2010
Legislative Session: Second 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
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. McIntyre in the chair.
The committee met at 2:41 p.m.
On Vote 30: ministry operations, $135,104,000 (continued).
The Chair: Welcome to Committee A, everybody, this afternoon. I welcome you. We are in the continuing estimates of the Ministry of the Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: It's nice to be back feels like only yesterday that we were doing this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: I have a question in a moment that will take us up that coastline, but first up I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One is . The Cetus Research Society in Alert Bay has held a B.C. Parks contract for the Robson Bight marine water program since 2005. It's now the time when they're starting to hire their staff and need to get going on this. I was wondering whether the minister could give me assurances that the contract process is underway and that Cetus will soon be able to start hiring their staff again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member giving us a heads-up about this question. It gave us a chance to track down some details to make efficient use of our time. The member will be aware that this organization had been contracted to do some work following the spill that took place I believe it was in August 2007 in Robson Bight. No one is contradicting me, so I assume that my memory is correct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The previous monitoring contract was a one-year contract with the option to be extended for an additional year. The extension was granted for last year's operations. For this year, the contract will be tendered through a competitive bidding process. That's because the financial value of this service exceeds the $25,000 threshold, or at least we anticipate it will. We'd be pleased if we got a bid that was under that amount, but it may well be over. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Therefore, the ministry feels that it's appropriate to put this out to competitive bidding. Apparently a letter has been sent by e-mail to Cetus Research and Conservation Society letting them know that there will be a request for proposals posted for this opportunity, and I presume that will take place fairly soon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: If I might ask the minister if there is any time frame for the proposals to be evaluated, because it is the time when people are coming out of college looking for work. Then the research organization obviously wants to find the best people to be working in the area and doesn't want to lose good candidates. If there is any possibility that it could be sped up . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: We expect that the bid request, the RFP, will be posted very soon, perhaps imminently, and then there would be a two-week turnaround period. In other words, there would be two weeks for people to respond to the request for proposals and then, I suppose, it would take us a short period of time to evaluate those proposals before awarding that contract. But we are moving as quickly as we can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1445]
C. Trevena: So we'd be looking possibly within a month, four weeks. Two weeks to get the proposals in, look through them and hopefully be able to award this within another couple of weeks. We'd be talking about the end of May, really, the beginning of June, to get this process completed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: We expect it would be somewhere in that time period. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: I want to move to another area that I also forewarn the minister about, and that's the issue of arsenic at Quinsam Coal. I think that the minister is mostly aware, through conversations with the Minister of State for Mining and others, that Quinsam Coal is looking at developing new seams in its underground operation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That has raised some concerns with environmentalists in the Campbell River area the Campbell River Environmental Council, Greenways Land Trust and others of the level of arsenic that could come through into Long Lake and No Name Lake in the area, as well as the Quinsam River. There have been extensive studies by Dr. William Cullen about arsenic in the Quinsam watershed, and he's raised some concerns about this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Quinsam Coal is pretty confident that there won't be increased levels of arsenic in the watershed, but I wondered if there are any thoughts to having an independent Ministry of Environment environmental impact study so we can get this sorted out, because I know this is one expansion that Quinsam's looking at doing. It will extend the life of the mine. Then there are other plans for other expansions over the coming years, so if we can get some environmental impact on the levels of arsenic and how that's going to affect expansion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
Hon. B. Penner: Sorry, it took some time to go through various pieces of paper here, trying to assimilate the information to give a concise answer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the member, I believe, is aware, the company had expressed an interest in some type of expansion to their operations. They submitted an application to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The Ministry of Environment did not receive an application, but it did go to MEMPR. At a meeting on March 5 of this year, at something called the Vancouver Island Mine Development Review Committee, the Quinsam Coal Corp. was advised that their application was lacking certain information and that more work would be required before a permit would be granted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As to the status of the lake, it's true that there are elevated levels of arsenic detected in the sediment, I believe, at the bottom of Long Lake, if I have that correct. If it's any comfort, apparently these elevated levels of arsenic were not detected in the water itself, though, and there's no evidence of it reaching the Quinsam River. There were not detectable levels of arsenic in the Quinsam River. So that's the good news. However, because of the levels found in the sediment at the bottom of Long Lake, additional work is required. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Golder Associates has been retained to further investigate the levels of arsenic and something known as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, better known as PAHs, in Long Lake sediments and to determine bioavailability, toxicity and impacts. That work is being overseen through a technical steering committee which includes the Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, the city of Campbell River, the Ministry of Energy and Mines and, as well, Quinsam Coal Corp. The information will be made public once that's complete. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
I think that pretty much sums up the information that I have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: As I mentioned, it is the issue of expansion and the concern when the mine does expand whether there is going to be any further leaching. So the work being done by Golder Associates is that a requirement of the expansion through the Ministry of Mines? Or is this something that has been instigated by the Ministry of Environment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I'm really looking for is to have the involvement of the Ministry of Environment. I know this is unusual, because it's not like a new mine; it's an expansion. It's already underground like, no new entries to it at this area where they're going into. So it's just forward-looking whether, when we start getting possible heavy rains or whatever, there is an impact there. It's whether there would be that possibility of Ministry of Environment oversight here or whether it's going to be staying with Golder. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Thank you for the question. This mine advisory committee that I referenced a moment ago was established as a result of concerns that members of the local community had expressed. As noted, it includes stakeholders such as local government and federal agencies, but also the provincial Ministry of Environment. I'm advised that this recent study by Golder Associates was instigated by the Ministry of Environment, which is serving on the environmental technical review committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I should stress that the company, Quinsam Coal Corp., cannot proceed with their planned expansion unless and until they receive approval from both the Ministry of Energy and Mines for mining activity and the Ministry of Environment for waste discharge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that answer. I'd like to move on to my last topic with the minister, and that is the issue of independent power projects and, particularly, the Klinaklini project that is being developed. It's a very specific question of whether, when these projects are being developed, conservancies and protected lands will be respected whether land conservancies will be respected in the development of those projects. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
Hon. B. Penner: As the member will be aware, there was a long and complex set of negotiations that went on for about ten years for a land use plan involving the mid- and north coast of British Columbia. That area has become known as the Great Bear rain forest. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As a result of agreements that were reached between the provincial government, local First Nations, industry and environmental groups, those ten years of negotiations concluded. That agreement was announced in February 2006 by the Premier and a number of other people on the stage with him. Following that, the provincial government moved to complete those agreements by enacting legislation to establish conservancies in the areas that had been identified as a result of the many years of sometimes arduous negotiations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
I believe now that all of the conservancies that had been agreed to in concept in terms of location have now been enacted through protected areas legislation and the establishment of conservancies more than 100. I'm advised that there are about 111 for the central and north coast as a result of that land use plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Other conservancies have since been established in some other locations as a result of other land and resource management plan processes, but for now we're just talking about the ones on the midcoast. From time to time, people, organizations, local governments or, sometimes, governments themselves seek to amend existing boundaries for protected areas. The provincial government, since 2004, has tried to codify that process by establishing a policy that people can see, a policy framework for assessing these types of requests. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Previously there wasn't much of a process, at least externally known. It was a bit random. I know that there was some criticism in the late 1990s when a number of park boundaries were adjusted without public consultation to facilitate a variety of purposes that the government of the day deemed to be important from a public policy perspective a corridor for a pipeline, highways or a logging road to get through to a forest on the other side of a protected area. So we felt that it was appropriate to come up with this policy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You can find that updated policy, known as the "Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines," on the B.C. Parks website. It's there for people to peruse, and you can see the number of factors and steps that we would take in assessing potential applications to amend existing boundaries. As noted, the Upper Klinaklini conservancy is now an established boundary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Clearly, not all applications get approved. I reference the Upper Pitt River issue that came to light a number of years ago, also involving a potential independent power project, where the proponent was seeking to have the boundary adjusted for Pinecone Burke Provincial Park to allow the construction of a transmission line corridor. Following public consultation on that process, I concluded that that was not a proposal that I was prepared to support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In this case I can advise the member that the government has given careful consideration to this request. There has been an expression of interest and support from the local First Nations, who have told the government very clearly that they would support this amendment for this proposed power project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have carefully considered the benefits and potential impacts from this proposal and can note that the anticipated benefits include a $2.5 billion investment in British Columbia, mostly in capital costs; 3,904 person-years of direct employment; 4,372 person-years of indirect employment; 1,718 person-years of induced employment I guess that's better known as spinoff employment; and total wages during peak construction years of between $120 million and $200 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those are some of the positive benefits, including a new source of renewable electricity for British Columbia without emitting carbon or other forms of air pollution. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the other hand, there are also potential negative impacts from this project. I've also taken those into consideration. These include, depending on exactly what the proponent was communicating, an increase in the water elevation of that portion of the river in the Upper Klinaklini conservancy from 1.5 kilometres to 2.5 kilometres or possibly six kilometres upstream, and expanding the wetted area of the Klinaklini River from about 50 hectares to perhaps a hundred hectares. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
From that flow a number of other potential consequences. There are, apparently, a number of perhaps 20 fish-bearing tributaries that would be backwatered to some extent by the proposed construction of the intake structure, which would back up the water so that you could fill an intake pipe a penstock, as it's known in the industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
There are apparently up to 57 hectares of riparian habitat that could be affected, 65 percent of which, we've been told, would be old-growth forest that would be submerged or inundated or affected by the increase in water levels as a result of the project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are within that area a number of conservation data centre red- and blue-listed species in the old-growth plant communities. There's a grizzly bear corridor that exists in the area, which serves an important function of connecting the coast to the Interior. In fact, reports that we have seen indicate that there are several bear mark trees that would be within the area of the project and within the conservancy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's also evidence that moose use this corridor. For example, I'm told that moose tracks were observed during a 2009 field assessment and that moose activity has been observed in the wetland on the east side of the river, which would also be within the proposed headpond area, so behind the intake structure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There were other concerns about whether or not the impacts to fish habitat could be mitigated, and there's concern that perhaps it could not be. Then there's a related issue that the project's proposed transmission line was proposed or is proposed to go through the Stafford Estuary conservancy. The transmission line would also be adjacent to, although not through, the Wahkash Point conservancy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those are some factors that I took into account. It's always difficult to weigh competing interests, and certainly our government is very committed to a strong working relationship with First Nations, and those First Nations in particular. We've enjoyed a good working relationship. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We want to continue to work with them, but after carefully considering all of the factors that I've enumerated, and probably some that I haven't, I have decided that I will not be recommending that the boundaries of the Upper Klinaklini conservancy be amended in order to facilitate this project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: I thank the minister for going through this and for his confirmation that the boundaries won't be amended and that he won't be recommending the amendment. For the project to continue.... If the project wants to continue and finds some different routing, would that mean another look at it, or is it only because of the impact on the conservancies that we're talking about not changing the boundaries of the conservancies? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister has spoken quite clearly about the impact of the project itself on the river and on much of the habitat. The habitat.... Some of it is in conservancy, and some of it isn't, so I'm just wondering if the minister is taking it to the next step and saying that this is a project that really is not suitable for the area because of the environmental impacts, even where that impact is outside the conservancy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The reason that the decision came to me at this point in the process, unlike other run-of-river projects or other major industrial proposals whether they be pipelines or coal mines or other forms of activity is that the proponent had concluded that the project could not go ahead without an amendment to the conservancy boundary. Otherwise, the proponent's trajectory would have been through an environmental assessment process dealing with the federal government and so forth the routine process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What's different about this one is that the project requires a legislative change to make it happen to be clear about that. For other types of projects that still require permitting, detailed analysis and review by a multitude of federal and provincial agencies, that's a rigorous process. You have to submit lots of information. There's scrutiny, and you may or may not obtain your permits, but legislative changes are not required. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
What was required in this instance was a change to the conservancy boundary, and that could only be done through a legislative change. I've indicated, as I noted in my previous answer, that I'm not going to recommend that to my cabinet colleagues or to yourselves as fellow Members of the Legislative Assembly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So now it will be up to the proponent to decide what their course of action is and whether or not they have a project that they still wish to pursue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: It's very interesting to listen to the comments of the minister regarding this proposal for a huge, private hydroelectric project in the Klinaklini River, which for the information of listeners is in the Knight Inlet area, up the coast. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It reminds me of, from what the minister said so far, and he made reference already to, the Upper Pitt power project that was proposed by Run of River Inc. As the minister alluded to, they needed to put a power line through a provincial park in order to make the project a success. They would have required an amendment of legislation to, I think it was, the Park Act to allow them to do that. The minister indicated, as he said a few years ago, that he wasn't prepared to do that amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, because it's in my area, I do see the proponent from time to time, and I believe it was last summer that I saw him. We spoke briefly about that project, and he certainly doesn't consider it done. He doesn't consider that he's finished there. He's talking about a tunnel through Burke Mountain to reach his desired goal and to complete what he had begun. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I'm trying to understand, comparing that situation to what the minister has said now about the Klinaklini. I'm very clear, I think, that the minister has said that without him changing the legislation to allow an amendment to the conservancy, it wouldn't be possible to proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just want to clarify a little bit more, though, with the minister. Where does that leave the proponent? Is this project dead? Or is it open to further discussion with the government? Just where is the proponent at, now that the minister has made public ? I'm sure he's probably already told the proponent I don't know about that decision. Anyway, here today he's told us that he's not going to amend the conservancy. Where does that leave the proponent? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]
Hon. B. Penner: As indicated, I've made my decision based upon the proposal that we received or the request that we obtained from the proponent along with the input from the First Nations. I'm not aware of any other proposal, so I can't prejudge what the proponent may or may not do at this point. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can confirm to the member that the proponent has been notified of my decision. So if the member would like to inquire of the proponent as to what their plans are, you're free to do so. I'm not in a position to speak to them, and I have not heard what their plans are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Well, it sounds good, as far as I'm concerned, because I have great concerns about that project and have had since I've heard about it. I want to put a few of those concerns briefly on the record. As I understand it, the minister has made a decision, but it is conceivable although I would hope not, but I think that it is conceivable, unless the minister tells me otherwise that he could reverse his decision at some point. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to talk for just a minute about this project. This project, if it would have proceeded or if it is to proceed and I haven't had any conversations with the proponent about it would be a mammoth project, producing upward at the high end of 800 megawatts of power. Now that's compared to Site C, which is 900 megawatts of power production. So it was a very, very large proposal as far as I'm aware of, the largest proposal in the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The dam, which they refer to as a weir in the business, would be 30 metres tall a 90-foot-high dam. The tunnel would be 27 feet in diameter, a mammoth tunnel. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here's the part, though, that concerned me the very most about this project. And for listeners, they have to understand a little bit about the structure of a power project like this. You have a dam. The water is behind the dam. Then, where the water is gathered at the dam, you have a pipe, a tunnel that runs down to a power station. There's a lot of water that's diverted in the process, so where that water is diverted the river is affected, and that's the important part. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, this diversion would have been huge an 18-kilometre diversion. I've never heard of one so long; there may be in other locations. The concerning part for me, however, is that there was an impassable fish barrier. And I must say that the minister commented yesterday that most of these projects are above impassable barriers to fish, but that's not what I've seen so far. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I certainly haven't looked at as many of them, I'm sure, as the minister has. But in the Upper Pitt it wasn't the case, and that was a series of smaller streams there. In this one the impassable barrier would have been about three kilometres below the dam. So that means that of the total 18 kilometres, you're left with 15 kilometres where the fish would be in the water and the water would be being diverted around the fish. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Not all the water, of course, but a good portion of the water gets diverted around the fish habitat. As we discussed a little bit in this committee yesterday, that can be very problematic, because the shallow areas on the edges, the side channels and so on, are where the salmon and the other species of fish spawn. That can very much affect their spawning and their rearing of young. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One needs to know that all five species of B.C. salmon are in that portion of that river. That's how significant that project would have been, and that's the kind of effect that it could have had on a resource in British Columbia which is severely impacted and stressed now, as we already know. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
In addition to all five species of salmon, there are steelhead, cutthroat and Dolly Varden. So I don't understand why the project even got consideration at all. I just don't get it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I am pleased, very pleased, with the minister's announcement today. I hope that it won't be reversed and that the proponent will have gotten a clear message from the government not to proceed with this what I believe would clearly have been an environmentally devastating project and that they will pull up stakes and find greener pastures. That's my hope. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Just to respond to the member. He's right. I have made an effort to try and get out to see these projects in preconstruction, construction and post-construction operation, to get a good idea of how they work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can tell the member and I think we've had this discussion before that proponents typically look to site these projects on rivers above a naturally occurring fish barrier. So the idea is that within the diversion reach you won't have fish occurring, or certainly not salmon species such as the five that you referred to. If that approach is followed, then there shouldn't be the issue that the member identified around the side channel habitat if the fish aren't there to begin with. That is the objective. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But back to this particular application. Again, for the reasons that I noted and the fact that the law is in place and it was a result of ten years of land-use planning process and negotiations to establish those boundaries and that those boundaries now represent the status quo, I was not prepared to recommend to the member, to the chair or other members of the Legislature that those boundaries be changed to facilitate this project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I understand that we're not supposed to debate legislation that's before the House when we're in other committees, but I do just want to reference that the members will have a chance to vote on a piece of legislation in the next few weeks. I'm referring to the Clean Energy Act, which has a provision in it giving direction to B.C. Hydro and to proponents not to consider proposals for power purchase agreements for projects that would be located within protected areas such as parks and conservancies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's to address the issue that the member just mentioned here about why it was being considered by B.C. Hydro. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: Just an issue that I've met with the minister and spoken to the minister about, and it just relates to the Windermere elk fence. This again is an area that the minister is responsible for, of course, but also is familiar with, because the minister has been in the area and, in fact, the minister did intercede in a particular issue and got a fix. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, on the issue that I'll lay out for the minister, there are certainly complexities with it, and there are a number of values and interests that need to be balanced, but I'll just lay it out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's a gentleman that has built an eight-foot elk fence. The fence is not complete, and elk are continuously getting caught behind it. The elk have been herded with pickups out of the fence area, and what neighbours are saying to our office and I think have conveyed to the minister as well is that they feel that the elk are getting stressed and caught in the fence sometimes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The conservation officer has visited the property and requested that the gentleman put in a four-foot jumpable fence so that the elk could escape. There was compliance with this, but since April 1 the gate has been closed and locked, once more trapping the elk. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess the first question is: from what the minister knows, why is the gentleman not required to keep that four-foot drop fence open? Or is this something that the minister will be aware of at all? I'm sure that the minister has files in front of him, and I know that people have regularly been in communication with the minister. So maybe that's the first question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1530]
I have five questions, and they're all pretty straightforward, but if the minister has that answer we can put it on record here. If it's something that the minister can put on record later, that can be an efficient use of time as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I wonder if the member could confirm if the four-foot drop fence you are referring to is built across the creek or is proposed that it be built on the creek or elsewhere on the property and if the intention is, as far as the member knows, to prevent elk from entering the person's property or from exiting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[D. Horne in the chair.]
N. Macdonald: I would apologize if this is inaccurate. My understanding, from driving around I'm going on my memory is that the fence is on the normal part of the fence and is not across the creek. My understanding is that the intention was to give a place for elk to leave the property because the fence is not complete. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Therefore, you get elk into one part of it. They panic and can't move out, so the owner tries to push them out. That's my understanding, and I would apologize if that's not accurate. But further to my understanding is that this was seen as a solution to allow the elk to get out without being trapped in the one area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
Hon. B. Penner: I apologize to the member. We don't have all the details here. It sounds like, from what we do have and from what the member has indicated, it is the rancher's intention to complete the fence around his property, which hopefully will prevent further ingress and, therefore, the problem of how the elk would escape his property. I don't know if that is the member's understanding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our regional staff have been dealing with it. It turns out the people behind me have not been familiar with this file to date. I expect they will do some digging to find out a bit more. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We do understand, of course, the concerns of ranchers who want to protect their crops and their private land, but obviously there is the unintended consequence of posing some hardship for wildlife in the area as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member and I have had this conversation before. It's a vexing issue. It's tough to strike the balance, but it's something that we're working to do. I know that Ministry of Environment staff in the region have also been working with Ministry of Agriculture and Lands staff on this issue because it touches both ministries on the wildlife and the agriculture side. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: Of course it's unfair. The minister has so many files. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The peculiarities of this are that it actually is being rezoned, and it's going to be made into a residential area. So there are all sorts of complications with that that have to be worked through, and there are possibilities that the fence will be ordered to come down. The eight-foot fence is there for agricultural reasons. If the zoning happens, then it would no longer apply. So there are all sorts of . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The rezoning may not allow any sort of fence? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: That's right. There are those sorts of complications. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other thing that residents have asked me to ask you about is they have complained about the fact that the elk are being driven off the property. They cite the Wildlife Act, section 27(3), the "Use of conveyance:" "A person who herds or harasses wildlife with the use of a motor vehicle ." The minister would be familiar with that. They have been told that it doesn't apply to private land, so they wonder about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess the question for the minister is: is that accurate? And then the follow-up would be: if that is accurate, why is that? Why would that distinction be made? They feel that it shouldn't happen. So those two questions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: We'd like to review this matter in some more detail and check with the local staff on this to see if the local conservation officer service can provide us with information about their approach to this particular issue. We'll seek some clarity about your question pertaining to section 27(3), I think you said, of the Wildlife Act, and we'll get back to you on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: Maybe what we'll do is I'll just give you the other questions that the people are asking, and then from there, we can deal with this in a different venue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Basically, there's also concern about an area that the minister would have gone to. This is near the creekside where the fence is being held up by barbed-wire supports. The concern is that elk seem to have run into this, and they wonder why you would have a guy wire there in the first place. It's there to hold up, and why would it be barbed wire? There's the concern there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The guy wire is barbed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1540]
N. Macdonald: It's barbed, yeah. There's concern about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So a fairly particular issue, but there is a tremendous amount of interest from people on the Windermere Loop road. There is a degree of frustration. There is a recognition that you've got issues like this around the province which are complicated, but there's also a sense that it's not going the way that it needs to go. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other issue I'll put to you is that it is not as easy as an MLA to speak directly to a conservation officer as would be useful. I don't know where that comes from, but there's a sense that we need to go directly into the main office and then come back down. Sometimes that's not the case. But I just put it out to you that often it would be simpler for our office and for us as individuals to just go and deal directly with the conservation officers without that restriction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It might come from a time, maybe five years ago, when the conservation officer issues in a few communities were highly politicized, where that might have been a protocol that made sense. But it does make these issues more complicated for us to solve. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With most of the issues we're dealing with, we're actually looking for solutions. I know the minister is, as well, since you came in and actually solved personally one of the problems that we had in the past. So I'll just leave that with you, and then I'll continue with the correspondence and look at if we can find a solution that works for people in the area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I thank again the member for his interest in this issue. Just pertaining to the conservation officers, it's our understanding that anybody is at liberty to ask our conservation officers technical questions any time and to have that kind of conversation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I have some questions for the minister about some hunting issues, particularly in the Kootenay region, that the member for Kootenay West would probably be asking but because of circumstances is not here, which I know the minister understands and appreciates. So I will ask them on behalf of her constituents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They have to do with changes to hunting regulations for two ungulate species in the Kootenays it's in the Okanagan boundary area but particular to some of the urban parts, like Grand Forks and how the ministry is, with regards to white-tailed deer, gathering its population statistics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The concern is that there's no differentiation between, apparently, an abundance of deer in people's back yards and such in urban areas and relatively sparse and perhaps declining populations in the mountainous areas in these regions. Obviously, hunters can't hunt in people's back yards, where apparently most of the deer now are. The concern is that the ministry is actually managing the wrong herds of deer by expanding the hunting opportunities for white-tailed deer in the Grand Forks area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
The first question would be just around the statistics-gathering. Did the ministry or does the ministry differentiate, within this population of white-tailed deer, where they reside and where the populations are concentrated, between the urban areas and the surrounding areas? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for his question on behalf of his colleague. We all wish her well. I did have a chance to talk to her a couple weeks ago, and she told me at that time about the medical adventure that she and her husband are embarking on. I wish her and Ed all the best. I got to know Ed fairly well during my first term here in Victoria. So we all wish them very well, and I hope they keep us updated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As to the question around Grand Forks, the member may be interested to know that just in the last three weeks or so we did have a ministry biologist going out and doing a deer count, particularly north of town towards the Gilpin grasslands, which includes an area that was recently established as a provincial park a couple of years ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I had the privilege of bringing in legislation to establish the Gilpin Grasslands Provincial Park, but the Gilpin grasslands are bigger than the provincial park. They go up the hillside and provide very excellent habitat for a range of ungulates, including, I believe, bighorn sheep. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
On this occasion the biologist noted not only mule deer but a preponderance of white-tailed deer so many, according to the report we got back, that the biologist stopped counting after a while because there were so many white-tailed deer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's not completely unexpected, given the provincial trends that we've seen. A few years ago the total white tail population was estimated at somewhere between 60,000 to 65,000. More recently now the population estimate is 100,000 white-tailed deer. They seem to be pretty adept at avoiding people and hunters. They've learned a few strategies to kind of disappear into the woods when hunters come along. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's on that basis that we felt comfortable in the ministry moving from an LEH hunt for white tail to open season. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: The minister's answer, of course, is informed by a population count that was just done a few weeks ago, but there have been third-party population estimates done. One has been done by a Penticton biologist based there who has done population counts along the Grandby River and has a comparable amount of data going back a decade at least that I'm aware of in which his conclusion is quite dramatically different than the scientist that the minister has just quoted, which shows a 40 percent decline in the white-tailed deer population. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wonder whether the ministry is working with guide-outfitters and other organizations that are the eyes and ears on the land base in that area and are conducting their own surveys. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In this case it was a spotlight survey done at night where they counted the animals. They're using a methodology that appears to be quite feasible, quite rigorous, but they reached a completely opposite conclusion to what the minister has just stated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In support of, I think, what the minister has just said, the ministry has posted on its website a comment in their document, White-Tailed Deer: Management Choices and Options for B.C. Quite an aggressive recommendation or a thought there suggests that sport harvest may no longer be adequate to manage deer population and that culling may be required. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1555]
How does a conclusion like that square with what we're hearing from people who are registered hunters, who form the various clubs in the region and who are calling and working with the regional managers in his ministry to urge a much more cautious approach and a more restricted hunting season? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: In my short five-year tenure as the Minister of Environment, I've noted that virtually any change that's ever made to hunting regulations tends to provoke some controversy. When we're dealing with the new allocation policy, there were those that felt we gave too much to resident hunters and those that felt we didn't take away enough from guide-outfitters. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Others have complained at length about the LEH system, feeling that the random draw is not fair because they can submit their application for a draw and pay the price to do so year after year after year and not be successful, while their neighbour could be successful on the first go. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In this case we're talking about moving from an LEH to an open season. I've heard plenty from hunters that would prefer more open seasons, restricted to certain times a year, with limits and the number of days, as opposed to so many LEH-regulated hunts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In this case I think that one of the other areas, perhaps, of sensitivity is that the change pertains to the doe, the female white-tailed deer. Some hunters understandably have some hesitation about hunting for the female of the species as opposed to the male of the species. That's one element. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't deny that there are some who may have concerns about the population levels, but our ministry has done surveys. Also, we collect information from the hunts that are completed as to the success rate and the number of deer being harvested. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1600]
All of those numbers and the data get assessed by ministry biologists and form the basis for our decision-making around harvest levels and whether or not we're prepared to move from an LEH hunt to a limited open season. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In this case the change would result in a 21-day open season in the fall. So it is constrained by time and place, and there are other limits as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister's comments. I would ask just maybe one more question on this particular hunt and respond to his comments. I think that in this case and in this region it is both a large number of resident hunters and guide-outfitters who feel that the limited entry hunt is more appropriate. It's based on the literally thousands of applications that have occurred in previous years last year as well in which only hundreds of licences were released through a lottery-type system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Potentially, if demand is strong, you could have many, many times more hunters going after this species. The ministry won't be able to control the numbers of hunters with the new regulations it's proposing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would ask him maybe to comment on that. Whether the ministry . What is the increase that they anticipate in issuing licences for this hunt under the new model? Also, to maybe make it explicit, has the ministry approved antlerless hunting for this species, as he seemed to indicate, although it wasn't definitive in what he said? Just about antlerless hunting is that now allowed in the new hunting regulation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1605]
Hon. B. Penner: As I noted previously, whenever we make changes, there can be a difference of views as to whether or not those changes are supported. As I noted previously, we consistently hear from people that they'd like us to change from an LEH to more of an open season. Now that the ministry has been consulting on that . And we did consult. I think we received something like 200 responses, which we considered, and as a result, the proposal has been modified. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Nevertheless, we do get a variety of views, but having said that, I can indicate that a majority of the individual clubs in the Kootenays and the Okanagan support this change, as does the B.C. Wildlife Federation itself. They support the change that we've been proposing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The initial proposal, which brought us the 200 or so responses, was for a 30-day open season in November, during the rut, when the animals are more vulnerable because they're distracted by other things. The proposal now has been modified, in response to some of the concern, to 21 days in October, at a time of the year when the animals are not as distracted by other activities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can also put this in a broader context. When you compare what we're suggesting to other jurisdictions, where whitetail are present, this would put us in a position like Alberta, where they also have an antlerless general open season, as do Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Idaho and Montana. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: Just to go back to the question that I think I opened with, which was about this occurrence of potentially and this is based on observations in the region quite a large population of whitetail deer in urban areas but not such a strong concentration in the mountainous wilderness. Is that the situation? Have ministry scientists observed that? Can they confirm that? Do they distinguish that dispersal of the population at all? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If it is the case, it suggests a very tricky management situation, and I just want to get the minister's comments on it whether that is something that ministry officials can confirm and have taken into account with these regulations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
Hon. B. Penner: The situation involving urban deer, whether in Grand Forks or Kimberley or even the outlying areas of greater Victoria, is a vexing problem, and it seems to have been increasing in recent years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Certainly, whenever I attend the annual meeting of the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, I hear a lot from the local councillors concerned about deer, either in their back yard or their neighbour's back yard, and the havoc that results to their gardens and the concern they have for public safety when some of the large bucks are intermingling with school children in the morning. So it is a serious issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That said, our biologist that was doing the work near Grand Forks was surveying outside of town, so our decision was influenced not by the number of deer within the city limits or in people's back yards but rather by the numbers outside of town, up in the mountains. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I just want to ask about a different hunt and a change in the season that has been announced by the ministry, and that is for bull moose. The question is just for the minister to quickly confirm if the general open season for spike fork bull moose is from October 15 to November 15 for this year the dates which I believe are the ones that are advertised on the ministry site. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Before I provide my answer, just to seek clarification. I think the member is still referring to the area near Grand Forks or the West Kootenays? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. B. Penner: South Okanagan? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A Voice: Yeah. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that there is a proposal that's been posted for the dates that the member mentioned, and that is a change from what has been the scheduled date previously. A final decision on that has not yet been made, but that is what's been proposed and what public input has been sought on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The thinking there, behind that proposal, is that the change in the dates would, again like the whitetail deer, avoid the rut period. Evidently, the moose get into the mood sooner than the whitetail and do it earlier in the fall. This proposal would move the hunting period to later in the fall and avoid that period of time when the moose may be more distracted by other activity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1615]
R. Fleming: I appreciate the information. Just as a follow-up question on what the minister has just said. He's confirmed that what's under active consideration may be a 30-day hunt for bull moose. My understanding is that it goes against internal advice that has been received, from the ministry, by its Penticton office. They're recommending a shorter hunt of 17 days, I believe from October 15 through to October 31. I wanted to ask him about the discrepancy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He's said there's been no final decision. I appreciate that, but it appears that what's under active consideration for approval is something that is a considerably longer season than what the ministry's own internal advice is. I just want to ask him to comment on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct that no decision has been made yet, but there has been a proposal. Just to explain that a bit further, previously the season has run from September 20 to October 31 more than 40 days of open season for moose in that area. It is limited to antlered moose, males. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The proposal would change the date. Instead of starting September 20, it would start on October 15 and end November 15, so you'd have about 30 days of hunting instead of more than 40. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition, moving it back later in the season, outside of the rut period, would make it more challenging for a hunter to be successful because the moose will be more aware of their presence and, as indicated, not as distracted by the presence of the females. This proposal is intended to reduce the vulnerability of the antlered moose population. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1620]
R. Fleming: To the minister: I appreciate his answers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think we would like to move on to talking about the climate action portfolio of his ministry. It may be the case that he will take some of those questions or that the minister of state will, in which case we can wait for him and ministry staff to get settled in a second. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: This committee will stand in recess for five minutes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:25 p.m.
[D. Horne in the chair.]
R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister of state for being available and patient. I'm sure he learned about hunting and other things that were equally fascinating for all involved here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]
I want to ask him about things that are directly under his responsibility within this ministry. To begin with, the report came out recently, Canada's greenhouse gas inventory report, which the federal government, as a responsible party or a party to the Kyoto accord, publishes annually. It had a ranking of provinces and territories, and I think it was disappointing for everybody in B.C. to see that alone amongst the provinces, B.C. had seen an increase in its emissions in this province in the aggregate in 2008 and an increase on the 2007 numbers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to begin there, in that context, about the short-term trend that we appear to be on in British Columbia, which is headed in the wrong direction from where international discussions and the hopes of an agreement to secure binding cuts to greenhouse gas emissions will take us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to ask the minister. These are 2008 numbers not too long ago. They're the most up to date that we have, using the accounting and facility mechanisms that the federal government has. I want to ask him if those results have triggered any discussion or any revisions in the climate action plan of the province of B.C., particularly as they regard the projections that we have to cut B.C.'s emissions, the 33 percent target, by 2020. I'm particularly interested to see if these 2008 numbers are going to put the province off course for the 2012 and 2016 interim targets for the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. J. Yap: It's my honour to participate in the debates on the estimates for the Ministry of Environment as they relate to the climate action secretariat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to the member's question, it's important to note, first of all, that of course there will be year-to-year fluctuations, and it's the long-term trend that we should focus on. The member will know that British Columbia launched the climate action plan in 2008. Included in the plan is the neutral carbon tax, which we know started about the middle of the year, July of 2008. That's a key part of our climate action plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1630]
This was also a time when the economy was very strong, a lot of activity, and other jurisdictions also experienced increases. Just to share with the member, Nova Scotia saw an increase of 0.8 percent; Manitoba, 0.9 percent; and Saskatchewan, 1.4 percent. Of course, British Columbia, as the member noted, had an increase of 0.9 percent, but we're working hard on our climate action plan, and we look forward to achieving our interim target, which is coming up in 2012. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I appreciate his timeline on the carbon tax implementation being only available in place for six months of that year, but that was also around the same time that gas prices, fossil fuel prices in general economy-wide, were $140 a barrel, at the very same time that the carbon tax came on. So there were significant drives in energy prices that would impact behaviour, price changes that were many, many dozens of times higher than the rate at which the carbon tax was implemented. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It was also a time of economic slowdown, or the beginnings of one, in the third and fourth fiscal quarters of 2008. In fact, the report from the government of Canada shows that the somewhat impressive, at first glance, look at the decline in Ontario's emissions was related to the economic slowdown in that part of Canada, which is the manufacturing base. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not sure that that explanation works well for British Columbia. The explanation given by the government of Canada in this report is that the increase was largely due to conventional oil and natural gas extraction an increase in activities for at least a good portion of the 2008 year. That brings an interesting point to the minister and how he works with his colleagues, the Ministry of Energy in particular. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This minister is responsible for achieving interim targets, the long-term targets. How is he going to account for disappointing numbers not only in 2008, which were attributed to natural gas activity, but now the rapid expansion, potential expansion, of even more process emissions and new plants coming on stream that are producing natural gas? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the minister could again tell me . Now that B.C. has to, by 2012 and it's 2010 today, of course not just make a 6 percent cut of provincewide emissions but something like a 7.5 percent or 8 percent cut in emissions, because we now know the 2008 numbers showed an increase, is the minister confident in holding to the projections for our emissions projections in 2012, 2016 and 2020? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1635]
Hon. J. Yap: It's important not to place too much emphasis on yearly results. Having said that, we know that the B.C. economy was the last to go into a slowdown during 2008, and indications are that we will be the first to come out from the recession into recovery. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would refer to the 1990s when, in fact, during the '90s we saw an increase of about 30 percent in emissions. We have the climate action plan, and we are confident that we're implementing the plan and will achieve the reduction targets. In addition, since 2001 the emissions have increased by about 2.2 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask a follow-up question. The government of Canada attributed the rise in 2008 over 2007 to the oil and gas sector in particular, for the megatonnage increase in B.C., and that is a challenge for B.C. Fossil fuel energy activities are incredibly intensive in terms of their greenhouse gas production, and as we can see, it's responsible for the increase in emissions in B.C. for that year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Earlier this year, at the end of January, the environmental assessment office issued a report on the Cabin gas plant in the Horn River basin, an EnCana project that is a shale gas production facility. The plant is extremely large in terms of its . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The environmental assessment office made a comment that but for the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to that project, they were issuing a certificate. Now, the carbon dioxide emissions from the Cabin gas plant are significant. They would represent a 3½ percent increase in the provincewide totals. It is about the equivalent of 450,000 cars being added to our road network annually. It's huge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In light of emission numbers results going in the wrong direction and in light of emission targets being fast upon us, 2012 being the first interim benchmarking year where a 6 percent reduction has to be achieved, what discussions did the minister have with his counterparts with the Premier, perhaps about how approval of this plant and potentially other projects which are taking us in the wrong direction on emissions was allowed to proceed, and what discussions have they had about how that will be managed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1640]
That's an awful lot of carbon mitigation that is going to have to happen elsewhere in the economy to accommodate projects like that, and I'd like to know how the minister squares that with the climate action plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: As one of the ministers that signed the environmental assessment certificate, I thought I would respond to this question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the member noted, this is a very significant project and has some significant economic benefits but also some environmental implications. So this was not a decision that was made lightly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just to quote from the information bulletin that was issued on January 28, 2010, partway through. I'll quote from here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"To address this" and that's a reference to the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions "the plant will be built to capture-ready, and the proponent has committed to working further with government and industry to explore carbon capture-and-storage options. In addition, the plant will be subject to B.C.'s Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, which is a key pillar in B.C.'s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020.
"The issuance of an environmental assessment certificate does not limit government's ability to restrict GHG emissions through the cap-and-trade system or other applicable law. The proponent will also be required to comply with 60 other legally binding commitments."
Then there's a list of what those commitments are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the things to note here is, of course, the economic benefits. The project is estimated . I'm quoting now from the second page of the release. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1645]
"The project will also help generate $4 billion to $6 billion in provincial revenue over its 25-year life span and approximately $1 million per year in taxes to the Northern Rockies regional municipality. The 28-month construction phase is expected to generate an estimated total of 267 person-years of direct, full-time employment. The operations phase is expected to generate an estimated total of 1,000 to 1,250 person-years of direct, full-time employment."
That's part of the equation that goes into an environmental assessment. Under the Environmental Assessment Act, environmental considerations are certainly considered, but so are social and economic. Those are some of the tests that must be considered under the Environmental Assessment Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition to the requirements in the certificate and what's identified in the information bulletin, which I just quoted from, our government is actively exploring the potential to increase the use of electricity in the oil and gas sector in the northeast part of British Columbia, but to do that would require significant additional work, including a northeast transmission line. Then, of course, there's the question: where will the electricity come from? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The government recently announced its intentions to move to stage 3 of the process of reviewing the potential for a Site C dam. That proposal will enter the environmental assessment process review, we expect, sometime in the next year, and it holds the potential of generating more renewable non-greenhouse-gas-emitting electricity. That's one way we can help to reduce emissions that take place from processing plants. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Currently the processing of natural gas in British Columbia consumes significant quantities of fossil fuel to operate those plants. One way to help reduce emissions from the plants as they operate is to switch to electricity, especially when it comes from a renewable source like hydroelectric power. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Speaking of switching, we should also note the potential that natural gas has to facilitate a switch to less carbon-intense fuels. Increasingly, there's interest in using natural gas as a transportation fuel to displace more carbon-intense diesel fuel. That can be a real win for the environment, not just in terms of greenhouse gas emissions but in reducing particulate matter, because natural gas burns cleaner than diesel. It's also a win for the economy of British Columbia, where we have some world leaders in terms of Westport Innovations and their compressed natural gas engines and now liquid natural gas engines, and also for the jobs that are created in the northeast part of the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: Just on the Cabin gas plant, one of the things that was signed off in the environmental assessment was, as the minister said, that the plant will be built capture-ready. It's not quite clear what that means in terms of carbon-capture-and-storage technology. We have a statement from an EnCana representative who represented the company at the regulatory hearings, who said that the only current economically and technically viable plan is to vent the processed carbon dioxide and that that is in accordance with existing regulations. That's their plan for the foreseeable future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We don't know when this plant will come into production, but it will be during years of very imminent provincewide emission reduction targets. Those are emission reduction targets, by the way, and this plant is massive in its scale. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's interesting that elsewhere, EnCana says that while they have carbon sequestration options available to them at other locations in their oil facilities that could be utilized, they make the argument that it costs too much to do it. My concern, really, is that the province, because the regulations are weak on process emissions, is giving a free pass to major, new, large emitters that could come on stream in British Columbia and that that is going to knock off course the targets that are set in law now and the climate action plan of the government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1650]
I'd like the minister to specifically comment on that and why government gave them a free pass instead of requiring sequestration. I know that government was negotiating, I believe in another instance, a much smaller plant, but with Spectra Energy, where that would be a requirement, and in EnCana's case, it was not if the minister could comment on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Just at the outset, I need to point out that I take some exception to the member's comment or description that somehow this company got a free pass, to use his words. If he had been listening as I read the summary of the conditions that have been posed as a result of the environmental assessment certificate, he would have heard that the issuance of an environmental assessment certificate does not limit the government's ability to restrict GHG emissions through the cap-and-trade system or other applicable law. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The proponent will be required to comply with 60 other legally binding commitments, including . I'll read a couple here: "Requiring contractors to use energy-efficient equipment, such as premium-efficiency electric motors and energy-efficient natural gas generators to reduce the project's CO2 emissions." There is a further list of 59 additional commitments, and I won't take up all the committee's time here with that today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As mentioned, we believe natural gas is actually part of the climate solution and not just in British Columbia, as I was alluding to earlier. Clearly there are opportunities for greater use of it as a transportation fuel and displacing much more carbon-intense and particulate-emitting diesel fuel, whether it's for large trucks or port vehicles to Port of Vancouver, or school buses. There's some interest in that, development of that right now in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But outside our borders B.C. is a net exporter of natural gas. To the extent that we can help others also displace the production of greenhouse gas emissions by burning more carbon-intense fuels whether it's coal outside of our province or diesel natural gas is part of the solution to helping reduce our emissions over time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My colleague the Minister for Climate Action was alluding to this earlier and pointing out how the curve has been coming down in terms of the rate of increase in British Columbia. He's right to point out that you shouldn't dwell too much on any one year's worth of data, in part because it's subject to future revision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Environment Canada tends to retroactively, sometimes, adjust the numbers as they get more data for previous years. That's why a few years ago it looked like between 1991 and 2001, greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia had increased by 24 percent. Now, according to the latest inventory report from Environment Canada, which is up to the year 2008 . They've gone back and adjusted the numbers, and it indicates an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 1991 to 2001 of 30 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1655]
However, since 2001 to 2008 those greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 2.2 percent. It's a slower rate of growth, not a decline like we would like to see, but a slowing of the rate of growth. That is a positive development, particularly when you consider how strong the economy was between 2001 and 2008 compared to the 1990s, when our economy was, frankly, on its back, yet we had a very significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What that indicates is that the economies have been performing well, but also, we've been getting more efficient in our use of fuels. There's clearly more work to be done. Natural gas is one way we can do some of that, but it's not the only way. Our plan is more multifaceted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mentioned earlier the opportunity for Site C. If it passes an environmental assessment review, and subject to First Nations consultation, it could be a very large addition to our supply of renewable electricity in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I note that the NDP is officially opposed to that project, but it is one of the things that people like Prof. Andrew Weaver, from the University of Victoria, point to. That is a project that helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the long run by providing a way to switch not just from diesel or gasoline to natural gas but to switch from fossil fuels entirely to electricity. In British Columbia our goal is to produce zero-emission electricity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I just want to ask another question about this project, because it is significant. The minister has just quoted statistics showing the emissions increase over the last decade well, through 2008, '01 to '08. This one project will exceed the better part of a decade's emissions increase. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not going to get into the 1990s, when emissions grew at the rate of economic growth, because it was about the same, and that was the same throughout Canada. We're talking about here and now, when the government has legally obliged emissions targets. This plant is almost a 3.5 percent increase to the tonnage of the entire province. It's 2.2 million tonnes that are projected to increase. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, in the environmental assessment process, information was brought to government about the potential for CCS technology. If it were a requirement, if it were written in as a condition of the EA, the approval that the minister signed, it could have displaced 73 percent of the process emissions at the cabin gas plant. That would be 1.5 million tonnes less than what is projected. Again, I have to ask the minister why he didn't insist on that technology being a condition of this plant becoming operational. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
EnCana's response, by the way, wasn't that it couldn't be done. It was that it would be "burdensome and expensive" for them to do. Meanwhile, we have Spectra Energy, which has brought in CCS technology for a number of its existing operations. They are planning to retrofit their Fort Nelson facility to be CCS, and in this case, the province granted the approval for what is going to be a massive new jolt to emission levels in B.C. 3.5 percent in one fell swoop from this project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why didn't the minister make that a condition of approval for the shale gas plant? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1700]
Hon. B. Penner: I've just been consulting with officials. They're not aware that what the member is saying is correct when he's characterizing what Spectra is currently doing. We're not aware of them currently retrofitting existing plants. We have been in discussions as a government with Spectra for a number of years and have provided some funding through the Ministry of Energy and Mines in the past to help do research to explore the options for carbon capture and storage from their existing facility. I think it's near Fort Nelson, if my memory serves correctly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition, we've had discussions with our federal government, who have offered up a $1 billion clean energy fund. One of the things they've said that money could be eligible for is to help fund carbon storage, sequestration, because there are very significant financial costs associated with that work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I do want to acknowledge that Spectra has been interested in this, and again, we have had conversations. But I don't think the member's characterization of it is quite correct, because I'm not aware of any of the work already having been done physically to implement carbon capture and storage at Spectra's existing facilities in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There has been perhaps in the oil and gas sector some redirection of some of the process gases to recharge the oilfields or the gas fields to increase production. That is something that certainly has taken place, but I'm not aware of a retrofit along the lines that the member is describing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our preferred approach, and I talked about this earlier, is to use market mechanisms by putting a price signal on the price of carbon emissions. One way of doing that is through a cap-and-trade system, because it provides for a limited number of authorizations or allowances of emissions around greenhouse gases. That's another way of saying it creates a restricted market, a limited supply or a quota. We all know that when there are quotas put in place, it tends to drive up the price of those individual quotas, because you're restricting the supply. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That is one of the reasons why British Columbia has been a founding member of the Western Climate Initiative and has already passed cap-and-trade legislation despite the NDP's opposition to it. We passed that legislation in 2008 to help establish the framework to put together a regional cap-and-trade system for western North America. Now it includes the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, and I know that a number of other provinces have joined as observers. We hope that more will join. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With the ongoing uncertainty about what's happening at the U.S. national level, with proposed energy legislation and the potential for a U.S. federal cap-and-trade system being in some doubt, I think it puts greater emphasis again on regional efforts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1705]
R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister and the minister of state, if he's going to answer questions. One of the things that we have heard from ministers across this government is that money is tight. Things that we should be doing, we can't afford to do. Make do with less all sorts of things, whether it's cuts to education or other programs, whether it's appropriating money that used to be available to charities and societies through gaming grants, etc. That's been the government's rationale. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to ask a minister here why in this budget process emissions continue to be exempt from the carbon tax, and also whether he or one of the staff can verify the estimated value of that based on the per-tonne fee that everybody else is paying on the carbon tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the market value of that is suggested to me to be $200 million. Is it the case that a potential revenue source of $200 million was not enacted for carbon tax revenues that apply to everybody else in the economy? If that is the figure, could the minister verify it and explain the thinking on why process emissions continue to be exempt from the carbon tax? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1710]
Hon. J. Yap: As the member knows, we have one of the world's broadest-based carbon taxes, which is based on the consumption of fossil fuels and which covers three-quarters of all emissions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's ongoing research with respect to measurement and improving the measurement of process emissions. And we've introduced regulations that will require reporting of the process emissions with the view that when we have our cap-and-trade system in place, that will cover the process emissions under the Western Climate Initiative. As the member knows, a cap-and-trade system would cover the large emitters and then cover the process emissions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: Just the other part of the question that the minister didn't answer. Were it subject to the carbon tax, what would the value to the treasury be this year, the following year and every year in which we don't have a cap-and-trade system functioning? Would it be approximately $200 million a year from the process emissions? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. J. Yap: First of all, I'm pleased that the member is supportive of a carbon tax, carbon pricing, putting a price on carbon. We're not in a position to talk about the value of the carbon, as the member has requested. But what we can say is that the reporting regulation was put in place in December of 2009, and for the full year of 2010 large emitters will be required to report. We'll be looking at the quality of the reporting as we move forward to a cap-and-trade system, which would capture the value of these emissions by the large emitters. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1715]
R. Fleming: In the climate action plan of 2008, Mark Jaccard was retained to do the modelling that formed most of the assumptions and policies behind the plan that would then meet the legislated GHG reduction targets that are in legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the end of the plan Mr. Jaccard concluded that the sum total of his actions and recommendations and policy could account for maybe between two-thirds and three-quarters of the target of the 33 percent by 2020 and that the rest would have to come from elsewhere. Government, in its wisdom, created a Climate Action Team, which was tasked with bridging the gap the rest of the way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wanted to ask the minister about the status of the Climate Action Team's recommendations, because it's unclear that very many of them have been, in fact, adopted and are being worked on in government. Since that is the situation, how does the minister then expect that we're going to meet the 33 percent target by 2020? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1720]
Hon. J. Yap: The main purpose of the Climate Action Team was to recommend. One of the main recommendations was interim targets, which have been adopted by government. They provided some high-level recommendations from which we are working with a number of working groups to help us with our climate action plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our approach really has been to implement our climate action plan whether it's policies like the carbon tax, which is in place now; programs like energy retrofit, through the LiveSmart program, which was highly successful and, as the member knows, fully subscribed. With this budget, through the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, some new funding is provided to help British Columbians with their energy retrofits. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, a very important piece is the public engagement that we need to do to reach out to British Columbians to spread the message that we all, every one of us in every community around the province, have a role to play in taking action on climate change. So we've had efforts in public engagement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member knows about our citizens councils on conservation, which have consulted with communities around the province and come out with recommendations on how we can engage British Columbians and spread the very important message that this really is about individuals and communities taking action all of us collectively as well as the policies which we have implemented. I mentioned the carbon tax, work through the Western Climate Initiative for the cap-and-trade system and a carbon-neutral public sector a whole range of initiatives that we're implementing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I'm glad the minister mentioned LiveSmart in his comments, because I was going there. The question was really about the gap between the Jaccard modelling, which is the basis for the climate action plan, and the Climate Action Team's recommendations, which were to fill that gap. That's a gap that's worth approximately eight million tonnes of carbon emissions annually, so it's a big one. It's integral. The targets won't be reached by 2020 unless we take that kind of action. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Some of the central recommendations of the Climate Action Team were in fact around LiveSmart and those types of energy conservation programs. In fact, it called for an expanded LiveSmart program. By expanded, it meant perhaps increased by five- or tenfold annually. What we've seen in this budget is that LiveSmart has been reduced by about 40 percent over its previous incarnation. So LiveSmart is actually being ramped down when the Climate Action Team of the government recommended a dramatic ramping up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd be curious to get the minister's opinion about how we might do that how we might secure the revenues to be able to fund the kinds of ambitious retrofit programs that we need in public buildings as well as private dwellings in B.C., funds that can't be cut at the whim of government or, as we saw last year, cancelled entirely for a temporary period. This is going to have to be sustained. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We all know the year 2020 is going to come, probably a lot sooner than we would like, and it requires government to take a running start at these sorts of things. I think we're seeing a backing away from that in government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the minister is around LiveSmart, now that it's been sort of brought back on life support from previously being cancelled. When it was a $60 million, three-year program, a full $7 million, 12 or 15 percent of the budget, was for advertising. I appreciate that it was an election year, and government really wanted to get out the idea that things were being done. It was a significantly large advertising budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can I ask him: out of the $35 million that has been budgeted over the next two fiscal years for the new and a little bit diminished LiveSmart program, how much is budgeted for advertising of that program? I would hope that it's almost zero. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1725]
As the minister rightly reminded the committee in his comments, LiveSmart's problem has been that it is oversubscribed. I think the word has gotten out that this is an investment that people want to make in their homes. I would suggest to him that we don't need any advertising budget, but I would be curious all the same to see what of the $35 million portion over the next two years in funding is going to be for that kind of overhead. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. J. Yap: To be very clear, the LiveSmart energy retrofit program was not cancelled; $60 million was the budget. It was so well received that it was fully subscribed in a much faster time frame. But as homes are energy retrofitted with that first phase the $60 million meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases will result. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To be clear, again, that was the budget $60 million, fully subscribed. We realize that members of the NDP may not find that a budget is something they should respect, but on this side of the House, when we set a budget, we live within the budget. It was not cancelled. The budget was $60 million for the LiveSmart retrofit program, and it was fully subscribed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to the $35 million that has been allocated in this budget for the energy retrofits on the LiveSmart this program is, as the member knows, under the purview of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. As a general statement, though, I would say that it is important to continue to do outreach and provide information to British Columbians as they make decisions on how they can reduce their carbon footprint. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As a final note, when the NDP were in power in the '90s, there was no such program as LiveSmart or something akin to LiveSmart that would provide some support for British Columbians as they might have chosen to retrofit their homes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: The question I'm trying to get the minister to comment on is that LiveSmart is a very small program. It's smaller than it was at its introduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It was originally ascribed a role in the climate action plan of only displacing something like 200,000 tonnes of carbon annually, which is good but not significant in the grand scheme. It was seen as a startup program. What we're seeing now is that it's a stalled program. It has gone nowhere except down in terms of its funding levels. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1730]
This budget overall gives over a billion dollars in oil and gas royalty reductions to that sector. Over the next two years it's investing a grand total of $35 million into LiveSmart two fiscal years and annually $1 billion for the oil and gas sector to reduce the royalties that otherwise would be payable to the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This has to be put into context, and what I would really like the minister's thoughts on, because I believe he would want energy conservation programs to be significantly more ambitious if he believes in his Climate Action Team's recommendations. What I would like to understand is how we might be able to do that, how we might be able to find stable and secure revenue sources for aggressive energy conservation initiatives in the province of B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Some cities like Vancouver are asking for certain powers and authorities like local area improvement charges to be changed legislatively to enable them to play a bigger role than they are right now. Part of the recommendation here looks at revolving funds. Other jurisdictions like the U.K. have a variety of interest-free loans that are available to the public for these sorts of things. There's an entire menu of programs out there that could be implemented. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
I want to ask the minister: in his mind, as we move toward 2012 and 2016, does he see us growing out those programs on the conservation side, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector, which I believe is the second-largest source of emissions in B.C. after the transportation sector? Does he see that happening and being integral to achieving the climate action plan goals on emission reductions? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
Hon. J. Yap: First of all, as I had said previously to the member, we need to have a strong economy so that we will be able to have the kinds of revenues that will allow us to make the investments in the areas that are important, clearly, to British Columbians in health care, education, public safety and initiatives like investing in programs to encourage conservation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those are great programs that the member has alluded to. However, we on this side of the House believe in respecting budgets and being fiscally prudent. So with respect to our climate action plan as it relates to encouraging conservation, we do have the carbon tax, which we believe the opposition now supports, when at first they were very strongly against. The carbon tax is actually an economy-wide carbon tax, which does provide a price signal on carbon and works its way throughout the economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to the building code, we're constantly working to improve and to green the building codes. That is another avenue to encourage and lead to conservation, reduced energy consumption. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Really, the key is to continue to do outreach and engage British Columbians, to work with British Columbians to continue to spread the message that we need to work throughout the province to reduce our carbon footprint. We believe that our climate action plan, as we're implementing it and working with partners throughout the private sector and public sector, will achieve the targets that we've established to reduce our carbon emissions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I think we're very fortunate in British Columbia that people are very conscious of a warming climate and of their contributions as individuals to that. People are making efforts to reduce their carbon footprints to live differently. That is fortunate, because it's not an argument that government or society and our culture have to make to those people. That's a good platform for people to abide and support government actions that may lead in those directions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The discussion that we're having here this afternoon is in light of a 2008 climate action report that government has where, in a variety of sectors of large emitters, we're seeing things that are going to be very difficult to account for that are increasing the megatonnage of emissions in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're seeing government and we've heard the rationale this afternoon that it's for fiscal reasons ramp down its commitments to green energy, the green economy, and the area we've just been talking about on retrofits for commercial and residential buildings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
LiveSmart, I think, had a take-up rate of about 40,000 homes that completed energy audits. Something like 12,000 buildings were given rebates. Now, we have two million dwelling units in B.C., so unless government has a 125-year plan to accomplish this . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
I'll suggest that one of these years, they'll get around to a stronger green building code that we see in the United States and in the U.K. now. It won't take LiveSmart to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to get the minister's thoughts, because he raised it, on the green building code. B.C. is behind a number of jurisdictions on a number of fronts in terms of its green building code. It was certainly a key part of the Climate Action Team's recommendations about how emissions in that sector can be reduced in meeting our overall targets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister give an indication of whether new legislation is being drafted and what some of the key changes are in order to catch up with other jurisdictions that have a stronger green building code? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[The bells were rung.]
The Chair: Committee A will recess until after the vote. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee recessed from 5:41 p.m. to 5:51 p.m.
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
Hon. J. Yap: First of all, in the earlier discussion the member had canvassed the LiveSmart program. I just wanted to clarify for the record that it's great to see that the member is very interested in the LiveSmart program. Just to be clear, the NDP Environment critic and his leader and members of his caucus voted against funding for the LiveSmart program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I believe the question is with respect to [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
The Chair: Member. Member, please. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. J. Yap: the greening of the building code. The work is ongoing. We're working with the federal government and making continued progress in greening the building code. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
Some examples. We're looking to have housing built to EnerGuide 80 standards by 2011 and also, by 2010, to have solar hot waterready, roughed-in homes. Another example: thermal resistance and airtightness performance standards to be improved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The work is ongoing, and we'll continue to work on greening the building code. As the member is aware, the minister responsible for housing has already discussed some of the approaches with respect to this initiative of greening the building code. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
K. Corrigan: I had a couple of questions about the Olympics and Paralympics. I think, in the interest of time, what I would like to do is simply read in the questions that I have. I'd be happy to receive the information, a response, later. If that's agreeable to the minister, I will simply read about four different questions, and then it'll be in Hansard. I'd be happy to receive the responses later. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I saw a nod, so I assume that that's okay. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My questions are about the hosting program and Olympic tickets. As the minister knows, the hosting program was intended to engage business leaders, potential investors and dignitaries, through their visit to the games, to promote B.C. industry, regions and communities, and job creation potential. Associated with the Olympics and Paralympics, there were a number of networking and showcasing events. This included the purchase of 3,244 Olympic tickets to be used for the hosting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My questions are: did the minister or any of his staff receive Olympic tickets? If so, what events did they attend, and what guests did they take using taxpayers money? Did any other MLAs attend with the minister? What expenses were incurred for direct Olympic tickets and also for hosting either at those Olympic events or other meals, hotels, travels or other costs for events associated with the Olympics? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My second question has to do with the employee loan program. In 2009 VANOC announced that it would be launching an employee loan program to fill approximately 1,500 short-term positions for the games from the private and public sector. My understanding from the estimates with the Minister of State for the Olympics was that there were about 250 employees loaned through this program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is whether or not there were employees loaned through that program from this ministry and, if so, what the total number of paid employees this ministry loaned to the games this is to VANOC and the cost that that would have represented, including benefits. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The next questions that I have are about the volunteer leave matching program. That was a program wherein the government would contribute an equal number of hours of paid leave to the number of hours that the employee contributed of their own leave to volunteer for the 2010 Olympic Games. My questions there would be: did any ministerial employees receive this extra time off to volunteer for the games, what the total expense that would have been for this ministry and, finally, whether there were any other costs that I haven't mentioned associated with the Olympics that this ministry undertook or incurred. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That would be the total of my questions. I'm wondering if I could get a commitment from the minister to provide answers to those questions in writing and perhaps a date by which I could expect those answers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1800]
Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member's questions. I was tempted to say: "That's all?" That shouldn't take long. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We will be responding very shortly to the member's questions and getting that information out. I can tell the member that I was quite busy during the Olympics. I recall attending quite a number of receptions and meetings and other things, including a trip to Porteau Cove to see how our provincial park campground was doing during the month of February, when it's normally not open. That was an unusual thing. We did that for the Olympics to see how that would work, to give people an option. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I attended, as I recall, a number of meetings and multitudes of receptions and meet-and-greets, and three particular events where I was representing the province, including two sporting events and one of the evening awards ceremonies, where they hand out the medals after that particular day's events. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition, I attended two more sporting events: the men's downhill at Whistler, which was interesting I'd never seen that before in person, although as a youngster I was an avid fan of the "Crazy Canucks"; and a hockey game. Both of those, the two latter events, I paid for myself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
K. Corrigan: I appreciate the responses. There were some other questions and some very specific information. Just a confirmation that I will receive that information as it was laid out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: It is our expectation that there'll be some fulsome information coming very soon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
K. Corrigan: Well, I'm sorry, I need a little bit more clarification. When the minister says there will be some fulsome information coming soon, the fulsome information that's going to be in the report that's to be published, that the Olympic Secretariat has put together, talks about ticketing. I appreciate that that information is going to be in there, and I have been assured by the Minister of State for the Olympics that that will include all the tickets that everybody received, including the names. I'm happy enough with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also asked about the volunteer leave matching program. I also asked about the employee loan program and other Olympic costs as well. I'm wondering if I can receive an assurance from the minister that that information will be provided and when. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised by my staff that they are working to pull that information together so that we can provide it to the member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: I wanted to ask the Minister of Environment a few questions about Site C. What studies were done or are being done on the ungulates the moose, deer and elk that occupy the Peace River Valley? What studies are being done? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1805]
Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for his question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The announcement, about two weeks ago now, that the government was prepared to have B.C. Hydro move to stage 3 of their review of this possible addition to B.C. Hydro's network of power generation assets meant that B.C. Hydro is entitled to put forward a proposal to the B.C. environmental assessment office. At this point we have not yet received such an application or a proposal, so we do not have a project description, which would be one of the first steps in initiating an environmental assessment office review. We haven't even entered the preapplication stage at this point. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, if the member has reviewed some of the material that B.C. Hydro has put out over the past little while, they issued a stage 2 report in the fall of 2009 summarizing the work they've done on consultation and technical reviews of various issues. On page 76 they list some of the work that they've done during stage 2. I'll just quote from the document here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1810]
During stage 2, B.C. Hydro set out to identify potential issues and characterize the current physical, biological and socioeconomic environment in the potential Site C project area. Environmental and socioeconomic studies, primarily baseline studies, were completed for the following topics: fish and aquatic habitat, vegetation and wildlife, water quality, local climate and greenhouse gas emissions, heritage, community services and infrastructure, economic, land use and resources. "Based on this work, B.C. Hydro has built on its historic understanding of issues and current conditions in the potential project area." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My understanding, from talking to staff, is that there are literally volumes of reports and research that go back several decades to the 1980s when this proposal was being seriously considered at that time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Obviously, B.C. Hydro, it appears, has been busy updating those reports and studies. I can advise the member further that the Ministry of Environment is aware of work that was done this past winter, because the Ministry of Environment was actually involved in some of it. This involved looking at fish, wildlife and biodiversity issues and potential impacts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So there has been considerable work done over the past. I expect that there will be more work done as this proposal gets ready to enter the preapplication stage of review by the environmental assessment office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Well, my understanding is that B.C. Hydro is undertaking a two-year GPS-collar study of 40 elk, 40 moose and 40 deer. Is the minister not aware of that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The ministry was actively engaged this past winter in a program of collaring a significant number of large ungulates moose, deer and elk. That was work that was funded by B.C. Hydro. If the member is interested in accessing some of the studies that I mentioned previously that were done during stage 2 of the review by B.C. Hydro, they are available, I am advised, through the B.C. Hydro website. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Some of those studies include the following: Peace River Fisheries Investigation, Peace River and Pine River Radio Telemetry Study 2007; and, under vegetation and wildlife, Peace River Site C Hydro Project Stage 2, Baseline Vegetation and Wildlife Report, and Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping of the Peace River Study Area, Baseline Inventory Surveys 2007. Those reports are publicly available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Did the ministry staff play any active role in the B.C. Hydro project in actually doing the radio collaring? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1815]
Hon. B. Penner: It's our understanding that the project was supervised or at least designed, in part with oversight by Ministry of Environment wildlife specialists or a specialist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister another question about another area up there, this being Big Pine Mountain and the remnant caribou herd there about 11 animals, as I understand. This is along Williston reservoir. The minister will know that when the area was flooded, the West Moberly First Nations culture and food source was very much upset by the fracturing of these herds. This is the result of what happened to one of these herds. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, First Coal Corp. had been clearing caribou habitat without a permit, and the West Moberly, the minister probably knows, have a longstanding dispute with the province over dealing with the after-effects of the Williston reservoir years before. They say that the province promised they would do planning for a recovery of these caribou herds, but the province has not followed through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the minister: is this accurate? If so, why hasn't the province followed through? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1820]
Hon. B. Penner: The member was asking if we'd done some planning around.... I think it was the northern caribou the member was referring to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Pine Mountain. There are two kinds on the mountain. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I believe that's the domain of northern caribou. The member will know that we have also, in the last few years, put significant focus on mountain caribou. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It was our intention, now that we've done the steps around mountain caribou in terms of the 2.2 million additional hectares of area that have been allotted for the mountain caribou and a number of other steps that we've taken, to put more emphasis on planning for what our staff think are northern caribou. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But we can both be right if we agree that they're woodland caribou, as I've learned that the three different ecotypes of caribou fall under the broad heading of woodland caribou. There are mountain caribou, northern caribou and boreal caribou, but all of them are woodland caribou all members of the same family. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: My question, just to relate to an issue of yesterday. I want to ask about mud-bogging. But first, I want to clarify an issue about the Halkett Bay proposed sinking of the Annapolis. That may or may not be on the table, but I believe that the minister assured us that it was not something that was being considered by the Ministry of Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The United Church sent a letter to the Ministry of Environment. I'm informed that they actually didn't get a reply from the Ministry of Environment. They got a reply from the Attorney General. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The concern the residents of Gambier Island have is that if in fact the project goes ahead, we lose some of our marine park. I've just seen an announcement to say that Buccaneer Bay provincial marine park is expanding. I want to say that that's appreciated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Other land was donated up in Francis Point for expansion of the park, so we wouldn't want to see us going backwards when it comes to the Halkett Bay Marine Provincial Park, the closest marine park to the Lower Mainland. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just wondering if the minister could assure residents once again that they will have an opportunity for input, should the situation change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1825]
Hon. B. Penner: I'm just awaiting some further information that should be here shortly, but as I mentioned yesterday, I have asked my staff at B.C. Parks to proactively contact DFO to seek out the information that they apparently have already compiled about the potential environmental impacts to the seabed and fish habitat in that vicinity. I'm advised by Mr. Scott Benton, the executive director for B.C. Parks, that this morning he did communicate that desire of mine to his staff and that they are in the process of communicating with DFO in order to get that information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the member's other point, around whether or not a response was forthcoming to the United Church, my understanding, in going back to the debate yesterday, is that for a reason I'm not exactly clear on, they were in contact with a person from the public affairs bureau on this issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not sure if they were e-mailing him or not, but a response came from me to the United Church addressing some of the questions that they had, or responding to some of the questions that they put. If my memory serves me correctly, that e-mail or letter was dated December 9, 2009, and was addressed to the United Church. I don't know if perhaps it didn't arrive or if there's some technical glitch that prevented it from being transmitted, but our records show that it was sent sometime in early December. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: I thank the minister for that response. To move on to the issue of mud-bogging, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Forests and Range about enforcement against people who wilfully damage delicate ecosystems through irresponsible use of their usually motorized vehicles. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just wondering what the status is with respect to enforcement against people who mud-bog. I guess that's the simple question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1830]
Hon. B. Penner: Enforcement of the provisions that the member refers to is something that conservation officers are empowered to enforce under the legislation. I've just requested some information from our quarterly compliance and enforcement summary. As the name suggests, it's put out every three months. You can see a detailed listing there of the types of tickets issued. I don't know if the most recent summary captures or indicates tickets of the type that the member is referring to, but it is there for public review. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just to go back to the member's previous question. I've been provided with the correspondence that I was referring to. It was sent on December 11, 2009, not December 9, 2009. The miscommunication here could be this: the incoming e-mail was addressed to a person at the public affairs bureau, and the subject line was "United Church takes bold stance." It's about the proposal to create an artificial reef by sinking this former navy destroyer escort. I think the ship is called the Annapolis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
While the subject line is about the United Church, the e-mail originated from the Save Halkett campaign, and so the reply went to that address, info@savehalkett.com, which was this campaign to raise awareness about this proposal, so it is possible that the United Church was not aware of my response. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: We'll make sure that the appropriate correspondence gets sent to the right people, and that's great. With respect to mud-bogging, I really want to make sure that it's clear that most people who do use the outdoors and who take advantage of our super, natural British Columbia do so responsibly, and we're glad about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wondered, with respect to the compliance and enforcement budget, if there had been any sort of impact on the type of enforcement. I noticed in the quarterly compliance documents from 2008 that there were some tickets issued under section 46, 1.1, which is the Forest and Range Practices Act, for wilfully causing damage to the environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1835]
I'm wondering if that should be something that's included in the programs that are set up to counteract poaching and polluters, and whether or not this is something that needs to have some more public awareness around it. One aspect of my question is that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The second aspect is if the minister could . In his own review of the compliance and enforcement, if he would notice that there's not a bias as much as there's a regional focus, apparently, on the Interior and the Kootenays. The Sunshine Coast is well known for its wonderful network of trails and roads into the back country. I just want to make sure that for what compliance and enforcement there exists . Is there any way of ensuring that it's standardized, and is it in the minister's budget to address that kind of issue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. I've just been provided with a copy of the quarterly compliance summary for one quarter. For example, for July to September 30, I see there that there are several tickets issued for $575 under the section that the member referenced, 46(1.1) of the Forest and Range Practices Act. It's described as engaged in unauthorized activity resulting in damage to an ecosystem. My guess is that that is what we refer to in this room as mud-bogging. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We do certainly encourage members of the public to report on violators that they become aware of through the RAPP line, as we call it Report all Poachers and Polluters at 1-877-952-7277. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. B. Penner: Operators are standing by to take your call. Seriously, that is an important tool for us because we can't be everywhere all the time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One thing that will help the public, though, in giving us information that we can act on is what we have announced our intention to do, which is to move forward with greater regulations around ATV use. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1840]
In particular, my interest and that of the conservation officer service has been around an identifiable decal or sticker or licence plate so that if our members, our enforcement staff, or any other representatives from government or members of the public are able to witness someone engaging in unlawful conduct that is reckless and irresponsible with respect to the environment and/or wildlife, they can get that registration number or the licence plate number and report it to us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's important then, of course, that there be a database behind that that links that licence plate number to the registered owner or the operator so that we can take enforcement action. That is something that I think needs to happen, and I'm pleased that the government is moving towards that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: In fact, I have been contacted by constituents who have referred folks to some video that's widely viewable on Facebook and on YouTube of what looks like mud-bogging and going through estuaries and up stream beds. I believe that was in Powell RiverSunshine Coast. There appeared to be very visible licence plates and such, and I just hadn't heard if there had been any enforcement on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that unfortunately this kind of incident does paint a wide swath of brush against other people who enjoy the outdoors responsibly. But to me, the lack of enforcement in some areas of the province seemed to indicate, perhaps, the lack of resources for enforcement. If that is in fact the case, I'm hoping that people who phone the RAPP line are met with responses that provide them some assurance that action will be taken. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just wondering if the minister could provide us with the information on who is authorized to enforce this. The latest information in 2008 was a pamphlet put out by the Ministry of Forests and Range on this issue, and if in fact it's now the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment, it could cause confusion. I'm just wondering if there's consideration for public awareness campaigns with respect to this activity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The compliance and enforcement staff from the Ministry of Forests are also able to enforce and write tickets for offences under the Forest and Range Practices Act. We have been involved in a cross-ministry effort to broaden our cooperation or coordination of compliance and enforcement personnel between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests, and that has involved additional training with respect to C-and-E staff in the Ministry of Forests so that we can get a better reach on the land base. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, RCMP or other municipal police officers, I would expect, given their status as peace officers, would have the ability to write tickets or take enforcement action under the Forest and Range Practices Act, as they do under the Park Act or the Environmental Management Act or the Wildlife Act. They have that status by virtue of being peace officers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the Minister of State for Climate Action a question. We've had some discussion today and we'll have lots more later about the province achieving its interim targets on greenhouse gas reductions. We have the first target in 2012, just around the corner. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wanted to ask the minister: what percentage of the province's greenhouse gas reductions the first target, 6 percent over the 2007 baseline does he anticipate will be achieved by the purchase of carbon offsets? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1845]
Hon. J. Yap: Member, 2010 is the year when our commitment is for the public sector to be carbon-neutral. Carbon neutrality, as the member knows, involves measuring our emissions, making reductions as best we can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Where we're not able to reduce our emissions as a public sector, we will use credible, verifiable offsets through the Pacific Carbon Trust which, the member knows, is the Crown agency that will invest in quality offsets for the province. Some examples of the Pacific Carbon Trust's offsets include quality offsets such as installation of hybrid heating systems in hotel facilities across the province. Another example is the introduction of biomass boilers and energy-saving curtains in greenhouses. A third example is the use of cleaner fuels in a cement plant actually in my community, in Richmond. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are some examples of the quality B.C.-based offsets which Pacific Carbon Trust will invest in on behalf of the province to allow British Columbia, our public sector, to achieve carbon neutrality in 2010 as part of our climate action plan. As the member knows, we've received recognition internationally, as a province, for the leadership we're showing in taking action on climate change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I don't have any closing remarks. I think there are lots more questions to ask, but alas, we'll have to wait for another venue to do that. I want to thank both ministers for responding to members' questions. I want, in particular, to also thank staff members of the Ministry of Environment, the senior management that were here over the last few days to be available. Thank you very much for their resource in these budget estimates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1850]
Vote 30: ministry operations, $135,104,000 approved.
Vote 31: environmental assessment office, $8,816,000 approved.
Vote 52: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $2,088,000 approved.
Hon. B. Penner: Thank you again, Members, for that vote of confidence. With that and noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report resolution of the estimates for the Ministry of Environment and seek leave to sit again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:51 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) 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada