its review scope. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated earlier, the terms of reference are under active consideration right now by government. I think that there's a very good likelihood that habitat, obviously, will be one of the factors that the task force will be asked to consider. Our government has done a lot to protect habitat on Crown land. More than 14 percent of the province now is protected by way of a park, a conservancy or an ecological reserve. That's our way of protecting the habitat and the land base in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I think it's also important for members to know that when you hear about a significant number of endangered species in British Columbia, a large number of those are in the South Okanagan, and a lot of those in the South Okanagan are on private land, so the issue becomes increasingly not what we will be doing in addition to what we're already doing on Crown land but what additional restrictions we are going to contemplate for people undertaking activities on their privately owned land. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's a change from what the focus of previous governments has typically been, which has been to protect the 94 percent or so of the province that is Crown land. Six percent of British Columbia is privately owned, and yet it's that 6 percent where a significant number of endangered species are found again, often in the South Okanagan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to quickly correct the record here, because I see that I misspoke when I talked about the fines I was going by memory under the changes to the Wildlife Act. Let me correct the record now. I'm reading from a backgrounder that states: "The maximum fine for the lowest type of offence in the Wildlife Act has been doubled from $25,000 to $50,000. For the most serious offences, such as killing an endangered species, the maximum fine has been increased from $100,000 to $250,000" so more than a doubling "with the maximum imprisonment term doubled from one year to two years. These increases will give the courts more flexibility in sentencing provisions." Those amendments were, in part, the outcome of the Wildlife Act review. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also want to just add, while we're on the topic, that I think we have had some notable successes with respect to endangered species in British Columbia. We have now completed recovery strategies for 67 species at risk, and recovery planning for an additional 70 species is also underway. We are implementing a $3.4 million, five-year action plan to recover B.C.'s northern spotted owl through captive breeding, and conservation of 363,000 hectares of habitat that have been identified specifically as important for the owl. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Members on the Island will also be familiar with the Vancouver Island marmot recovery project. There's a significant increase now in the number of those animals. I think that by the late 1990s we were down to 80. Today I'm told that there are somewhere in the range of 255. They're still not pardon the expression out of the woods, but the trend is encouraging, and more work will be done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Last year we also announced new actions I think it was last year for the mountain caribou, including protection for, I think, 2.2 million hectares of habitat for the mountain caribou and a number of other measures that we're still proceeding with or implementing, including restrictions on off-road vehicle use, closures and some restrictions on forest-harvesting activity. It is a difficult balance to strike, because it can have an impact on local economies in areas like Revelstoke and the Kootenays. But on the other hand, we also feel the imperative to take steps to protect the mountain caribou. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are a number of the activities that the Ministry of Environment has been intimately involved in over the last few years. The concept, again, behind the species-at-risk framework, though, is to try and identify which species we want to prioritize and take those steps sooner, hopefully before species become listed on various colour-coded lists of whatever variety, so that we do not have to take the recovery steps but can head it off at the pass before it gets to that point. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1615]
R. Fleming: At the same time that the government has announced the setting up of the species-at-risk task force, they've cut funding for one of B.C.'s species at risk, and I'm speaking about the Island marmot in particular. We learned this summer that the Ministry of Environment is cutting the funding for the marmot recovery program. That is in addition to other wildlife rehabilitation programs across British Columbia, so I wanted to ask the minister about that inconsistency. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the one hand, he has charged a task force to make recommendations to him. On the other hand, existing efforts that he just highlighted as government accomplishments a minute ago are being cut. If he could, in particular, respond to my question about the Island marmot program. How did he, as minister, sign off on that cut when he was told by funding partners including the private sector, including Island Timberlands who own private lands where marmot habitat exists that the minister would be walking away from co-funding that program? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I think the member is incorrect when he characterizes the ministry as "walking away" from partnering in this program. In fact, we continue to partner with the program for marmot recovery. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition to the funding that we've provided in previous years, which is considerable I think that it amounts to $1.8 million since our government took office in 2001 this year we contacted the Marmot Foundation to find out how much funding they would require to continue to do what they needed to do to keep on track with the recovery project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1620]
We've already been through this. The government revenues are down, and ministry budgets are down as a result of that, save and except for the Ministry of Education, Children and Families and the Ministry of Health. Other ministries have seen decreases because the government revenues have gone down, and our government thinks we have to be fiscally prudent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the same time, we also want to make sure we're continuing to fund important programs such as the marmot recovery program. After contacting them and having some discussion, our ministry, in addition to providing $44,000 worth of support from the conservation corps program, also provided a grant of $68,000 this year from the Ministry of Environment to the Marmot Recovery Foundation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For the member's benefit, I'll read the following letter into the record dated August 21, 2009 from Jim Walker, chair of the Marmot Recovery Foundation, addressed to my deputy minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"Thank you for advising us of the government's commitment this year to the marmot recovery program. This is good news, indeed, and the amount you specified will allow us to continue the program almost as planned and meet the major benchmarks laid out in the recovery strategy. We'll have to sharpen our pencils, but again, we can appreciate that the government will demand this of all contribution recipients in this poor economic climate.
"It is especially gratifying that this contribution allows us to maintain the four-way funding partnership among government, TimberWest, Island Timberlands and our thousands of individual donors in continuing the support and work for another year. Hopefully this partnership will remain viable for the remaining years of the recovery program after 2009.
"I know the government places a high value on performance measurement for any of its expenditures. We are pleased to report that as we near the end of the summer season, the wild marmot population will have increased to about 210 to 230, with another 185 in captivity, up from a low of about 20 to 30 in the wild in the 1980s. About 60 of the captive population held in the breeding facilities will be released this summer.
"Strathcona Park, where the animals were extirpated over 40 years ago, now has five new pups from adults released in 2007. There are now marmots on 24 Vancouver Island mountains.
"Again, our thanks to you and the minister for 'carrying our colours' on this important ecological program in a year that is critical to its success.
"I attach an addendum that the minister might find useful if he has to respond to the media. If you require more just give me a call at ."
The phone number is provided. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I think that the Island marmot recovery program has said otherwise on the public record, as well, and after the date of the letter the minister just read into the record. They are, in particular, concerned about next year. Because they have reserves that could keep them going for the time being, it's the next fiscal year. As we've canvassed earlier, this is a budget that covers three years and contains budget cuts throughout the ministry over three fiscal years. That is a real concern that will not diminish. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wanted to ask the minister one more question about this species-at-risk task force before I turn it over to my colleague the deputy critic for Environment, and that is about the comparison in the throne speech to the Climate Action Team. There was a direct reference that this task force will be similar to the Climate Action Team. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Climate Action Team submitted a report to government, the vast majority of which their recommendations has been completely ignored to date. I know that there are a lot of people who put time and energy into that process who were disappointed that that has been the case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What assurances can the minister give to whoever his appointees are going to be to the species-at-risk task force that their recommendations are going to carry weight, that they are going to be followed up on and that they are going to be incorporated into what is long-overdue species-at-risk legislation in British Columbia at some point in the future? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1625]
Hon. B. Penner: I thoroughly and completely reject the member's characterization of the Climate Action Team, the work they did and government's response. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It wasn't this side of the Legislature that campaigned against putting an economy-wide price on carbon emissions. It wasn't this side of the House that said they would support cap-and-trade legislation and then voted against it, to a person, when it came up for a vote in the House. That's what the NDP members did, to a person. It's not this side of the House that's calling for a moratorium on investment in new non-emitting sources of energy such as wind power, tidal, biomass or run-of-river small hydro projects. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's the NDP opposition that is continuing today to object to virtually every step that can be taken to significantly reduce carbon emissions by putting a price on carbon and by facilitating a transition from fossil fuelbased economy to an economy that makes greater use of things like electricity coming from renewable sources. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Much discussion takes place about whether in a particular year we're a net importer or exporter of electricity, which completely misses the point that 75 percent of all energy consumed in the province comes from fossil fuels. If we really want to start taking a serious bite out of that fossil fuel consumption, we need a significant expansion in our capability of producing renewable, non-emitting electricity so that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One way we have done that, and I know some members on the other side of the House objected, was to make it very clear to the Utilities Commission and B.C. Hydro that Burrard Thermal, an aging 1962-era fossil fuel power plant in the Lower Mainland, should not continued to be relied upon as a baseload of power supply. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's something we campaigned on in 2001, 2005 and 2009. It's something that our government delivered on just a few weeks ago by giving that very clear direction that it's fine to have Burrard Thermal for emergency backup uses, but it is not to be used as a baseload supply of electricity. We want to find ways of generating additional sources of electricity in this province without having a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions or, in the case of the Lower Mainland, increasing particulate matter for humans that have to breathe the air in that already, sometimes, constrained airshed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The task force that will be appointed in the near future to give us advice about how to proceed with respect to further actions to protect endangered species in British Columbia will draw upon the experience and the learning we had through the Climate Action Team process, which I think by any measure drew upon a wide array of expertise and produced some world-leading work and advice. It's something that our government is very proud of. I look forward to receiving recommendations from the species-at-risk task force as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Well, I think what the people of British Columbia are wanting to know is what year or what decade, maybe we're going to have stand-alone species-at-risk legislation in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to ask the minister about mountain caribou. I did try, in case the minister wonders, to canvass the Minister of Forests about this. He said it should be referred to the Minister of Environment, but there is crossover. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Minister of Forests has talked recently about the need for commercial forest reserves and the possibility that some environmental restrictions could be lifted on those reserves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Old-growth management areas are an essential part of the mountain caribou recovery strategy. They're critical for biodiversity. Can the minister assure the House that the commercial forest reserves will not include old-growth management areas? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1630]
Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member's question about the mountain caribou. Just to elaborate a bit more on something that I said earlier in response to a question around endangered species generally, I can specify that the ministry has protected approximately 2.2 million hectares of mountain caribou habitat from roadbuilding and logging, implemented snowmobile closures over approximately one million hectares of mountain caribou habitat and established section 16 Land Act reserves that restrict or prevent the development of new heli-ski and cat-ski tenures throughout the existing range of mountain caribou. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, whatever other actions take place in the future, our government is not going to deliberately undertake measures that will compromise our recovery objectives for the mountain caribou. That remains a top government priority. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Caribou in some caribou management areas are in grave danger of being wiped out. For example, the 2009 census of the South Purcell herd found only 14 caribou. This is a disastrous drop from about 70 caribou in this herd in the 1990s. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1635]
Also, the Columbia South herd has dropped from 20 to 13 in the last year. Augmentation from other herds has been suggested but has not taken place. Can the minister explain what's going on there and why these transplants from other areas have not taken place? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: This is a matter that's under active work right now with the ministry. I am advised that ministry staff are pursuing the idea of augmenting or transplanting certain numbers of mountain caribou from one region of the province to the areas that the member referred to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the member will also appreciate that there is a challenge, because that means you have to find a mountain caribou population or herd that is suitable for having numbers of their herd removed and forcibly taken elsewhere. That engages a number of first nations concerns. For first nations in the areas where the herds may be transplanted and moved to another location, that raises some concerns. Obviously, consultation is required, and hopefully we can reach some agreement on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other perplexing challenge is that as long as there are significant issues around predators, ministry staff have concerns about taking caribou from one part of the province where they are doing relatively well to another part of the province where predators may make quick work of newcomers to their territory. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With the newcomers perhaps not being as familiar with the territory or the inherent risks from predators in that new area, their life span may be short. The overall objectives of augmentation may not be met if the newcomers, the transplanted animals, don't have time to acclimatize and do what we would like them to do, which is perpetuate the species find a partner and make more mountain caribou. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Obviously, our goal here is to try and do things in a way that is successful for the herds, but it's not an easy problem to solve. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: The minister mentioned heli-skiing a little while ago. Given that some of these populations are near extirpation, why not just close heli-ski operations in those parts of the mountain caribou range where they're in danger of being extirpated? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1640]
Hon. B. Penner: The ministry has been working with the heli-ski operators to find ways that their practices can be changed. I think it's fair to say that nobody wants to harm the mountain caribou, at least as far as I know. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have actually found the sector to be reasonably receptive to our suggestions, and I'm told that a new set of guidelines has just been agreed to and implemented. I'm told that my deputy, Mr. Konkin who I should have introduced a long time ago, seated to my right just signed off on those new guidelines for heli-ski operations in mountain caribou territory a short while ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the member is suggesting that another form of economic activity should be stopped entirely in a part of the province that's already hurting from the downturn in the forest sector, he may want to take that up with his colleague the member for Columbia RiverRevelstoke, who hardly misses an opportunity to complain about the state of the economy in his part of the province and to ask the government to do something about it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've already taken steps to implement tighter controls on forest activity within the range of the mountain caribou. That has an economic impact. At some point that will probably have an impact on jobs. But on balance, that's something that our government has decided to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've also taken steps, working collaboratively with the heli-ski industry, to get them to change some of their practices. As I've said, we've just concluded some new guidelines for them to follow to protect the mountain caribou but still allow some economic activity to occur so that people can have a living when they live in places like Revelstoke, Golden or other parts of rural British Columbia. People still need to make a living if they're going to live outside of the Lower Mainland. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: That was rather an extraordinary statement from the minister. I thought the job of the Minister of Environment was to protect wildlife. Certainly, I would hope that's what he's proposing or supporting at the cabinet table. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess I'd get the same answer, but what about snowmobiles in those areas, which are also having a great impact on the area? They make it possible for wolves to reach mountain caribou at high elevations where deep snow often makes it impossible for wolves to travel otherwise. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the Revelstoke area, for example, there are some voluntary agreements. If they're really concerned about preserving these caribou, why doesn't the minister have legislated closures for snowmobiles in those areas? Or are we just going to let them go in the name of economic development, I guess, according to the minister? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I'm tempted to offer the member a remedial tutorial in the actions we have taken in mountain caribou. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[D. Horne in the chair.]
I know that he does come from the Lower Mainland, but it would help him to get apprised of the actions we have taken. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A Voice: Where do you come from? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I do come from the Lower Mainland, and I've done my homework. I would commend the member to do the same, because we have taken legal action to close one million hectares to snowmobile use in the mountain caribou range. That is something that the member, if he had been listening, would have heard me say just a few minutes ago. So I'm happy to repeat it for the member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are taking unprecedented steps to protect wildlife in British Columbia. It was an NDP cabinet minister who wrote to the forest union, the IWA, to say that as long as the NDP was in office and he was a minister, there would never be legislation to protect endangered species in British Columbia. That was Moe Sihota. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our government has a different view. We are taking steps to protect all forms of wildlife in British Columbia, and at times that does have an impact on the forest sector. No question about it. But imagine our chagrin when, on the one hand, members of the NDP say, "Why don't you do more to help the forest industry?" and then another one of their members says: "Why don't you shut down economic activity?" whether it's forestry or snowmobiling or heli-skiing, tourism opportunities that help generate jobs in rural communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The members of the NDP opposition still haven't figured out that in order to have funding to provide things like environmental protection, you also need to have an operating economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1645]
Our government believes that we can achieve both objectives. We can maintain a vibrant economy that provides important dollars for environmental protection, health care, education, policing, forest fire fighting, transportation, roads and all the other things that people have come to expect and enjoy. But we have to do that by making sure that we continue to have an economy. If you don't have an economy, you don't have dollars to invest in everything from health care to everything else that people want. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Certainly, I would like to see us continue to generate a strong economy so it can continue to fund key environmental initiatives that are important for species in this province and for the people that live here as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: The minister has just said that in order to maintain recreational activities . They're going to maintain those recreational activities despite the effect that those might have on an endangered species, and he wants us to believe that this government is serious about endangered species. Hardly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to move on to another issue, and that's about wolves and the harvest of wolves and wolf control in British Columbia. I am told by local hunters in the Cariboo that the government encourages them to kill wolves. I've heard that on northern Vancouver Island the government is using legal harvest as a management tool. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister comment on what their strategy is around legal wolf harvest? Is it to increase the kill? Do they consider that there are too many wolves in the province? I think there's a two-wolf bag limit on the Island. What is the strategy around the legal harvest of wolves vis-ΰ-vis conservation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The member I just go back to what his last comment was is misrepresenting what I said. He's clearly not listening. I guess we can't force people to listen or to understand. But as I've already indicated, we have taken legal steps to close approximately one million hectares of mountain caribou habitat to snowmobile use. I don't know how much clearer I can make it for the member. If he doesn't want to pay attention, I guess that's up to him. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've established section 16 Land Act reserves restricting or preventing the development of new heli-ski and cat-ski tenures throughout the existing range of the mountain caribou, and we have taken steps on 2.2 million hectares of mountain caribou habitat from road-building and logging. Compare that to what the NDP did when they were in government nothing, Mr. Chair, when it comes to mountain caribou. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In terms of predator control, we take our advice from scientists, so there's a 14-member mountain caribou science team that's been put in place. Now, I'm not sure if the member is asking that we take his advice over the advice of this 14-member mountain caribou science team. If that's what the member is suggesting that the government do, then the member should clearly state that he's taking that position and he speaks for the official opposition that the government should no longer take our advice in terms of how to manage and improve the outcomes for mountain caribou from the 14-member mountain caribou science team. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It would be interesting to see if the member has the courage of his convictions and is willing to state that for the record that we shouldn't follow the advice of that team. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: The minister will know from the letters he's got that there are many biologists that have a different opinion about caribou management and wolf management. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Actually, my question was, as the minister will recall, on the legal harvest of wolves: what's the strategy of the government vis-ΰ-vis conservation? I'm told that it's increased. Can the minister comment on that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1650]
Hon. B. Penner: I'm told that we manage the wolf populations and set the hunting limits the same way we do for other species in British Columbia. The bag limits will vary by region depending on the health of the population and depending on other management objectives, particularly mountain caribou. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1655]
I noted earlier that one of the challenges that we're faced with in considering augmenting some of the smaller herds is the threat from predators that newcomers, transplanted animals, would have in being confronted not only by new terrain but perhaps new predators that may make short work of them. So we have a management approach to setting harvest levels for wolves that is the same as for other species, with the exception that when it comes to wolves, they tend to be predators of other species that we're trying to protect, which are the mountain caribou in this case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: I want to move on to the spotted owl. I have quite a few questions, but the time is very short, so I'll just ask a couple of short ones, and hopefully the minister will answer likewise. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will the government commit to a minimum recovery of 250 spotted owls, as called for by the federal species-at-risk legislation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Just by way of background, it's true that the spotted owl has been declining in numbers not just in British Columbia, which is at the northern extent of its traditional range, but even in the heart of its traditional territory in Oregon, northern California and Washington State, jurisdictions where there is federal endangered species legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Clearly, extra steps had to be taken. That's why we did move forward with a recovery plan that the government is committed to. We're in year 4 now of a five-year action plan to help recover the spotted owl's numbers here in British Columbia. I'm told that as of this year we had four pairs of spotted owls from B.C. in captivity for breeding. There has been some success with that. I believe one owl chick was produced in 2009, and that was only the second captive-born spotted owl in British Columbia and in Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1700]
We are working with our partners south of the border, who are also engaged in attempts at spotted owl recovery through captive breeding. Because of the limited number of spotted owls currently in B.C. and therefore the limited gene pool we may be doing some cross-border matchmaking to try and further the reproductive process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. B. Penner: The member for VictoriaSwan Lake suggests Internet dating. That might be one way to do this in a low-carbon way, but I'm not sure we've actually thought about that at this point. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, the government is continuing to work with the federal government, trying to meet their objectives, and pursuing this project. It's not easy. We had, as I said, four pairs in captivity. It had been my hope that we'd have, at least, four offspring, one from each pair but in fact, only one this year. That highlights again some of the challenges in trying to recover a species. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: On the marbled murrelet. The marbled murelet recovery team has asked for preservation of 85 percent of the marbled murrelets' critical habitat. Does the government support that view? Does the minister support that view, and is he working with his colleagues, such as the Minister of Forests, to achieve that goal? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: We're just trying to put our fingers on some notes about what the government is doing with respect to the marbled murrelet. I know it's one of the four wide-ranging species that we've been working to recover spotted owl, marbled murrelet, mountain caribou. I think there's one other. It's a skill-testing question, and I'll have to get back to you on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1705]
In any event, the government has undertaken considerable work, primarily through the establishment of additional protected areas, to protect the habitat for the marbled murrelet. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, it's been some time since I was briefed in detail on their unique challenges, but I think the last thing I remember hearing is that there's a certain mystery about what happens to the birds once they go out to sea, where they feed. It was thought that something happening out at sea may be having a contributing effect on the success of that particular species i.e., perhaps they were encountering greater challenges in finding sufficient food to bring back to their young or to feed themselves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't have any information right at the moment. Perhaps I can get back to the member tomorrow morning when I'll have some further information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Well, I had another question about marbled murrelets at Bute Inlet, but I'll maybe pass on that for now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wanted to ask the minister a little bit about the conflict between grizzly bear viewing and grizzly bear harvest that has arisen in a couple of areas up the coast, but I'm thinking particularly in the Kootenays. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the articles talked about an individual, a Mr. Strauss, who has an operation up there for grizzly bear viewing. He said that the biologist in question in the area, Mr. Mowat, had told Mr. Strauss that proposed extensions of the hunt that was the issue was an issue between the government and the hunters and no one else. Does the minister agree with that statement from his employee? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I can't comment specifically on the quote or comment that the member is referring to because I haven't seen it. I don't have it in writing in front of me. I can say generally that the ministry does try to take into account, when establishing harvest activity regulations for hunting various species, the existence of tenures that operators may have, whether it's for viewing wildlife or for other activities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1710]
That can, at times, lead to spot closures in specific locations as a result of the existence of existing tenures or other forms of licences of occupation or operations on the land base. But our overarching objective when setting harvest levels is to make sure that they're set in a way that provides for a sustainable hunt. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So we are quite conservative in how harvest levels are set for grizzly bears, the species that the member is referring to specifically. I believe the best available science indicates that grizzly bears can sustain up to 9 percent mortality per year, and we set our harvest levels at a much lower level than that, I think at between 4 percent to 6 percent; perhaps it's 6 percent. But when the actual success rate on the part of hunters is taken into account, the actual mortality is somewhere more like around 2 percent from hunting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: I don't think that the government really has a good handle on what the mortality is because a lot of mortality is not reported, unfortunately, especially when it comes to someone who considers the bear a threat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Lastly in that regard, Mr. Strauss also claimed that the ministry consulted only with hunters groups on the hunting extension plan and refused to include input from ecotourism operators in the decision-making process, which is at odds with what the minister just said that they'd try to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So has the minister ? I mean, this was in the news. Has he consulted with his biologist out there, or has his ADM or deputy minister? Is that, in fact, true that the regional biologist refused to consult, or the ministry did, with the ecotourism operators about the extension of the grizzly bear hunt, and if so, why? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: My general previous answer stands. We are not in a position to answer the specific question that the member raises based on hearsay or whatever the member is referring to. We have not seen in writing what the member is talking about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
V. Huntington: I just wanted to say to the minister . I've been listening with great interest in this discussion on the species-at-risk task force and on your conservation framework. I just wanted to ask before proceeding with my questions: is the conservation framework in place, or is it being developed at the moment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member's interest in these budget estimate debates. The framework was launched in 2007, and it is in place today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
V. Huntington: Therefore, there is a system. Could I ask, then ? The system is in place now in which the ministry looks at habitats that are endangered, vegetation that's endangered, species that are endangered. Is there a process in place in which the ministry examines these and determines what activities may or may not take place on those ecosystems and in relation to endangered species? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1715]
Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is yes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The longer answer is as follows. The framework provides a set of science-based tools to determine conservation priorities and the most appropriate management actions for species and ecosystems. The conservation framework takes into account climate change and existing conservation work, and it has been endorsed by the scientific community and a number of environmental groups, including the World Wildlife Fund. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The conservation framework has already guided nearly $900,000 worth of new wildlife conservation projects across the province, including habitat protection, inventory recovery strategies and action plans for species at risk. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Conservation is not new to the province. It's something that we've been doing for a considerable period of time, particularly in forestry, but also in other resource sectors, such as mining. Particularly, under the Forest and Range Practices Act and regulations developed thereto, there are significant restrictions on the Crown land base that are in force and effect. What is kind of the point of contention is what further restrictions or limitations should be placed on private land in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
V. Huntington: I just want to ask a series of questions. Are there regulations attached to this framework which guide the ministry in its decision-making around this conservation framework, or is it just for individuals or businesses to work around in their own best interests? How do you administer this? What obligations are inherent on the ministry as a result of this framework? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I would say that in a nutshell the goal of the conservation framework is to help us to prioritize our conservation efforts for those species that are deemed to be the greatest conservation concern. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then we identify what tools are needed to be used in order to accomplish the goal of looking after that particular species or ecosystem that may be deemed to be at risk. This can include inventory work, providing advice to statutory decision-makers for example, in the Ministry of Forests the regional managers are the statutory decision-makers for a variety of applications for cutting tenures, etc. and, as well, providing advice through the environmental assessment process when projects are proposed. It's meant to be a tool to help guide our decision-making process across government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1720]
V. Huntington: Perhaps I'll get right to the crux of my concern here. If it's used as a tool to guide the environmental assessment process and you have a situation where a species thought to be extirpated is located, and you have a situation where that area where the species was located is now red-listed habitat, how do you deal with that as a responsible authority during the environmental assessment process? How would you look at that in relationship to the application itself? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: If I understood the member's question correctly, she wants to know how the EAO responds to project proposals where, within the project area, a red-listed species is identified. I'm advised by the kind gentleman here from the environmental assessment office that the proponent would be required to propose mitigation strategies. Various experts that work on our project review panel [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A Voice: Work group. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: work group, which includes federal and provincial agencies, would provide their comments on whether those mitigative measures that are proposed by the proponent would be suitable or adequate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
V. Huntington: The minister is the responsible authority, the person approving the certificate. Does the minister ever look beyond the discussion at the EAO level, given that it's a ministerial approval? Do you ever go beyond that discussion? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1725]
Hon. B. Penner: It's an integral part of the B.C. environmental assessment review process that public consultation is undertaken. Everyone is entitled, if they like, to submit comments and observations about proposals that are under an environmental assessment review. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The staff at the environmental assessment office track those public comments. They'll provide a listing of those comments as well as a summary in binders that end up looking kind of like these ones here. Those are binders that get forwarded to ministers that have to make a decision. That involves, obviously, the Minister of Environment of the day but also usually a minister of a ministry that is seen as either sponsoring or in some way affiliated with a sector of the economy where that proposal is coming from. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the case of a transportation project, it would be the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Transportation who would both have to sign off on an environmental assessment certificate for the project to be allowed to proceed. Certainly, public consultation is part of the environmental assessment office review process, and at times there can be a lot of it. There can be quite a few binders, like this one, of public commentary on any particular proposal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
V. Huntington: Well, thank you. I think I'll maybe be a little bit more specific, then, because I'm fairly familiar with the environmental assessment process. What I'm not too familiar with is how that process finally ends up in the minister's office and what the minister himself and the minister's close staff do to review those environmental documents prior to signing off on the certificate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mean, the environmental assessment office is one stage, but the Environment Minister is the final stage at the certificate approval. I guess I'm going back to: how does the conservation framework unfold in terms of the decision-making at the ministerial level? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If I took, for instance, the Delta South issue of the South Fraser perimeter road, there is an approval to put the road through red-listed habitat for a species thought extirpated, and the habitat is very minimal. It cannot be mitigated. It cannot be compensated. It is gone when the road goes through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm trying to find out how the ministry itself looks at that process and determines that you can indeed make the decision to remove habitat from the face of the earth. It can't be mitigated. So I'm trying to figure out how the ministry involves itself in this process at the final stage, when it reviews those documents and makes those decisions and signs off on the certificate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Could the member indicate for the record what species she's referring to? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
V. Huntington: Yes, Mr. Chair. It's the red-backed vole. It is not a cougar; it is not a majestic grizzly bear. But it is a species thought extirpated in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1730]
Hon. B. Penner: To help answer the member's curiosity about the process, when the environmental assessment office concludes their review of a project they'll put their materials, recommendations, legal summaries and other things together including summaries of public consultation in binders that look like this prop that I'm not holding up that ministers get to take home and read at their leisure. In my case, it's in my living room. So if you ever come over, don't expect to find a place to sit on my couch, because it's occupied already with binders. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those binders contain all kinds of summaries, advice and recommendations from the environmental assessment office staff, which in turn incorporates input from federal and provincial agencies, whether it's the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Ministry of Environment and various divisions within the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, at times even the agricultural land reserve. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of those different agencies provide their advice and input. That gets summarized and put into binders for ministers to digest before making a decision. Ministers can make one of three decisions upon receiving the recommendations from the environmental assessment office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The ministers can ask for more information effectively a time-out, asking for more details. I think I've done that with respect to one project. The ministers can also reject a proposal, or they can accept the proposal with conditions. Frequently, the environmental assessment certificates have numerous conditions attached, which form the basis upon which that project may proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: I'd like the minister, if he can, to confirm whether or not he attended a meeting on February 9, 2009, with Intergovernmental Relations and other cabinet ministers a briefing meeting with delegation relative to Shankers Bend. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I don't recall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Seven days after the meeting briefing cabinet members, the deadline for FERC's submission for intervener status, Shankers Bend, had expired. Can the minister explain why he did not pursue that matter and become an intervener on behalf of the province? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The member is referring to a proposal by the public utility district in a part of eastern Washington State to commission some studies looking at the potential for one of three options: a low-head run-of-river-type project, a medium-sized dam or what is referred to as the high dam proposal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Discussions around these various options are not new. I believe the first time it was entertained and seriously discussed was in the 1920s, so almost 90 years or so ago was the first time that these proposals were under active consideration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interest on the U.S. side of the border has waxed and waned over the decades, with renewed interest in the late '30s, I think, as a part of economic stimulus; waned during the 1940s while interest was directed towards fighting and winning World War II; renewed interest again in the 1950s; not so much in the 1960s; a bit more in the '70s; a bit more in the '80s; again a little bit in the '90s, not so much; and then back again for more discussion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
I have been involved in this matter for a couple years now, from when I first heard that the public utility district I think it's called Okanogan County, pronounced the same but spelled differently from our Okanagan in Washington State was requesting funding from the Department of Ecology in Washington State to pursue some studies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've engaged with the now former Director of Ecology in Washington State, Jay Manning, to indicate that the B.C. government would not support the high dam proposal. We don't feel that that is an acceptable project, considering the impact that that project would have on our side of the border. I believe that's a position supported by local first nations and others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
This spring we did retain legal counsel because, in order for the studies to be undertaken, approval had to be granted by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, headquartered in Washington, D.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I pause here to note that the U.S. regulatory process is considerably different than the Canadian process. So we retained legal counsel in the United States that assisted us ably in fighting the Sumas 2 power project. It's the same lawyer that we hired in Seattle, David Bricklin, who provided us with advice about how to engage in this matter and helped us draft our intervention pleadings. Then he filed them on our behalf. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We subsequently learned that FERC had already approved the study, and in their mind, the matter was closed. They said that there were no active proceedings at the moment. If there were to be an interest in proceeding further on the part of the public utility district, the utility district would have to come forward again to FERC to take any additional steps or studies. The B.C. government, at that time, would be in its right to seek intervener status. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have subsequently written back to FERC, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and indicated that it is the B.C. government's intention to seek intervener status if this matter should come up again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Depending on who you ask south of the border, the studies won't be complete for either a short period of time or a much longer period of time. I've been given conflicting advice on that from people south of the border. But suffice to say, the B.C. government's position is very clear. We've articulated it to my counterpart in Washington State, as well as to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I think just a few weeks ago I wrote a letter to the public utility district directly to explain our opposition to their high dam proposal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Obviously, the government's on position now that it is opposed to the high dam proposal that would flood the Similkameen. But clearly, the minister's also on record that he's not necessarily opposed to the medium dam proposal or the low dam proposal, which could still have adverse habitat issues, particularly in the estuary of the Similkameen River. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I want to raise with the minister is the following. I read from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that states: "Development of new water storage sites on Similkameen River in Canada has been considered. A new Canadian investigation for a Similkameen River dam is currently underway. Coordinated operation of any of the above Washington sites, in conjunction with the Canadian water storage facility under consideration, shall be evaluated." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can I ask the minister what facility is being considered, north of the 49th, relative to damming on the Similkameen? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
Hon. B. Penner: Just trying to find some of the information related to the member's second question. But just for the record, I can provide a bit more amplification of the B.C. government's position with respect to the Shankers dam proposals, and I did say plural. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here's what I said, in part, to the person named Kimberly D. Bose, a secretary at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, on August 27, 2009, by way of a letter: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"There are three proposals for the construction of hydroelectric power under consideration at Shankers Bend. The government of British Columbia has concerns regarding the potential impacts to our province.
"Under one 'high dam' proposal" which I believe would be up to 80 metres high or 250 feet high "the resulting 9,000 acres of flooded land in B.C. could cover two first nations reserves, provincial protected areas, a potential national grasslands park, valuable agricultural land and some forested areas. This area includes 16 listed species at risk under the Canadian federal Species at Risk Act. There is further concern about flooding in the Great Basin Desert, which contains many endangered species. We have related concerns with the other two proposals.
"Therefore, the province of British Columbia has a continued interest in project 12804-000, particularly if there are further proceedings with respect to this matter. If the Okanagan PUD" I'll add here that that stands for public utility district "files a development licence application in the FERC process, the Ministry of Environment will submit a motion to intervene at the earliest opportunity."
It's because of the obvious impact that the high dam proposal would have on the B.C. side of the border, as enunciated in the letter that I just quoted from, that the B.C. government was comfortable saying that we don't need to wait for full environmental review of that project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Knowing the amount of area that would be inundated on the Canadian side of the border and the sensitive habitat in that Okanagan Valley, we took the view that that project was a non-starter from our perspective and have communicated that clearly and directly to our counterparts in Washington State, as well as to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have also pointed out, though, that the British Columbia government supports the responsible use and development of hydro power when projects are appropriately sited and designed to avoid unacceptable environmental impacts. But in our view, the high dam proposal does not fit those criteria. We know enough to say that clearly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1745]
If there are other proposals, including on the Canadian side of the border, for power generation, those projects would have to meet our standards. That is something that would be subject to our review process. Depending on the size of the project, not only would it need up to 50 different approvals and permits from 14 different government agencies, both federal and provincial, but it could also be subject to a complete B.C. environmental assessment process, something that we had some discussion about here a few minutes ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: I gather from the minister that the high dam is out but the medium dam is in, and it perhaps hinges on whether or not it offers opportunities of further damming up on the Canadian side. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Since the minister is busy reading letters, I have a . Hatch Energy completed a report for Fortis, and they suggested that they can dam somewhere up by Princeton, British Columbia, in order to contribute to maintain the water flow. It's in tandem with what Washington State wants to do south of the 49th. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I want to ask the minister a question. He obviously attended the B.C.-Washington cabinet meeting this fall, October 9, and was . Well, my understanding is that Shankers Bend was part of the agenda with the joint cabinets. What type of agreement did B.C. come to with Washington State at that meeting, and what was discussed relative to Shankers Bend? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I have already told the member not once but, I think, twice that the province of B.C. has clearly articulated to the state of Washington what our view is with respect to the Shankers Bend proposal. We have expressed our outright opposition to the high dam proposal and also expressed our concerns about the other two proposals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, let me quote from the motion-to-intervene document, dated earlier this year; I think it was March 31, 2009. On page 4: "Under the low dam option, while there's no area within British Columbia anticipated to flood, the province has concerns as to how the dam could impact British Columbia in years of high water. For this reason, we believe careful consideration and environmental scrutiny is required before any decision is made regarding the low dam proposal . Similarly, we believe appropriate scrutiny should be given to the possible run-of-river option." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's the third option that has been proposed by the public utility district or at least being studied. It is still very preliminary. I think it was a $300,000 study. Depending on what that study says . And by the way, Washington State has committed to share with us the results of that study. That's something that I asked for, and director Jay Manning responded at the time and said that they would be more than happy to share that information with us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We'll see what that says. That may well be the end of the matter. As I've noted at the outset, this has been a topic of discussion in that area for almost 100 years now, and it hasn't come to fruition. Nevertheless, we think it is important for us to remain vigilant, and that's why we have undertaken the work that we've done to date directly with Washington State as well as with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If there is a proposal for a power generation facility on the Canadian side of the border, whether it's on the Similkameen River or any other watercourse in British Columbia, they would have to obtain numerous approvals and go through much scrutiny in order for that to happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Moving quickly, I want to talk briefly about the Flathead. We had a United Nations delegation that met up with British Columbia. The overwhelming amount of people who attended were from the Ministry of Environment. My one quick question I have is: will the government agree to a non-staking reserve to all energy and mining activity in the entire Flathead River Valley? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1750]
Hon. B. Penner: When it comes to dealing with the United Nations delegation that was here a month or two ago and discussions with the state of Montana, it's the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations that is the lead on the file, and I know that she has been actively involved in this matter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've had a chance to visit the Flathead Valley twice in my lifetime. The first time was 12 years ago. I think it was the summer of 1997. Again, I had a chance to go there, I believe, in September of this year so 12 years later. The Flathead Valley looked much the same. Very little had changed in 12 years. It continues to be an area where numerous people recreate. There's hunting and fishing and some ATV use. There are forestry operations, although I suspect they've been reduced somewhat given the recent market for our export products in lumber currently. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the area looks much the same as it did when I was there 12 years ago. That is to say, it supports many forms of wildlife and much outdoor recreation. Certainly, that's something that we want to see continue. We want to continue to see the wildlife protected in a sustainable way, and also, we want to make sure that the water quality is protected. That's why we have stringent requirements and regulations in place for any forms of activity that are proposed in that area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Now the minister can slough off the responsibility to the Intergovernmental Relations Minister all he wants, but I want to bring it to the attention, just for the record . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Kathy Eichenberger, project assessment director, B.C. environmental assessment office, was there. Anthony Danks, executive director, strategic policy for B.C. Environment he was there. Tom Ethier, director, fish and wildlife, Ministry of Environment he attended. He was there at the meetings with the United Nations. Jody Frenette, hydrologist, environmental impact assessment biologist, Ministry of Environment she was there. She gave a presentation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have Doug Martin, senior ecosystem specialist, Ministry of Environment. He was there. Carrie Morita, environmental impact assessment, Ministry of Environment she was there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, I'm counting the B.C. delegation, and it seems to me that 75 percent of the delegation representing B.C. was from this ministry. Yet the ministry refuses to talk about this issue. It sloughs it off to the minister. Now, I know time is limited, and boy, could we have fun with what's going on in the Flathead. The whole United Nations has decided to check it out because of the disgraceful attention this government has been placed and putting poor relationships with the state of Montana and others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I suppose with the little time, I have very little opportunity to pursue this matter, which I was hopeful that we could be able to do here today. I suppose that my question to you is this, hon. Chair . The province is on record. Mr. McLellan, who is an officer who works for the government, stated recently that he believes that there's a needed designation of this area to that of Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, and he believes that would be better than a national park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the minister why the government feels that. Why would it be better than a national park? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
Hon. B. Penner: Just to back up a little bit as to how we came to have a UN-sponsored delegation from UNESCO come to visit a part of British Columbia. This spring a number of environmental groups signed a petition to UNESCO asking that they add the international peace park to a list of world heritage sites deemed to be "in danger." There was a meeting that was held I think it was in Barcelona, Spain, either in May or June of this year of UNESCO, and the petition asked at that meeting that such a designation be added by UNESCO, saying that this part of the Flathead Valley was in danger. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It wasn't reported in the media, but in fact, UNESCO declined to make such a finding. It did not find that the area was considered to be in danger. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Alternatively, the government of Canada, I think, supported by the province of B.C., invited officials from UNESCO to come and see the area for themselves. We're proud of our environmental record in British Columbia. As I've already indicated, I've been to the Flathead area two times now, and it is an area that is spectacular. There's no question about it. So we were quite interested in having officials from UNESCO visit British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But we also felt it was important that they take a look at what's happening south of the 49th parallel in the state of Montana. While the member here might want to pretend that Montana has got environmental standards that we should aspire to, I would choose to disagree. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1800]
One notable observation is that they have only about 5 percent of their land base that's protected in the form of parks or protected areas, whereas in British Columbia we have almost three times that percentage but many more times that amount many more millions of hectares when you compare it in terms of actual amount of area covered by protected areas here in British Columbia. So I hardly think that we'll be in a position to take too many lectures from the conduct of officials south of the border. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I note that at the very time that the UNESCO delegation was visiting Montana, there was a U.S. federal court decision that had to do with grizzly bears. The judge specifically made comments that officials in Montana had to do more work to protect the grizzly bears in their state. By contrast, the grizzly bear populations in British Columbia are much more healthy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We do have concerns in certain regions of the province, but the Flathead area is not one of them when it comes to the overall health of wildlife. We want to make sure that that wildlife is maintained, but certainly, when we compare what's happening on our side of the border to what has happened in Montana, we can all conclude that things have been much better from an environmental perspective. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our goal as a government is to make sure that that continues to be the case. We want to continue to learn. We welcome the UNESCO officials. I'm sure they'll be making some comments in the near future, but certainly our environmental practices, I think, are top-rate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can we learn from others? Sure. We want to continue to learn from others, but we can also learn from others about how to not do things. I think some of the things that have taken place in the state of Montana are some of those things that we can learn not to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: I've got two questions on the environmental assessment process. In the interest of time, and in consideration of my colleagues, I'll try to wrap both of them up together. They are both relating to independent power projects. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The first is the Upper Toba hydroelectric project. I was listening to the minister talk to the member for Delta South about how complicated it is to have the environmental assessment project and how many folders and binders the minister has to deal with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just want to remind him that the Upper Toba hydro project involves three streams which are fish-bearing. In March 2009 DFO said that the requirements the proponent was seeking and the habitat destruction that would result from the proponent's design were unacceptable. A week later, March 16, the federal agencies withdrew from the environmental assessment, conducting their own process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Three days later, on March 19, the EAO and the proponent apparently reached an agreement, and on March 20, one day later, the minister, I believe, signed off on that without taking the 45 days "to go through the binders." I'd like to ask the minister why it took only one day when there were, clearly, concerns from at least the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal proponents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Likewise, I would like to know, on the Bute project, why the minister has decided that it shouldn't be working alongside the federal environmental assessment, but that the province is going its own way on environmental assessment as of May next year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1805-1810]
Hon. B. Penner: To address the member's questions about upper Toba, I think she said that ministers made a decision one day after receiving the package. That's incorrect. The project was referred to ministers with a recommendation for approval on March 20, 2009. The certificate was actually issued on March 31, 2009. It's 11 days. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The certificate contained 52 commitments to mitigate potential impacts, including maintaining sufficient in-stream flows to protect fish and fish habitat; minimizing channel erosion and fish stranding with flow ramping protocols; avoiding breeding birds, nesting habitats and mountain goat winter habitat; developing a grizzly bear monitoring plan to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Environment; and developing mitigation, compensation and monitoring plans in consultation with regulatory agencies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The project was accepted for formal review on September 17, 2008. The environmental assessment office held a 56-day public comment period that ended on December 1, 2008. As already noted, the certificate was issued on March 31, 2009, having received approval from myself and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are a number of instances where, relying on information from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other federal agencies, we make our determinations, and the federal government makes their decision sometime later but based on the same information, often, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One example of that is Kwoiek Creek in the Fraser Canyon near Boston Bar. The environmental assessment office concluded the review, and it was approved by myself and the Minister of Energy and Mines in March of this year. Then just at the end of September the federal government reached the same conclusion we did, which was that that project, which is a 50 megawatt run-of-the-river project, would not have any adverse impacts on the environment that could not be mitigated with various conditions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is not uncommon for the B.C. environmental assessment process to reach conclusions before the federal government process does. One reason that may be is that the federal government, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, in a given year can have up to 7,000 projects that come into its process, so they are pretty busy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're busy too, but we have a staff of about 55 people within the environmental assessment office who focus on this task of reviewing projects and coordinating reviews with federal and provincial agencies. We think that they do a pretty thorough job. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's why, in the case of Bute Inlet, we believed that it was appropriate for the environmental assessment office to handle that review, as they do other reviews for British Columbia. The federal government decided to appoint a panel, which is something that they do from time to time, and that's entirely their prerogative. We believe that our environmental assessment staff are capable of giving us the advice that we need. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: Groups like Bear Aware have moved the ministry a long way towards trying to rehabilitate orphan bear cubs as opposed to destroying them, and I applaud that, yet there's no core funding from the ministry for the accredited groups there are four of them that do this work of orphan bear rehabilitation. There's some meagre funding through gaming. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask this question of the minister: why has he designated $400,000 to an experimental bear high school on Grouse Mountain when his own staff had nothing to do with it and his own ministry provides nothing in the way of support for the accredited bear rehab facilities that are existing in the province, doing the ministry's work? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1815]
Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the question. To start with some good news, over the last three years the number of problem black bears or black bears that get into problems by interacting with people and end up being destroyed by the conservation officer service is down 50 percent, when compared to the last three years under the previous NDP government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know that there's additional work that still needs to be done. We work with local communities and try to educate the public to do what they can control within their own residences or their yards not to have attractants that cause hungry bears to wander into harm's way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think we've had some significant success, but from time to time we all read about and hear about incidents like we did last year, for example. It was a year with considerable issues with bears getting into residential neighbourhoods. One woman was attacked, as I recall, in her house. She had left her door open, and a bear found his or her way in and confronted the homeowner. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The North Shore of Vancouver is no stranger to conflicts arising between people and bears. Those homes on the North Shore of North Vancouver have crept up the hillsides into bear habitat, and the inevitable has happened. There have been confrontations or conflicts. Again, there's work being done, and I commend the district of North Vancouver for the work they've done to help educate their residents on how they can reduce the number of bears getting into trouble. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In terms of the pilot project that the B.C. government supports, we felt that it was important. The Premier made a commitment in 2005, after a particularly large number of bear incidents in North Vancouver, to see if there wasn't something more that we could do to increase the chances of black bear cubs being successfully reintroduced into the wild. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've been to, I think, three out of four of the current bear rehabilitation facilities which, by the way, didn't get any funding under the previous NDP government either during the 1990s. It is true that it's not something that's a core part of our budget. It wasn't when the NDP had ten years in office, and it hasn't been during our eight years in office either. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is different about the proposal for this intermediate rehabilitation facility is that it's much larger in scope. At the places I've visited, the bears have a very small space in which to move about. Sometimes you can have multiple bears in an area that's not much bigger than this committee room. The idea was, rather than just taking the bears straight from those facilities and letting them into the woods and saying good luck, to see if their chances for survival could be enhanced if they were brought to an area I think the proposal on Fromme mountain in North Vancouver is 32 hectares in size, or about 80 acres, much larger than anything that's currently being used to give them a chance to forage, spend a winter and see if they can learn some denning skills to help them survive in the real world. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Minister, noting the hour. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I would like just to wrap up on this, but I do want to provide the member with the information he's seeking. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. B. Penner: I'm sorry that the member doesn't support efforts to improve the odds for orphan bear cubs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: All discussion goes through the Chair, and if everyone would allow the speaker on the floor to have the floor. Thank you, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: We have said as a government that we are prepared to set aside up to $400,000 to see if this experiment, this pilot project, could have some dividends for capital; not for operating dollars, but for capital. There's a partner called Grouse Mountain Resorts that's willing to provide the operating cost to look after the bears and see if it can work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's curious that the member that represents Port Alberni on the west side of Vancouver Island has spent so much time in the district of North Vancouver quite far from his constituency. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1820]
Anyway, we do think that trying to find ways to improve the odds for orphaned black bear cubs is something we're supporting, but we have said that a number of standards and criteria would have to be met before the dollars will flow. One of those conditions is support from the district of North Vancouver. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now I know, as I mentioned, that the member has been spending time in North Vancouver. I don't think it's appropriate to interfere with what the district of North Vancouver is going to vote or decide to do. I think we should allow the district of North Vancouver to make their decision unencumbered by political interference. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That said, we do think that if various criteria can be met, it's a pilot project that's worth trying. If it doesn't work, we'll have learned something. If it does work, we'll have learned a lot that can help orphaned bear cubs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:21 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada