(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1997
Morning
Volume 6, Number 22
[ Page 5713 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(continued)
Sections 17 and 18 approved.
On section 19.
F. Gingell: Section 19 repeals section 21 of the Employee Investment Act, which requires an employee venture capital corporation to dispose of an asset if it no longer qualifies because of the number of employees and wages paid in British Columbia and the type of business that it's in. It seems to me that they were pretty basic foundation stones of this program, so I am wondering why the requirement has been withdrawn where an investment no longer qualifies.
Hon. J. Pullinger: This section simply changes the rules. What is no longer in effect is the provision that now forces the fund to withdraw immediately when the eligibility of the company invested in changes. What the existing rules mean is that the liquid investments may have to be sold at inopportune times, resulting in a loss. So this simply provides for better business decisions for the fund. They can choose the time when they withdraw and do so with consideration of all of the facts, including the gains or losses to the fund and other considerations of the business.
F. Gingell: I thank the minister for that. The original sections of the bill gave six months in which to dispose of it or six months to bring the corporation back into compliance. So if we just repeal section 21
Hon. J. Pullinger: I appreciate the member's concern, but I don't think that's the case here. That's not the case, and it's certainly not the intent.
The overall success of a venture capital portfolio depends on a few big wins to cover a lot of little losses. That's the nature of venture capital, as the member would agree. What we're doing here is expanding the flexibility. For instance, if a company is wildly successful and grows over the $50 million in assets, the fund doesn't have to pull out instantly; it can pick its time and therefore have a big win a month, a year or whatever hence. But it's still a good business investment that benefits the overall fund, which in turn invests in risky but potentially very good businesses in British Columbia to create jobs.
In order to keep the fund alive, you have to have some very solid investments to balance out the ones that may not be so solid. By making the fund more flexible in this way, when companies grow beyond the $50 million or if they take on partners or expand in a way that would make them ineligible, then the fund can choose when it gets out, and it can choose to do that on its own terms and for the benefit of the fund. That is simply the purpose of this change.
F. Gingell: But the original provisions of section 15 didn't deal with the issue of the size of the corporation; it dealt only with the issues of where the wages are paid, where the employees come from and what business it is in. It has to be in a prescribed business or must not be in a prescribed business. You will note that section 21 refers to sections 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(c). It doesn't refer to section 15(1)(b), which is the restriction on size.
[10:15]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The ceiling used to be $35 million; we've increased that to $50 million in the definition, so that ceiling is in fact there.First of all, there's no other legislation such as this across the country that has rules that force the disposition of investments if they cease to meet eligibility requirements. We've changed that already in sections 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(c). We've changed the eligibility already. So what this does is bring the whole act into the same focus.
It doesn't mean that there's any watering-down of the purpose of the act, which is to create jobs in this province. That is still the purpose, and there's no wavering from that. All this does is provide greater flexibility and therefore the opportunity for the fund to be more stable by ensuring that its good investments are indeed good and that they're not forced to withdraw at an inopportune time. By doing that, then the fund is more able to invest in more risky businesses, if you like, to create jobs where other traditional kinds of capital might not.
So all this does is provide greater stability on the one end in order to provide for better functioning on the other. That's simply the purpose of this, and we have made two other changes, both in section 15 and in the definitions, that work to the same goal.
F. Gingell: My last question focuses on the issue of
I appreciate and support the minister's desire not to create a position of forced dispositions when such a disposition is inappropriate. But I would have thought that the response to deal with that issue would have been to have extended the disposition period from six months to one year or to two years, rather than completely wiping out the requirement. It seems to me that if you do that -- and maybe I'm missing some knowledge from some other amendment that is being made -- you are, in effect, allowing the continuation of an investment in a corporation with a tax advantage, with tax relief to the investors, that is not fulfilling the purpose that the act originally envisaged: employment in British Columbia. That wall is gone, and the types of business
[ Page 5714 ]
It was very clear originally that the purpose of this bill was not to build shopping centres; it was to be in job-creating types of things. So section 15(1)(a) deals with jobs in British Columbia, 15(1)(c) deals with the right type of businesses, and 15(1)(b) -- which wasn't dealt with in the issue, anyway -- deals with the size of the corporation.
I appreciate that we should move on, but I would like to suggest to the minister that her staff may well think about the issues of whether we want to have a growing number of non-conforming investments as part of these EVCC portfolios.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I guess we could debate the best way to provide flexibility, but the fund managers and others -- and I know that the association has written in support of this legislation -- all agree that this is a good measure that we're undertaking here. Perhaps we could extend it from six months to a year or something, but that still doesn't provide the flexibility that the fund requires to keep itself on a very sound financial basis in order to make the investments it needs to make and create the jobs that the member quite correctly says the fund exists for.
So there is no change whatsoever in the purpose of this fund; there's simply more discretion allowed so that the fund can withdraw from an investment at a time most opportune for the fund, to keep it in the best financial position in order to carry out its mandate in the best way possible. I am sure the member agrees with that, and I hope we can move on.
Sections 19 and 20 approved.
On section 21.
F. Gingell: I presume that some form of conventional agreement has taken place between Finance Canada and Finance B.C. relative to the clawback of credits previously granted where dispositions have taken place. Can the minister please advise the committee exactly what has replaced this section?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The federal government has now enacted its own provisions in the Income Tax Act to recover the federal tax credit. So we no longer need to recover both federal and provincial here, provincially. It simply means that we've changed the legislation so that the investor doesn't repay twice to the federal government.
F. Gingell: One can't keep everything in one's mind. I wonder if the minister could just remind me of how the province does collect back its shares. Is that handled through a trust company that holds the shares?
Hon. J. Pullinger: With this change, the investor can choose to get out and repay directly the federal and provincial governments. In the case of hardship, such as death or loss of a job or a permanent disability or something, there's no repayment required.
F. Gingell: When the original credits were given by the province, that reduced the amount of personal income taxes the province received from Canada, because their credit is given against taxes. Or is it paid by way of a cheque? I think it's through the income tax return, isn't it?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Initially it's a function of income tax. If it's repaid, it's by way of a cheque.
F. Gingell: So the person who makes the disposition
Hon. J. Pullinger: The shares in question would be held in escrow. If they get out and pay us back, then the shares are released, because the province and the federal government have no more claim.
Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.
On section 24.
G. Plant: I have some questions about section 24, which repeals section 103 of the Labour Relations Code. Why is the government repealing section 103 of the Labour Relations Code?
Hon. J. Pullinger: There is a new provision in the act, section 104, that provides for an expedited arbitration system. Because it's expedited, it's more cost-effective, and therefore the sharing of costs is brought into line with all the other arbitration procedures, which are shared between the parties involved rather than government paying a third.
G. Plant: I think part of the distinction was just alluded to by the minister. The expedited process under section 104 is a user-pay process, if I can call it that, whereas the old section 103 process was funded in part by government. Is that a fair summary of part of the distinction between the two?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The member is essentially correct. I was just checking to see that the expedited process may in fact reduce the costs overall. The parties have a number of avenues to keep the costs low and to expedite the process. We have, as I said before, simply brought this in line with other processes of the same nature, and the costs therefore are shared between the parties involved.
[10:30]
G. Plant: Has the government been tracking the incidence of use of section 103 over the last little while? I understand that it's a process which never achieved extraordinarily widespread usage but that there have been collective agreements that have had these terms, and there continue to be today. So there will be some parties to collective agreements who will no longer have this process available to them. The first part of the question is: has the government been keeping track of the usage of this procedure? Secondly, does the government have any concerns or expectations around the transition out of this old process under section 103 into either section 104 or whatever other processes the parties will now use to resolve these disputes?Hon. J. Pullinger: The answer to the first question is yes, it's tracked. The answer to the second question is no, we don't expect any significant problems. There is a range of options available. Section 104 has been available, and we don't expect that withdrawing section 103 will create any problems.
G. Plant: I thank the minister for her helpful and concise answer to the first part of my question. I'm glad it has been tracked.
[ Page 5715 ]
Could the minister tell us: does she have some idea, roughly speaking, of how many collective agreements currently have the section 103 arbitration process in them?
Hon. J. Pullinger: We don't have the exact number of collective agreements, but the best guess is 40 to 50. In 1994 there were a couple of hundred investigations under section 103. Obviously that may have been a number of investigations under the same agreement.
G. Plant: Has the government done any forecasting or budgeting to estimate the cost savings that will result from no longer having to contribute the one-third share under section 103? I understand that the minister has the view that the use of the expedited process under section 104 is also resulting in cost saving to the system overall. I will return to that point in a minute.
The first question, though, is whether there will be some absolute savings in terms of the government's contributions under section 103.
Hon. J. Pullinger: We estimate around $170,000 a year in savings.
G. Plant: The minister referred to section 104 in the course of explaining the rationale for repealing section 103. I'm glad that she did that.
I want to report to her the results of an entirely anecdotal and non-statistical survey of labour law practitioners. The expedited process under section 104 works in a number of cases, particularly in cases where the issues involved in the dispute are fairly narrow or factual, where it's not an arbitration that gives rise to problems of interpretation of collective bargaining agreement language.
So yes, what I am told is that in many cases section 104 is doing the job that it set out to do, by expediting arbitrations and ensuring that these disputes are resolved quickly. However, there are also cases now that are probably less appropriate for this process. At least, that's the sense I'm getting from some people, because the issue involved is really a larger issue of principle in terms of a particular collective agreement between management and labour in a particular place.
What has happened and what tends to happen is that people are, at least sometimes, being forced now to work within the constraints of the expedited process in circumstances where the expedited process is not really the right process for them. Now, I don't know how widespread this problem or issue is. As I said, the survey that I'm reporting to you is purely anecdotal and not statistical, and really, I don't want to be here doing anything more than simply raising for the minister, in her currently unusual portfolio, the existence of this issue out there, in the hope, particularly now that section 103 will not be available, that the ministry will keep an eye on the extent to which section 104 is working well, or not.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I appreciate the member's comments, and I'm sure the real minister will read them. Staff has heard those concerns. But I do want to provide the comfort that there are a variety of processes -- those in the collective agreements, for instance, plus section 104 -- so there is some room to deal with those kinds of concerns. Again, I just want to thank the member for his comments and cautions.
Section 24 approved.
On section 25.
M. Coell: I am pleased to offer a few comments on section 25 regarding the city of Victoria's arena agreement. I know it's something that is obviously close to the Chair's heart, as a former mayor of the city of Victoria.
The need for this agreement, and the wording of it, is very important to all municipalities in the province, because the funds from both the federal and the provincial governments for the rebuilding of major facilities like the Memorial Arena aren't there like they were in past years. Also, the ability of the residential taxpayer to afford multimillion-dollar projects like this is becoming tougher.
I'd like to congratulate the city of Victoria, the mayor and the council. I think they have come up with a very ingenious idea, one that is creative, one that I believe will provide the capital region with a facility that is first-rate and affordable. I would encourage the province to look at other agreements like this with other municipalities throughout the province.
Having known this facility for all of my life and having skated there as a young boy, that facility added a tremendous amount to this area. It is time to replace it. I think the partnership that the city has put together will be one that generations of capital region residents will appreciate for many years.
I would just encourage the province to have a speedy passage of this bill. I know the city of Victoria and also its partners are anxiously waiting for it. I am pleased to see that the province brought this bill before the Legislature this year, and I congratulate you.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. I do recognize the importance of this project to the capital regional area and the city of Victoria in particular. The fact is that we are going to be doing more of these around the province. I think this is the first. The situation which has come forward is somewhat unique, and we are going to be working in terms of what legislative changes are required. I expect that all municipalities that wish to avail themselves of a public-private partnership in the provision of new facilities should be able to do so in the near future. So it is definitely on the track, and I thank the member for his comments.
G. Abbott: I just want to echo the comments of my friend and colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I think the city of Victoria and the Minister of Municipal Affairs also deserve congratulations for finding a way to deal with this P3 arrangement for Victoria.
I do have a question for the minister, and that is with regard to those municipalities elsewhere in the province that are at different stages of trying to advance P3 projects of their own. Does the minister consider this particular MEVA to possibly be a prototype for other projects elsewhere in the province, or will we be seeing, in the short fullness of time, an alternative way of dealing with this?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the short fullness of time, this is the model that will work for the city of Victoria. But as we discussed in estimates, and the point that I think is important to make in this chamber, we are working with the UBCM and the joint council to develop a proper full-service approach for the provision of public-private partnerships. That is currently being worked on. It's my goal to try to get something ready for the session next spring that would meet the needs of all municipalities, be they large or small, and address their concerns. But if other municipalities are looking at what type of
[ Page 5716 ]
approach we're going to take, certainly this MEVA is a good indication. I think this is the way. I'm actually quite excited about giving the municipalities the ability to enter into these types of arrangements in the near future.
G. Abbott: I'll be looking forward to that, and I know many municipalities in British Columbia will be looking forward to having that kind of opportunity and flexibility to deal with P3 arrangements in this way.
Just on a question of fact on subsection (7), does the list of tax exemptions in subsection (7) apply to tax levies for regional district purposes, as well, or is it strictly municipal for the city of Victoria?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The regional district is exempt.
Section 25 approved.
On section 26.
F. Gingell: I wonder if there's anyone to respond to the questions I have on this issue. It is a matter of some general nature.
The Chair: The minister is here; the officials are here.
F. Gingell: Actually, I thought the appropriate minister was the Minister of Labour. That's what the act says.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: I'm sure it will work fine. My questions are primarily rhetorical.
Number one, I would like it on the record that I support the move to the rationalization of the administration of the Pension Benefits Standards Act of British Columbia, Canada and other provinces. This is a move in the right direction. It should reduce the cost of regulation that various corporations bear. I wonder if British Columbia is in the vanguard or in the rear on this issue. Are we first or are we last?
[10:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told that most other jurisdictions either have passed legislation or are in the process of doing so. Ontario is one that hasn't done so, so we are close behind.F. Gingell: I would imagine that the three jurisdictions that would make it the most meaningful are Alberta, Ontario and Canada. So on hearing the response that Ontario has not passed legislation yet, can the minister advise us of the status in Alberta and federally?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that Ontario in fact has the most to gain from doing the legislation, and it's our understanding that they would be doing so very quickly.
F. Gingell: I understand
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the federal government tabled the legislation -- maybe at the last sitting. They might redo it in September, when the session of the new parliament resumes. Alberta I'm not certain of.
F. Gingell: So actually, just to go back to my original question about whether we're at the front or at the back, we're right at the front. Canada hasn't done it yet, you're not sure about Alberta, and Ontario definitely hasn't.
As I understand it, the way this works is that the provinces and the federal government have to pass legislation that allows our legislation under the Pension Benefits Standards Act to apply to employees located in British Columbia who are members of a plan that is regulated in a foreign province. That's basically what is involved. Is that the current status? If I'm an employee in British Columbia of an Ontario corporation who has a pension plan registered in the province of Ontario, are the minimum conditions of my benefits and my plan controlled by British Columbia legislation or by Ontario legislation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's currently done by British Columbia, but under the new regime, of course, it's Ontario.
F. Gingell: So this series of amendments not only provides for the administration but does provide -- let me get this right -- for a British Columbia employee to be regulated by Ontario legislation. The first section of the amendment makes the standards of the foreign legislation apply to British Columbia, and that wasn't the case before.
Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.
On section 30.
G. Plant: I wonder if I could impose on the Attorney General to answer a few questions about the changes to the property purchase
The Chair: Hon. member, would you like to take a minute?
G. Plant: I actually just want to finish the sentence.
The Chair: Oh, okay. We'll let you do that.
G. Plant: I have this addiction to complete sentences. I was perfectly happy to wait, but I also thought that, just for once, I'd try and get a complete sentence out while I was also looking for my copy of Bill 22.
Are we, all of us, now ready for a second attempt at a complete sentence? I have before me section 30 of Bill 22. This section makes some changes to the Property Transfer Tax Act. The changes seem to me to operate, firstly, in the situation only of land with industrial improvements. Secondly, the amendment affects two kinds of transactions: transactions where the property is being transferred by the government to someone or transfers between what are called associated corporations or related corporations.
As the starting point to what should be a fairly brief series of questions, I wonder if I could check with the Attorney General to make sure that I've got the basic context right.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just read the note that has been made for the minister. I did not look at this amendment before coming into the House this morning, as it relates to another ministry and the minister is tied up elsewhere. Let me just give you the rationale that I've been given here.
[ Page 5717 ]
The amendment only applies to the transfer of large industrial properties from the Crown and non-arm's-length transfers because of difficulties inherent, of course, in determining their fair market value. The difficulty for Crown land transfers is that they involve the sale of leasehold property on which lessees have constructed improvements. Government policy is to charge these purchasers for the bare land only. Similarly, non-arm's-length transfers may not be transferred at market value, for various business reasons. Arm's-length transfers are not a problem, because the purchase price will reflect the total fair market value of the transfer, which can then be allocated between real property for property transfer tax purposes and all other values.
This amendment is expected to affect fewer than 30 transfers annually, although the number could vary significantly from year to year.
G. Plant: That's very helpful. What does the government project is the tax revenue that will be collected -- additional tax revenue, I assume -- as a result of the two halves of this initiative, the one affecting Crown transactions and the other affecting non-arm's-length transactions?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It probably isn't new revenue. It is that if we don't do this, we would probably lose $4 million to $6 million.
G. Plant: Not to split hairs, but I take it that -- at least with respect to non-arm's-length transactions -- the government has an apprehension that there are some transactions like this taking place and taking place at values which do not yield the kind of tax revenue that the government thinks they ought to yield, so that, in effect, this will be additional revenue to the government. I don't want to quibble on the point, but I think that the distinction is moderately significant.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member has a legitimate question, but the problem is that government at present has no way of saying what the fair market value of those transactions is, so we don't know historically what we would have gained with the system that we're putting in place now. We might have some experience in a year's time indicating what the increase may have been, if one can go backwards and start looking at the value as of today.
G. Plant: To put the Attorney General's point another way, what he's saying is that there is no benchmark to measure against. Is that fair?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I think I understand the Attorney General's earlier answer.
I want to ask something about Crown transactions. I suspect that my colleague from Delta South may have a few questions about these provisions also. As I heard the Attorney General earlier, he was speaking about transfers of land that's Crown land which are essentially, I guess, for the most part leasehold transfers. I think I heard him say that the value for transfer tax purposes of such transactions has traditionally been the bare-land value without taking into account the improvements. If I misheard him, I'm sure he will correct me. But if in fact that is what the Attorney General said, I suspect it's wrong, because, as I read these amendments, it is intended that the improvements themselves will form part of the value of the transaction for tax purposes.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Historically, the purchase price or the value relates only to the land, while the tax relates to the land and the improvements. That's why it has been difficult for us to find out what the situation is.
F. Gingell: Just following on along this particular line, I take it that what the government now wants to do is collect the tax on property that the purchaser believes they already own.
[11:00]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's my understanding -- I've practised a bit of law in this area, just a tiny bit -- that whenever there's a transfer, the transfer tax is based on the value of the land and the improvements thereon; and if that transfer takes place, that's the way it is.F. Gingell: I'm actually surprised by this amendment. First of all, it deals only with industrial land. I've had two or three occasions, over my few years in the House, to write letters to and deal with the property tax transfer officials and the Ministry of Finance with respect to residential property. There are innumerable cases where someone has a summer cottage property located on leased Crown land, on which they have built a home. And as the Crown has moved into the sale of these properties and allowed the leaseholders to acquire a new lease -- as it is, in effect -- the property tax transfer officials have assessed the value of the home in this transfer. You can understand the anger of someone being charged a tax on acquiring property they already own. They paid for it, and here you are demanding this tax.
I have not succeeded on one occasion -- not on one occasion -- in getting common sense to prevail. It clearly is common sense. It's clearly inequitable and unfair and wrong to charge a tax on the value of the property which the person has already paid for. They've already bought it and paid for it; they've paid sales tax on it.
I appreciate that there is a technicality in that these improvements built on Crown land belong to the Crown, but I was hoping that when you brought in amendments, you would bring in amendments that deal with residential property, and you would bring in an exemption that would exempt this value. The amount of money, in the scheme of things, is not a lot, but people really do consider it to be terribly unfair. I'm most interested in the minister's response.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told that recreational property transfers are almost done, and there are very few that may need to be looked at.
With respect to the residential issue, the problem is much more difficult. What the hon. member is saying does make sense if one looks at it. However, if one looks at the issue of policing all of these properties that are leasehold, with the improvements
[ Page 5718 ]
So when you have a leasehold property and the improvements have been added to, and then you transfer it to yourself, as an owner, in land and fee simple, you are then charged property transfer tax. If you transferred it to XYZ -- complete strangers -- you'd be paying the same property transfer tax, because there is no way of policing and keeping records to make sure that what you suggest is done.
F. Gingell: I'd like to suggest to the minister that Crown Lands only charge for the land. When somebody is buying the land that they've previously leased and on which they've built improvements, they don't actually pay Crown Lands for them. Crown Lands is, as it is required to, getting fair market value for what it is selling. So all you've got to do is charge the property transfer tax on the consideration. That's it; that does it completely. That consideration will take into account leasehold improvements or buildings that were on the property before the lease was entered into, because that's the policy that Crown Lands follows. So I would suggest that you just charge the tax on the consideration that is paid for the fee simple title, and everyone will be treated in a fair manner.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is simply making his position known, and I appreciate that. I have indicated to him what our position is.
F. Gingell: This discussion reminds me of the various discussions I have had with the Minister of Finance and people in the revenue section who administer this stuff. First of all, they give you lawyer talk, and when that doesn't work, they give you a great big file of various court cases that have been heard. And I still have that file; I'd be happy to return it to the government at some point. Thirdly, they don't deal, as accountants do, with the real facts of life. Wash away all this peripheral legal stuff, and let's be fair about it. I appreciate that the discussion on this subject has come to a close, but it is an important issue.
It's not within this act, but there are issues within the Assessment Act that deal with the values on which property taxes are charged on leased recreational property. You have all the issues that the members from Vancouver are concerned with in the Musqueam residential development and the property tax values there. As the Assessment Act is required to, it requires the B.C. Assessment Authority to prepare assessments based on fee simple pricing, and clearly there are some issues throughout this whole thing.
I think it would not be inappropriate for the government to spend a little time thinking about issues surrounding the valuation of leases as they apply to property transfer tax and as they apply to the B.C. Assessment Act and all those issues, because they are things that strike at the heart of the ownership of property. Every person's house is their castle. It's a major investment in people's lives. It's an important investment, and there is a feeling of inequity surrounding many of these issues.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't really want to get into a legal debate here, but legally speaking, lessees do not own any improvements on the land.
F. Gingell: Don't tell them that.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I appreciate that. But as they have the right to the use and enjoyment of the land subject to the conditions of the lease, so do they enjoy the improvements that they may have made to that land. They are at liberty, technically speaking -- and I'm not suggesting that I want to cause panic among lessees -- to dismantle their improvements and take them with them as they leave if they don't want to have the leasehold interest transferred to their name in fee simple. It's very difficult to police what the hon. member is suggesting. My heart says we should do that; my mind tells me it would be very, very difficult and problematic to do all of that.
F. Gingell: A debate is going to break out. I can tell.
As the minister and the Chair know, I'm not a lawyer, but I've always sort of had this vague idea or impression in my mind that fee simple is no more than a forever lease from the Crown for enjoyment, anyway. You don't actually acquire that land; it still belongs to the Crown. You've got it assigned to you forever.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously that is why we require the Expropriation Act. If the Crown wants to take your land, they have to legally acquire it from you, either by your consent or by expropriation. So there is a huge difference. That's why much of the property that is owned in British Columbia, for residences in particular, is in fee simple.
Section 30 approved.
On section 31.
G. Plant: I have a note that says that the purpose of this amendment is to restore the rescission rights of real estate purchasers, which were inadvertently removed during 1995 amendments to the Real Estate Act. I am informed that the superintendent has had no complaints or any other evidence that any purchasers were affected by this unintended loophole, which is now to be closed. Does that statement correspond with the Attorney General's understanding?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
Section 31 approved.
On section 32.
G. Plant: I want to pause here just for a moment to recall some of the things that were said about this amendment to the Small Claims Act in the course of second reading debate -- and perhaps some things that were not.
If we look back in time, we find that what is now the small claims court is the successor to courts that have been in existence for a long time. Small debts courts used to be presided over by magistrates who were not legally trained. It's not surprising that in those days, out of an abundance of caution and in order to ensure that litigants had access to a full and fair process and a full and fair adjudication of their claims on both the facts and the law, the litigants in small claims cases then had the right to a new trial in the Supreme Court if they were unhappy with the result in the small claims or small debts court.
[11:15]
Clearly we now have in British Columbia a legally trained and highly competent Provincial Court bench, and we have also now moved a considerable distance down the road in terms of developing a more sophisticated approach to[ Page 5719 ]
dispute resolution in the small claims court. So not only do we have a more, shall I say, sophisticated approach to adjudication and the greater certainty that cases will be decided in accordance with an appropriate judicial approach, we also have a small claims court that is increasingly assuming an important role in all aspects of dispute resolution.
To ensure that that court can develop the sense of autonomy and responsibility that it needs in order to improve and grow in this part of its jurisdiction, I think it's entirely appropriate that in some cases we limit appeal rights for litigants coming out of small claims court and going into the Supreme Court.
I think it will be interesting to follow the impact of this. I always thought it was a terribly expensive and ineffective way to litigate small claims cases to realize that you might have to do it all over again in front of a Supreme Court judge. I think that on the whole this is a good step forward, and I'm glad to see it here. I really have no questions about it, other than that observation.
Sections 32 and 33 approved.
On section 34.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have an amendment that the Clerk has handed me a copy of.
[SECTION 34, by deleting "the date on which this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative Assembly" and substituting "May 14, 1997".]Amendment approved.
Section 34 as amended approved.
Section 35 approved.
On section 36.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper with respect to section 36. It applies to 36(1) and 36(2).
[SECTION 36(1), by deleting "the date on which this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative Assembly" and substituting "May 14, 1997".Amendment approved.SECTION 36(2), by deleting "the day after this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative Assembly" and substituting "May 15, 1997".]
Section 36 as amended approved.
Title approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 22, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Committee on Bill 11, hon. Speaker.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
On section 1.
J. van Dongen: Just a quick question to the minister to confirm overall what's happening here. All of the definitions are being moved under the Animal Disease Control Act, so it's my understanding that the bonding and licensing provisions and responsibilities will be under that act, that the Livestock Public Sale Act will be rescinded and that the Livestock Brand Act will become the act that sets up a private livestock identification process. Could the minister just confirm that for me?
Hon. C. Evans: That would be correct on all three points.
J. van Dongen: Would the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continue to regulate licensing and bonding, etc., under the Animal Disease Control Act? Will that be the responsibility of the ministry?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, although the legislation gives us the ability to have the private sector do it later on should they be ready and an agreement be reached.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2
J. van Dongen: I just want to engage in a little bit of discussion with the minister on the issue of bonding. In particular, one of the issues that was raised with me was the issue of vendor security. I wonder if the minister could comment on that, because it's considered that the levels of bonding that are required currently are not very adequate in terms of covering losses if a dealer, a slaughterhouse or somebody like that is unable to pay. I wonder if the minister could comment on why there were no provisions in this legislation to provide for possibly a check-off of, say, 10 cents an animal. That was the figure quoted to me. That would provide a better security to ranchers selling cattle.
Hon. C. Evans: The bonding levels are set by regulation and not by the terms of the act, so should the industry ask us to change those levels in future, we can do so without having to amend the act.
J. van Dongen: I had provided to me the regulation -- at least, one page of the regulation -- that establishes bonding levels under the Livestock Brand Act. What I have is schedule C, which sets levels for slaughterhouses, and schedule D, which sets levels for dealers. Under this proposed section 18.1, subsections (2) and (3), it talks about public sale yards and it talks about slaughterhouses, but there's no mention of dealer bonding. I'm wondering why there isn't a section there providing something for dealer bonding.
Hon. C. Evans: Sorry for the delay. It appears to us as though the regulations do apply to the issues the hon. member is concerned about. Schedule C applies to the slaughterhouse industry and schedule D to livestock dealers. If the hon. member doesn't have those, we'll share them with him; and if he does have those and has further questions, then please give me a better understanding of what it is that the member feels is missing.
[ Page 5720 ]
J. van Dongen: I'm not sure that that really answers my question. Maybe I could ask it this way
[11:30]
Hon. C. Evans: This is the section that applies -- that gives the regulation-making authority under this act.J. van Dongen: I certainly don't want to belabour this, but I guess it's a curiosity to me that if this is the section that gives cabinet the authority to establish regulations that can require bonding and licensing
Hon. C. Evans: The language that constitutes authority is: "
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
J. van Dongen: I guess I made an oversight here, hon. Chair. I wanted to ask a question about
The Chair: Hon. member, we have voted on it. Perhaps you can find your answer through the ministry, at some point. We're on section 3.
J. van Dongen: On section 3, just to get some clarification
Hon. C. Evans: No, it does not apply, and there is an exception for personal use under the regulations accompanying the act.
Sections 3 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
J. van Dongen: I wonder if the minister could provide a couple of examples to distinguish between brand and identification brand -- the one indicating ownership and the one indicating purposes other than ownership. I wonder if the minister could just give us an example to distinguish that.
Hon. C. Evans: A brand is meant to be an identification mark that denotes ownership: this is my cow and not your cow. An identification brand is meant to provide the manager of a herd with information about the herd itself: this is from this part of my herd and not from that part of my herd. It carries no information about ownership but allows the person managing the herd to identify which cows, for example, are which. Because they're both brands, both are registered in order to help people identify the meaning; however, it has no bearing on ownership.
J. van Dongen: So the new legislation, then, does contemplate livestock identification brands also being registered with the organization.
Hon. C. Evans: That's the way it is right now, and it will carry on.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
J. van Dongen: Right near the bottom of the page, where the bill sets out the complaint process under section 4.1(5), I'm wondering, in terms of the process
Hon. C. Evans: While not defined in law, it would be logical. Since the minister will make the appointments of the inspectors and the complaint will come to the minister, it would appear logical that the minister would maintain that complaint on the file of the individual that the minister appoints.
Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
Hon. C. Evans: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 17, in the proposed section 9Amendment approved.(a) in subsection (1)(a)(iii) by deleting "the regulations" and substituting "an order under section 9.1", and
(b) in subsection (1)(b)(ii) by deleting "the regulations" and substituting "an order under section 9.1".]
Section 17 as amended approved.
On section 18.
J. van Dongen: I want to raise -- and I think it's appropriate under this section -- a letter that the minister received from the McClary Stockyards in the Fraser Valley, basically questioning the possibility of the Fraser Valley and, as I understand it, Vancouver Island becoming regulated areas. The letter is dated May 15.
I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that, because there's a lot of concern -- particularly with dairy livestock, for example, which I understand are not regulated under the current regulatory regime -- that there may be an intent by the proposed new organization to regulate that class of livestock. I wonder if the minister could comment on that in terms of his intent -- whether or not the Fraser Valley will be set up as a regulated area.
[ Page 5721 ]
Hon. C. Evans: At the present time we don't intend to make any changes and designate the lower mainland and/or the Island as an area. We are in discussion with the various sectors, and should they come to an agreement and wish to approach us in future, we may make that change or other changes to accommodate the particular issue -- which, as the member knows, involves dairy cattle, beef cattle and horses. We are in dialogue with those folks.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's answer, and if the letter of May 15 from McClary's has been answered by the minister, I would appreciate a copy of the answer.
Secondly, as I understand it, this proposed legislation allows the minister to distinguish not only by geographic area but also by the types of animals that might become subject to regulation.
Hon. C. Evans: I'll commit to supplying a copy of the letter the hon. member requests.
The answer to his question about how the regulation will allow different categories of brands is yes.
Section 18 approved.
On section 19.
Hon. C. Evans: I move the amendment to section 19 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 19, by deleting the proposed section 19 and substituting the following:Amendment approved.Section 10(2) is amended
(a) by repealing paragraph (a),
(b) by repealing paragraph (b) and substituting the following:
(b) the types or classes of livestock that must be branded to be within an area of British Columbia specified in the regulation;,
(c) by repealing paragraphs (d) and (h),
(d) by repealing paragraph (m),
(e) by repealing paragraphs (n) and (o), and
(f) by adding the following paragraph:
(s) the establishment of a body for the purposes of section 4.1, the procedures to be followed by the body when conducting an investigation into a complaint and requesting information from the investigator who is the subject of the complaint, and the information to be contained in the report by the body.]
Section 19 as amended approved.
On section 20.
J. van Dongen: This section deals with the revocation of the brand registration. I'm wondering what is contemplated in terms of a transition from the current regime to the new organization.
Hon. C. Evans: We are proposing to transfer the outstanding balance that the government maintains for this function directly to industry. They are proposing, during the transition, to have no additional fee on the registrants for the overlapping period.
Sections 20 and 21 approved.
On section 22.
J. van Dongen: I wonder if I could just ask the minister to sum up the effect of these two sections, in his own words, in terms of what the impact will be.
Hon. C. Evans: What these amendments are intended to do is increase our flexibility in how we implement the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act. At the present time, we're somewhat limited in how we can apply the act. It's meant to allow us to function in the real world.
If you want more specifics about those generalities, it allows us to apply the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act to decisions of municipalities, whereas previously we had been limited to the entire region, such as the greater Vancouver regional district, by the way the law was written.
J. van Dongen: By way of example, would it be the intent to try and standardize bylaws across a geographic area like the Fraser Valley or the lower mainland? Is that clearly the intent of the ministry -- to try and establish a standard bylaw for, say, greenhouses across the lower mainland?
[11:45]
Hon. C. Evans: It's a bit of a philosophical question. The short answer is yes, it is our intention to try to harmonize standards between municipalities. That is not the function, necessarily, of this act. If the hon. member is concerned that this act will get in the way of harmonizing standards because we'll be dealing with municipalities one at a time, if necessary, no, that is not our intention. We are creating standards. We are sharing them with the municipalities as a region in the hope that we will come up with homogeneous standards.J. van Dongen: In terms of the three-year review of bylaws, would my understanding be correct that if the minister decided to designate a particular local government for review -- let's just say the city of Abbotsford -- they would have three years to review, or the ministry together with the city of Abbotsford would review, all of their existing bylaws over a three-year period in terms of impact on agriculture? Is that the intent of section 919 of the Municipal Act?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
Sections 22 and 23 approved.
On section 24.
J. van Dongen: Just a clarification on section 24, with reference to the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It would be my understanding from reading this that if the B.C. Marketing Board decided to make some specific changes in their rules or in how they operate, they would make a specific request to cabinet to do that. This section simply authorizes them. This does not give them general permission to vary rules and processes; this depends on a specific request. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Evans: Absolutely correct.
Sections 24 and 25 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Evans: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
[ Page 5722 ]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 11, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Evans moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
The committee met at 10:11 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
C. Hansen: I want to ask the minister specifically about approval of remediation plans for contaminated sites. My understanding is that about a year ago the approval process was normally taking four to six months on average. My understanding this year is that the time line is dramatically longer than it was a year ago. I wonder if the minister could give us some sense of why delays seem to be taking place this year, compared to years gone by.
Hon. C. McGregor: As the member, I'm sure, is aware, it's a new regulation, and there are implementation and startup difficulties. There may well have been four-to-six-month delays early in the process. We're not aware that that has lengthened in any way. In fact, we think it has probably improved as a result of implementation proceeding as it should.
In the case of this regulation, there is an opportunity for an applicant to fast-track an approval if they wish to. There are consultants available, who would, of course, have to be paid for by the applicant. Nonetheless, they could put it through in a more timely way.
C. Hansen: I wonder if the minister could tell us how applications for remediation plans are prioritized within the ministry. Are they on the basis of first come, first served, or does the ministry in fact consider that some sites are more urgent than others?
Hon. C. McGregor: There are a variety of criteria that are applied to an application as it comes in. That's not to say that first come, first served isn't part of the consideration. But it's also that if an application would hold up a development in some way and it's necessary to get a fast-tracked approval, then that would bring it up closer to the top of the pile, so to speak, as would serious issues of public health and safety, as in the case recently of the contaminated site at Oak Street.
[10:15]
C. Hansen: The particular site that is in my constituency involves a former dry-cleaning operation. As I understand it, there's a product that's used in dry cleaning called perchloroethylene. Unlike gas station sites, where the gasoline is lighter than water and therefore stays near the surface, perchloroethylene is heavier than water and in fact seeps down progressively deeper into the soil.This particular site was
Hon. C. McGregor: I would ask the member to provide me and our staff with the details immediately so we can investigate it fully, because it doesn't sound
C. Hansen: Actually, I will send the minister copies of correspondence that I sent to her predecessor, as well as a reply that she sent me in March on this issue. But this particular site has now been nine months, and the problem is getting worse.
I think the thing that makes it all the more frustrating is that, while I appreciate the fact that the ministry is often dealing with unwilling property owners on these sites, this is a very willing property owner who is basically trying to accommodate in every way possible the requirements of the ministry. I think the property owner is basically coming from the point of view that he recognizes that there is a problem. He wants to fix it, and he feels that that is his obligation.
The other thing that I would like to just close on is a concern that they have when they are dealing with the ministry and the ministry is actually asking for more information. The letters come back in a tone that basically says: "You must respond in one week or legal action will be taken." You've got a willing property owner on your hands. They're only too willing to respond quickly, and I guess one of the frustrations that they have is that while they are under threats of legal action if they don't provide information to the ministry in a matter of days, they, in turn, sit back waiting for weeks for the ministry to respond. It's a real frustration on their part, because they would obviously like to get on with this project before the problem gets worse. So I will provide information to the minister, and we'll leave it at that for today.
[ Page 5723 ]
B. McKinnon: To begin with, first of all, I would like to extend my thanks to the minister for reimbursing a constituent of mine, Mr. Wayne Wong, for his cost for removing from his property contaminated stuff which was illegally dumped there. So I would like to really thank you for that.
My question to you is about Barnston Island and the pile of garbage on the island. I've written to you about it, and I've also written to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I know that I've been told it's mainly the Ministry of Agriculture's problem, but I really have a concern with this because I think it's environmentally unsightly.
It's been there since well before
Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to begin by acknowledging the member's obvious frustration with this, and I can understand why constituents would be very concerned with a pile of unsightly garbage on a residential property. I mean, I think it's unacceptable, as well.
The difficulty we've had is
B. McKinnon: Barnston Island is not part of Surrey. Barnston Island would like to join Surrey or another district, but so far they haven't. I think the sad part of Barnston Island and the whole thing that's going on there is that the people on Barnston Island who have farms there say that the
The Ministry of Agriculture -- the land reserve -- say that the soil is good enough for farming, and the people say it isn't, and so they are betwixt and between. The Ministry of Agriculture says this garbage is not hurting the agricultural land reserve. They don't know what to do on Barnston Island, and nobody wants them because of the tremendous cost there would be in bringing them into the municipality, because of having to bring them water, having to bring them fire protection, and just everything that goes with it.
So I think that government has to do something to help these people. I don't know which ministry is going to take responsibility for it, but the GVRD certainly is not doing anything, and somebody has to be made responsible. I don't know who it is, but we've just got to quit passing the buck and give these people some support.
C. Clark: This is the first full day of discussions that we've had so far, so I'm hopeful that we can get a lot of work done today. I would like to wrap up some of the issues on environmental protection and the sustainable environment fund so that we can move on to air quality as the next topic of discussion.
I wanted to explore fairly broadly some of the issues that were touched on by my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena about contaminated sites and the impact that this has on industry -- whether the regulations are user-friendly enough and whether they actually work in the way they were intended. I recognize that new regulations are always undergoing a process of change as they evolve.
I wonder, first, if the minister could tell us if any concerns have been expressed by industry about the duplication of some requirements. I know that industry needs to do its own assessment, and then the ministry comes out and does an assessment, as well. I have heard some concern from industry that there appears to be a duplication there that's costly on both sides and that perhaps doesn't need to happen. I wonder if the minister has heard those concerns and if she intends to act on them.
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm sure there have been concerns expressed. It is a new regulation, and sometimes there's confusion about what is actually meant by a requirement. So it's a matter of beginning to use it and seeking clarity on how it should actually apply.
There is a steering committee made up of government and industry, and that is the mechanism through which concerns can be expressed and solutions worked out.
C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's answer. Specifically, though, on the issue of the assessment, is it correct that under the regulation, industry needs to do the assessment and then that the assessment needs to be reviewed by government?
Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct.
C. Clark: Is the minister considering reviewing that in light of the many review processes that appear to be going on -- that are supposed to be going on -- to reduce workload? I would suggest that that may be one of the ways government could streamline the process and cut out some of the costs both for the taxpayer and for the industries and businesses that are participating.
Hon. C. McGregor: No, we aren't considering changing that. It is our duty as the ministry to engage in a review of a proposal and really show due diligence. I think the member would agree and has made remarks similarly on other topics that we simply can't accept what is provided to us without monitoring, evaluating and ensuring that a standard has been met. So we will always have to look carefully at those.
C. Clark: I would certainly agree with the minister that the ministry does need to meet a standard of due diligence. I would suggest, though, as well, that there are many, many cases where the ministry, either by design or by a lack of staff, allows industry to self-regulate and simply accepts in good
[ Page 5724 ]
faith the commitments that industry might make. That might particularly be appropriate in those cases where companies and businesses are well known to the ministry and have a good, solid track record with the ministry.
So I would suggest that it is not currently true that the ministry does require staff assessments and evaluations of every regulation that the ministry has in place to ensure that enforcement is being done. I'd suggest that this may be one of the cases where the ministry can lighten not just the workload of its employees but also the regulations that are out there for businesses, and perhaps streamline the process a little bit.
I'll leave that with the minister, because I think it's certainly an area where she and her ministry can look to try and bring a little bit more simplicity to these very, very complicated regulations.
One of the things that we didn't talk about in very much depth yesterday was the fees that are collected. Can the minister give us a breakdown of the income from the waste management fees that goes into the sustainable environment fund?
Hon. C. McGregor: Yesterday we gave a summary of revenue by source, which included $14.366 million for waste management fees. We don't have an additional breakdown available here.
[10:30]
C. Clark: Could I ask for the minister's commitment to forward that to me when it's available? I suspect that it is available; it's just not here. Is that correct? Would the minister be prepared to forward that to me?Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.
C. Clark: Thank you very much.
The tax exemption for pollution abatement capital was recently removed by the Minister of Finance. I'm wondering if the ministry has any plans to try to provide other incentives in place of that, now that it's been removed. I'd suggest to the minister that that change could certainly have a deleterious impact on industry's willingness to meet the standards the ministry demands. So I wonder where the ministry is intending to replace that with other incentives.
Hon. C. McGregor: This matter was dealt with through the Ministry of Finance; it was a bill introduced by the Minister of Finance. We were given an opportunity to make comments as a part of its development, but we are not responsible for its development. I know a little bit about this because I've had it affect a constituent in my own area. What really evolved was that a judicial decision led to a wider application of the tax exemption than was originally envisaged in the legislation. The courts expanded it, beyond a device, to also include recycling facilities, which it was never intended to cover.
The amendment is meant to return the status quo, although it does have a grandparenting provision, so that existing facilities which receive the tax exemption would continue to do so.
In regard to whether we're considering additional incentives, we aren't at this time.
C. Clark: Just to be clear, I do understand that that's a Ministry of Finance bill. I was asking about the Minister of Environment's intention to try and mitigate the effects of that bill. I wonder if the minister could be
The last question on this is: has the ministry done any assessment or undertaken any consultations to determine the impact that the removal of incentives for pollution abatement investments will have on industry?
Hon. C. McGregor: The simple answer is no. We haven't come up with a new way of creating an incentive with industry on pollution abatement, a new device or some way that we might provide an economic incentive. But economic incentives are a big part of our policy development, and when we're meeting with industry, which we do regularly, we are always looking to find ways that we can enhance pollution abatement in whatever form. It might be in the form of tax relief; it might be in the form of something else.
For instance, when I was in Kamloops, the natural gas industry said to me: "What do you think about HOV lanes, if we had permitting that permitted low-emission vehicles to also use HOV lanes, as an incentive for people to want to?" And I said: "I think that's an excellent idea, and it's something we should look at." Those are the kinds of things -- those strategies, broadly -- that we're always looking at. But we don't immediately have something that we're about to announce or recommend.
C. Clark: Do the economic tools that the ministry is considering include tradable pollution permits? Is that under consideration by the ministry?
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm sure the member is aware of the greenhouse gas forum that we've constituted. We've been doing some work related to greenhouse gases with a variety of industrial stakeholders, scientists and so on. We've been doing some work and talking about emission trading. That's something that is being considered on a national level, as well.
C. Clark: Does the ministry have a time line for making a decision about whether they will be implementing tradable pollution permits?
Hon. C. McGregor: No.
C. Clark: That's certainly a debate that I'll follow with a great deal of interest, given the diversity of opinions out there about their value.
Just before we leave the sustainable environment fund and these issues altogether, I didn't ask the minister yesterday, and I meant to: why are the overall revenues for the fund down? Could the minister tell us where the income for the fund is lower than last year? Is there a particular reason?
Hon. C. McGregor: It's a decrease in the waste management fees, which are in part driven by the amount of discharge. Whenever discharge is reduced, the fee is reduced. So when you are making progress in reducing pollution, then the fees collected go down.
C. Clark: Just a couple of more questions -- I won't be too specific. The former Minister of Environment made a commitment to look at the auditor general's report with regard to the connection between the way the tax is collected for batteries, diapers and
Hon. C. McGregor: Tires.
[ Page 5725 ]
C. Clark:
Hon. C. McGregor: As the member is aware, we have a variety of what we've called industrial stewardship models of recycling programs. The sustainable environment fund -- which includes the levies collected for tires, batteries and diapers -- was sort of the model we started with in this game, where we collected the fees, we looked over the program and so on. We've moved away from that model and really gone to the industrial stewardship model where, for instance, paint is handled by Paint Care, and so on. Clearly, we set parameters for how industry should look after their product, either recycling it, reusing it or disposing of it safely. So that's the model that I think we should head to over time.
There is an opportunity to continue to work with industry in these areas, as well, and perhaps move away from the system we have in place now where we collect the fees and then monitor the program in an ongoing way, and to move toward an industrial stewardship model, as with other materials that are hazardous.
C. Clark: In that case, I suspect that if industry were to take over the recycling of tires, batteries and diapers, they would also have control over setting the fee for it as well, so we would be looking at an adjustable fee. Is there any consideration being given in the meantime to meeting the auditor general's recommendations about improving the public's understanding of why this money is collected and the way that it's spent?
Hon. C. McGregor: I think it would be fair to say that it is continuing to be reviewed. But here's an example of one of the educational materials that has been put out as a result of the auditor general's concern that the public needs to know where the money is going and what it's being used for. This is a publication that
C. Clark: I don't intend to belabour the point; I simply wanted to make it. I know that every Environment critic makes it every single year, and the government doesn't act on it. So on behalf of the auditor general, I'll make the point again. The government should certainly play a better role in making sure the public knows how that money is spent and why it's collected. I think the auditor general has referred to the handout that the minister mentioned and has noted that it's not sufficient, and that the ministry should certainly do more. I wouldn't be diligent if I didn't carry on in the grand tradition of every other Environment critic since the auditor general's report, make the suggestion to the ministry and hope, perhaps vainly, that the ministry might actually act on the recommendation at some point.
We're moving along at a fantastic clip here, and I would very much like to move on to air quality. I will start first with reference to the greenhouse gas action plan, which the minister has mentioned a number of times, and ask the minister to give us an update on the ministry's progress in meeting the goals that were set out in the action plan in 1995.
Hon. C. McGregor: There were originally 53 action items in the 1995 plan. Four are completed, and 32 are currently in progress.
C. Clark: Well, 32 and four is 36. What about the other 17?
Hon. C. McGregor: They are subject to resources. We started working on our priority areas, and we'll work on the others as resources become available.
C. Clark: Can the minister tell us which of the four have been completed?
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid we are not certain. We will get the information for the member.
[10:45]
C. Clark: I have some concern about the greenhouse gas action plan, simply because British Columbia appears to be so far behind in its targets to meet the commitments that it made at Rio to reduce greenhouse gases. More recently, of course, there has been a fair amount of media coverage about how Canada has failed to meet its commitments at Rio. But I would suspect that British Columbia's really dismal track record in improving air quality and meeting its commitments on greenhouse gases has been a huge contributor to Canada's failure overall to meet its commitments.We know that last year the minister told us that we appeared to be about 12 to 13 percent behind where we should be in order to meet our commitments by the year 2000, which is two and a half years away. Can the minister tell us how far behind we are this year?
Hon. C. McGregor: The only statistics we have are based on 1995 data, and I'm sure the member has seen this publication that's been put out by the ministry, which talks about how we're doing with greenhouse gases. That indicates that we are up by about 15 percent.
C. Clark: When the ministry made the commitment to have our greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by the year 2000, I'm sure that it would have charted where we need to be over that period. According to the ministry's predictions, where would we have needed to be, even in 1995, compared to where we promised we would be, in order to meet our commitments? Where should we be on that graph which I assume the ministry produced?
Hon. C. McGregor: We do not produce such a graph.
C. Clark: That is amazing; that is absolutely amazing. When the ministry made the commitment, which it trumpeted, that we would be at 1990 levels by the year 2000, I would assume that the ministry must have set some internal targets for where we should be, in order to discern whether we were meeting our targets. Is the minister telling me that the ministry didn't set any targets for meeting that commitment over that period? Was there just some assumption on the part of the ministry that we would snap our fingers and suddenly be at 1990 levels by the year 2000 without setting any interim goals?
[ Page 5726 ]
Hon. C. McGregor: The member asked about a graph, and I explained to her that we didn't produce such a graph. But that doesn't mean that we didn't set in place some actions and some goals to try and achieve our target.
The member well knows that greenhouse gases are not a problem unique to British Columbia; in fact, it's a worldwide problem. Even if British Columbia were to meet our commitments by the year 2000, if the rest of the world doesn't meet those commitments, it doesn't amount, quite frankly, to a hill of beans, because it doesn't have a huge impact on the worldwide situation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be making commitments to move forward. In fact, we've made a variety of commitments as government, including things like AirCare, the Scrap It program, continued investment in the pollution prevention models. Emission trading, which we talked about earlier, is being discussed at a national level in terms of addressing some of the issues related to provinces like British Columbia, where we have huge population growth, as opposed to others.
As the member well knows, the largest contributor to greenhouse gases is transportation. So the initiatives we've taken around cleaner technology and initiatives related to tax relief for cleaner-technology fuels
We need to do more, provincially. We also need to do more in terms of getting a partnership with the federal government on this. This is an area in which the previous Minister of Environment tried to put some pressure on the federal Minister of Environment around adopting some national, not just voluntary, actions on the part of industry related to greenhouse gas emission -- to really take those and make them into hard guidelines or targets so that we could not just have those who wish to participate in greenhouse gas reductions, but also make it a requirement to participate in those. We do have a variety of mechanisms through which we are addressing this issue. If the member wants to discuss any of them in more detail, I'd be happy to.
C. Clark: I'm surprised that the minister would suggest, or seem to be suggesting, that because B.C. is a small contributor in the world to the greenhouse gas problem, this somehow diminishes the importance of the commitment that the government made in Rio to do its bit. It's like saying that because British Columbians produce a minority of all garbage thrown away in the world we shouldn't bother recycling or something. Certainly we have a role to play. I would suggest that the government told British Columbians that it was prepared to play its role and that it was prepared to do its bit to deal with this international global problem. I'm concerned that the tone of the minister's comments appears to suggest that the importance of this commitment has diminished in the eyes of the government. I think that's a sad thing.
I'd suggest, too, that when it comes to national strategies, British Columbia also has a role to play -- not just at the global level but at the national level. If the government wants to tell people that it's a leader in emissions control and greenhouse gas control, then it actually should be a leader. I increasingly see the government going from saying, "We are a leader; we have the toughest standards, and we're going to meet our targets," to saying: "Well, nobody else is doing it anyway, and it's all somebody else's fault. It's the people in those other countries or the people in Ottawa that aren't meeting their commitments."
There is clearly a change in the way the government approaches this issue, and in the rhetoric that surrounds it. I'd be very concerned if that's going to be a long-term change on the part of this government, because air quality is a major problem, particularly in the lower mainland. Internationally, global climate change is an increasing threat that needs to be addressed. I would urge the minister that she needs to not step away from but redouble her efforts to ensure that we meet our commitments. The situation is only getting more urgent and more dangerous as days go by.
Can the minister tell us if her ministry
Hon. C. McGregor: I hope the member did not deliberately misconstrue the remarks I made around our efforts on greenhouse gas. I'm certain she didn't mean to imply that. I did acknowledge and continue to acknowledge the role that British Columbia has to play in greenhouse gas emission. If we don't all make efforts, then nothing will ever change. What I did try to point out, however, is that there are other obligations in other jurisdictions as well and that we should redouble our efforts to be working with them to achieve targets as a nation and as a planet, frankly. If we don't, we won't make significant improvements in greenhouse gas emission.
Many people who are looking at the weather events of British Columbia in this past year are suggesting that this could well be a result of greenhouse gases. There's more and more scientific evidence to show that that is the case. Obviously it must and has to be a priority for government. I think in my opening remarks I did say that it is -- and it continues to be and must be -- particularly in the lower mainland, where we have high urban populations and lots of transportation demands that are rapidly increasing emissions into the air.
Let me just remind the member of the remarks she made earlier -- in fact, I believe in her opening responses -- about the need to find the balance between government, stakeholders and industry, and that we were in fact driving investment out of the province of British Columbia through overregulation and so on. We are trying to achieve the balance with industry related to technology that's required to deal with some of these important pollution initiatives -- but we are balancing. We're not saying that in British Columbia you must do all of these things, driving that investment out of the province. If we were to do that, I think you would rightly suggest that we were on the wrong track.
That doesn't mean there isn't more we can do. We work with industry regularly, and we should continue to do that; and we should continue the initiatives we've begun, as a government, related to national greenhouse
C. Clark: Well, the minister would be badly misrepresenting the issue of greenhouse gases if she failed to note that the majority of greenhouse gases in this province are produced by individuals using cars, not by industry. I am strongly of the view that government needs to reduce green-
[ Page 5727 ]
house gases and reduce pollution emissions, period -- through cooperation with industry, not by the kind of bungled regulation that this government seems to love so much.
That's the way to actually make it work: go out there, set the goals and make sure industry meets them. Actually, with good government, that's the way to get industry to meet pollution control standards that are set by government -- without question. But it's not industry that appears to be the principal problem in producing greenhouse gases. The minister has admitted as much in the past, as have previous ministers.
The greenhouse gas problem is a very serious one indeed. It threatens our economy in many ways. It threatens agriculture; it threatens forestry; it threatens fishery; it threatens all the staples of our economy, according to studies that have been recently released. It's unacceptable for the minister to say: "Well, you know, we're not really interested in meeting our commitments, because we've got all these other imperatives that we're driven by."
I think the reduction of greenhouse gases in British Columbia should be a priority for government. It appears to have fallen way down the list. Can the minister tell us if her government still intends to meet its commitment to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000?
[11:00]
Hon. C. McGregor: It is a priority, and we're continuing to work on it. As I pointed out to the member earlier, we have taken a variety of initiatives related to greenhouse gases. I don't think anyone has tried to suggest that transportation is not the largest cause of greenhouse gases. In fact, statistically, 46.8 percent comes from the transportation sector, and the next largest sector is 23 percent from industrial use. Clearly those are the two areas that create the most greenhouse gases.But as the member well knows, changing consumer behaviour around single-occupancy of vehicles and long commutes from areas like where the member comes from, where people traditionally commute long distances into the metro Vancouver area
We have taken a variety of initiatives, particularly the AirCare program, the cleaner-technology vehicles, the promotion of cleaner fuels, more investment in public transportation, more investments in rapid transportation. The member has a lot of expertise in this area, I know, and has a lot of interest in how we can continue to build on light rapid transit and other transit alternatives. Those are efforts we are continuing to make as a government to address those concerns.
C. Clark: I know the ministry is taking some action with regard to greenhouse gases. What I'm suggesting is that it doesn't appear to be enough. In the greenhouse gas action plan, which was presented in 1995, it says that: "Without additional action, Canada's year 2000 emissions are expected to be 13 percent higher than 1990 levels." As of 1995, we were already 15 percent behind our targets. I just wonder if the minister could clarify the numbers for me. The 15 percent -- is that 15 percent that we are behind our targets or that we are above the 1990 levels?
Hon. C. McGregor: The 15 percent refers to the growth between 1990 and 1995.
C. Clark: Then the number would probably be different if we were referring to the targets of the ministry to meet the year 2000 levels, I suspect. We are two and a half years away from the year 2000. In order to get there, we are going to have to start going on a downward trend either very quickly, or we should already have been on a downward trend by now. You know, 1995 is halfway between 1990 and the year 2000, and I suspect that we needed to be dropping from 1995 on. If we are already 15 percent above those levels from when the greenhouse gas action plan was announced, where are we in terms of our targets that we need to meet, as opposed to just the raw numbers of where we were in 1990?
Hon. C. McGregor: The member needs to recognize that there was a 14 percent increase in population over the same period of time, so we have managed to really have a flat line in terms of the growth of greenhouse gases. As I have said repeatedly to the member, I recognize that it's not enough; we need to do more.
There are new initiatives and continuing initiatives that we have spoken of. If the member has particular advice she would like to give us about how we can reduce the population growth in British Columbia -- perhaps reduce the number of people who are actually in their vehicles during the commute
C. Clark: There is no question that they are large-scale problems that won't be solved overnight. But I am taking from the minister's comments that there are no targets -- that the ministry has set no targets. Can she tell me, first, if it's correct that the ministry has set no targets for where we need to be in terms of greenhouse gases in order to meet the commitments that it made in Rio; and second, if they haven't set any targets, how does the minister expect to be able to monitor our progress in meeting that commitment that we made?
Hon. C. McGregor: I have indicated to the member before that we have stabilization by the year 2000 as a goal.
C. Clark: How is the ministry going to measure that goal if there are no
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm trying to understand the member's question. I believe it has been asked and answered previously.
C. Clark: In fact, it was asked previously. It was asked three times, and the minister has refused to answer it each time. I have asked the minister if her ministry still expects to meet those goals by the year 2000; she has refused to answer that. I have asked her if the ministry has set any targets for where we need to be in order to meet those goals in the year 2000; she has refused to answer that. I have asked the minister if she even knows where we are in relation to where we need to be in order to meet those targets at the present time, and she has refused to answer that. I think her silence speaks a great deal about her ministry's failure to meet the commitments that it made in Rio.
I would remind the minister that after trumpeting these commitments again and again, the year 2000 may well be an election year, and she is going to have to stand up and tell the people of British Columbia why her government has been
[ Page 5728 ]
such a dismal failure in meeting its targets to control greenhouse gases. As the public awareness and public concern about this issue goes up, so will the number of questions that she and every one of the people in her campaign will be faced with when they have to go to the electorate. The year 2000 is going to be a watershed, and this ministry is not doing what it needs to do to meet those commitments that it made in Rio. An the absence of any definite targets, I don't think that this ministry had any intention of ever meeting those commitments.
It appears to me that those commitments were just made in a vacuum and that there hasn't been any follow-up on the part of the ministry to ensure that they are met. One of the dangers of setting a goal is that if you set a goal, you have to make sure that you meet the goals in between so that you can finally get to it. Here we are, two and a half years away from the date that commitment needs to be met, and the minister doesn't even know where we are in relation to the target. All we know is that our greenhouse gas emissions are much higher, and far, far too high for us to ever meet that commitment.
I see the minister is getting some advice from her officials, so I'll ask if she will respond to that.
Hon. C. McGregor: I'd first like to invite the member to review Hansard to see what my answers to the questions were, not her characterization of what those answers were.
I would also like to inform the member that there will be a meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment on the topic of greenhouse gases in the fall. I certainly hope to be making additional progress on this matter at a national level at that time.
C. Clark: We are certainly going to be at the next CCME. I suspect that there will be a few B.C. Environment officials that go in there to talk about greenhouse gases who will have their tail lodged firmly between their legs, with a fair amount of regret about the fact that they weren't able to keep any of their promises on improving air quality in British Columbia.
The greenhouse gas action plan appears to be something that the ministry has almost shelved. The minister can't even tell me which commitments they have kept, which ones they haven't kept and which ones of the remaining they have shelved -- put aside for some future consideration.
I will leave my comments at that for the moment and get back to some more air quality issues. In the meantime, my colleague from Shuswap has some questions about air quality that he would like to add to the debate.
G. Abbott: I just have a couple of brief questions. The questions revolve around the burning of latex paints at North Enderby Timber Ltd. -- as the name implies, just north of Enderby in the constituency of Shuswap. I know the minister has been the recipient of some considerable correspondence on this issue, as indeed have I. I want to briefly canvass the issue, largely to get an update from the ministry with respect to where that issue sits and where it's going.
The first question to the minister is: the opponents of this proposal submitted a series of questions to the ministry, I believe, about mid-May. Has the ministry had an opportunity to respond to those questions yet? And if not, where does it sit?
Hon. C. McGregor: In this case, really, what is at issue is whether or not the paint is considered to be a special waste. The tests have been applied to the product, but we're still waiting for the results.
G. Abbott: The issue at North Enderby Timber certainly is a new issue to me in terms of the process which surrounds the
Hon. C. McGregor: It mostly will depend on whether or not it is designated as special waste. If it was designated as a special waste, there is a particular process that it has to go through under the Environmental Assessment Act. If it is not deemed to be a special waste, then it can be permitted by the regional waste manager.
G. Abbott: I guess my question is a step back from there. In the first instance, if someone is proposing to do something along that line, is there a process that they follow? Is there a statutory basis for the process that follows from a firm or an individual wanting to undertake something like that?
Hon. C. McGregor: North Enderby Timber applied for an amendment to their permit under the Waste Management Act to engage in this activity.
G. Abbott: Because I certainly don't consider myself an expert on these issues, I have not intruded on this particular one and don't plan to. I do look forward to seeing answers provided to the concerned individuals in that area and, of course, to the firm itself. They obviously have been, I'm sure, on edge about reaching a conclusion to this process, as well. We'll look forward to hearing from the ministry with regard to that. I would appreciate being c.c.'d on any of the material or conclusions which are formed by the ministry.
On a slightly different subject
[11:15]
Hon. C. McGregor: We did have a meeting with the city of Revelstoke, and we did agree that dumping of snow can occur in the Columbia during high-flow periods but not during low-flow periods. We believe we can manage the snow using that strategy.I want to add one bit of information to the previous issue that the member raised related to the special waste at North Enderby Timber Ltd. There will be a public meeting once the results are known, before any decision is made.
B. Barisoff: First of all, I'd like to comment on the minister's pin this morning -- you being the Minister of Environment, it seems quite appropriate.
[ Page 5729 ]
G. Abbott: Nice fish.
C. Clark: There's something fishy about these answers we're getting.
B. Barisoff: I didn't mean to get us into such a debate.
My question
Hon. C. McGregor: In the member's area there already is a pre-existing solid waste management plan that has been approved by the ministry. It does contain guidelines for the placement of landfills, but it is a local government decision. I appreciate that it does a cause a degree of controversy sometimes in communities, but that is the mechanism. It becomes a local land issue once the solid waste management plan has been approved.
B. Barisoff: I'm just wondering, hon. minister, whether ultimately the solid waste management plan has come from the Minister of Environment. Somewhere along the line, it's coming from the top down to force local governments into doing this. I guess that's my concern. From Victoria down, we're forcing regional districts to follow the solid waste management plan and, in turn, causing small communities horrendous costs. I'm wondering whether the minister has looked at the impact that this is having on small communities. I know it becomes locally based with the regional district when that's done, but the impact has started from the top and moved down. From what I'm hearing from a lot of small communities, something has to be done.
It's probably a good idea in some areas -- probably in the Okanagan -- but you get over into Boundary country where the communities are quite small and spread apart, and it has quite a negative effect. Ultimately what takes place is that you find that rather than conforming to the rules, they're starting to create their own little landfills all over the place. That's not really serving the purpose that was originally intended.
Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate what the member is saying about some people's rebellion around solid waste management planning. I certainly can say that there's been evidence of it in the rural part of my own constituency. People do become quite angered over what have been traditional practices in very small communities around how they manage their waste. I'll give an example of a representative from the TNRD who came and spoke to me and wanted to be able to continue to openly burn garbage at their landfill site because that's been their practice. They resist, frankly, any notion that we shouldn't burn it because it does introduce pollutants into the air and particulates make it difficult for people in the area to breath. Overall, we have to continue to educate people on the reasons why we need to change our practices around solid waste management planning.
The ministry has certainly acknowledged that it has become a role for local government. We did, however, support that, when we first put the planning process in place, through a variety of funding mechanisms to try to really encourage regional districts to engage in that kind of planning. I think that process can accommodate local needs. I know I recently approved one in the Cariboo where clearly there are differences as a result of very small communities and demands on funds in particular. Getting regional districts to even consider, for instance, tipping fees has been a bit of an uphill battle. But that is the mechanism which we are going to have to use to pay for these services. Those traditionally haven't been charged in more rural settings, like my own in the Cariboo and so on. But we are moving that forward so that we can create a mechanism through which these can be paid for -- through the users of the landfills, for instance. We do have a goal, as a government, to reduce solid waste overall. That's a goal that obviously has responsibilities at the provincial government level, in terms of the strategies that we can take -- an example is the beverage container strategy -- but has some role for local government as well, obviously, and for individuals.
B. Barisoff: I know that tipping fees have just been instituted in my own community, Oliver, with a little bit of an upheaval from some of the people.
One of the other concerns that I have, bearing on the same subject, is that most of these plans are identical, or pretty close to identical, and I don't understand why, if it is a top-down kind of thing and it has to be approved by the Minister of Environment, we have instituted, or gone out and created
I know that, because I happened to sit in some of the meetings as a former chairman of the school district. There were horrendous costs that were being put out for these plans, and I understand that this was taking place throughout almost every regional district and community in the province. I'm just wondering if the minister had thought about bringing these together and using one, rather than having the wheel reinvented for each regional district or each community that has to do a new one.
Hon. C. McGregor: We gave regional districts some guidelines, and obviously ones that had gone before them can provide models for communities on how they might want to go about organizing their own plan. But I don't want to characterize it as a top-down process. What we're trying to do is build a community-based process, and that's what communities did. While that might replicate discussions that were held in other parts of the province, I think it's an important function to have the community involved in discussions about how we manage our waste.
A lot of consumers do not even think about what they do with their garbage. I know I've become much more aware of what I do with my garbage. When we engage in a public process and ask, where we will site a landfill, because we've filled up this dump and there's no more capacity in it for our garbage, and then we start talking about where we're going to dig a new hole to bury all this stuff in the ground, the community starts to realize that maybe there's a different decision we should be taking here about how we manage our waste.
I think there's broad-based benefit in the public process itself, just from an educational point of view, if for no other purpose. But obviously it has other purposes, including the reduction of solid waste.
[ Page 5730 ]
B. Barisoff: Would the minister consider, then, that in smaller communities, particularly in rural B.C., where if we're going to institute the solid waste management plan that seems to be being brought forward in a number of different regional districts and communities, where some of the smaller communities are going to have to truck their garbage quite a distance because they can't possibly afford the base kind of thing
My concern lies with the fact that some of these smaller communities can't possibly work under that guideline, where they have to conform to the big scheme of things. I understand what the minister is saying, and the fact that we've got to be more conscious and more aware of what's taking place in the solid waste. But, in retrospect, you've got to look at the Rock Creeks and the Greenwoods and the Midways. They can't truck their garbage for 60 or 70 miles and make it at all feasible. It becomes so cost-prohibitive for them that they find other means of doing it, which is probably a worse contravention than what we're into right now. I'm just wondering whether the minister has considered looking at a lot of the smaller communities and creating maybe a different set of existing guidelines that would serve their purpose.
Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate that the member is raising difficulties that smaller areas have. I understand that in the examples that you give there is a solid waste management plan in place at the regional level, so obviously they have decided on how they're going to handle the garbage in those smaller communities.
There are only three regional districts that have not yet submitted their waste management plans. We provide support, as well as the guidelines I made reference to earlier, on how to resolve some of those problems for those areas.
B. Barisoff: Yes, they have decided, hon. minister, but at extreme cost to these communities. I think they are all abiding by the law -- they have to decide. If I remember correctly, just thinking back, solid waste had to be reduced 50 percent by the year 2000, or something of that nature, but I think at extreme cost. I know they are all trying to abide by the guidelines, but I am getting comments from the mayors of these different communities that they are concerned about the costs that are going along with them.
I guess that's why I raise the point: yes, they have agreed to go along with this; but, in turn, they are also finding almost a little bit of a rebellion among people when all of a sudden they see it come up on the tax notice that solid waste collection cost them $14 last year, and now it's going to cost them $87 or something of that nature. The jumps are quite substantial. Could the minister look at some of these things?
Hon. C. McGregor: Certainly there is an opportunity for plan amendments if the regional district believes that there is a more cost-effective way of handling its solid waste. Then those amendments can come forward and be approved.
C. Clark: I want to get back more specifically to greenhouse gases and the ministry's failure to even put in place any targets to meet its greenhouse gas commitments and, more importantly, the very likely outcome that the ministry will not be meeting the greenhouse gas commitments that it made in 1992 to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. It appears that the ministry is moving away from that commitment altogether.
Could the ministry at least tell us
[11:30]
Hon. C. McGregor: This is quite a complex matter and a very technical discussion. We'll certainly offer a briefing to the member if she's interested in how it's done.The Chair: The Chair would like to suggest that the committee members have asked, by agreement, to have a two-minute break and that maybe we could take it at this time. We'll reconvene in two minutes.
The committee recessed from 11:31 a.m. to 11:33 a.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
C. Clark: I recognize that air quality monitoring is very technical. I wonder, though, if the minister could
Hon. C. McGregor: B.C. Environment has monitored PM levels -- particulate matter levels -- at a hundred sites in British Columbia.
C. Clark: Where does the ministry do its measuring for other pollutants and air emissions?
Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I'm holding in my hand a sample of air quality summary data from selected stations where the air quality rating and air quality index is done on a daily basis: Abbotsford, Castlegar, Chilliwack, Cranbrook, Crofton, etc. As I pointed out to the member earlier, we do a lot of work in a variety of different
C. Clark: I will certainly take up the minister's offer of a technical briefing.
What I am getting at with this line of questioning is my suspicion that the reason the ministry hasn't set any goals to meet the commitments that it made to reduce greenhouse gases by the year 2000 -- aside from the fact that it perhaps never really intended to meet those commitments, except that it wanted a good photo opportunity for the previous minister for everything -- is the fact that the ministry really doesn't have a very good handle on what those emissions are.
I know that in the lower mainland, for example, the ministry is dependent on the GVRD for its information. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. I firmly believe that different levels of government should cooperate to the maximum extent possible. But what I'm curious about is how many of the monitoring stations that the ministry relies upon for its information are actually provincial Ministry of Environment facilities. If it's a short list, as I suspect it is, where are they located?
Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have a list of the facilities, and I would offer again that this could be well canvassed in a technical briefing.
[ Page 5731 ]
C. Clark: Certainly I'll take up the minister's offer of that again and do that.
It's my understanding that the ministry really only does its air quality monitoring at those two locations -- Quesnel and Prince George -- and I know that they're reliant on other sources. I may be wrong, and I'll certainly get that information at the technical briefing if I am.
The GVRD, though, has produced some interesting numbers on greenhouse gas emissions. I note that the minister said that we are 15 percent behind our targets for meeting our commitments at Rio, and I suggest it's highly unlikely that without some very serious undertakings on the part of this government, some real sincerity about wanting to meet these commitments, we won't meet these commitments. There just isn't any chance of it.
For example, I see some symmetry in the numbers here. The GVRD puts the emissions from Burrard Thermal at 12 percent. The GVRD says that Burrard Thermal contributes 12 percent -- this is the monitoring station which I believe the government relies on for its data -- of the total greenhouse gases in the lower mainland. If we are 15 percent behind our targets, wouldn't the minister agree that shutting down Burrard Thermal would be a great way to help us meet those targets, and very quickly?
We are way behind in meeting those targets -- 15 percent, in fact. We are on an upward trend in terms of our production of greenhouse gases, and the year 2000 is crawling up very quickly. In fact, as I mentioned to the minister, it's going to be an election year. Maybe I can give her some election advice. She might want to meet that commitment, keep that promise, in order to be able to answer constituents' questions when we get to the next election. I suspect, you know, that maybe the government might like to point to one promise that it kept.
So here's a suggestion for her. She asked me for suggestions earlier, and I have a suggestion. My suggestion is this: if we are 15 percent behind in our greenhouse commitments, and Burrard Thermal produces 12 percent of the total greenhouse gases in the lower mainland, wouldn't she agree that shutting down Burrard Thermal would be the easiest, the fastest and the most reliable way to meet their commitments in the short term?
Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated earlier, I am quite prepared to take any suggestions that the opposite member has under advisement.
C. Clark: I can understand why the minister is stalling and refusing to answer these questions: it's quite obvious that she is weak on the commitments she has made. She's completely backing away from them. This government doesn't have any intention of meeting the commitments that it made at Rio -- obviously not.
Can she tell us whether shutting down Burrard Thermal is part of this government's plan? Surely the government must be considering some urgent measures in order to meet this commitment that it so firmly said it believed in. If the government wants to keep its promises, it is going to have to start coming up with some answers pretty quick. These are commitments that they made in 1992, and we're already so far behind when we should be on a downward trend.
Can the minister tell us if shutting down Burrard Thermal is part of the ministry's plan to try and meet the commitments it made at Rio to reduce our greenhouse gases by the year 2000?
Hon. C. McGregor: We engaged in a very comprehensive review of Burrard Thermal in '92-93. I know the member is aware of this; in fact, she canvassed this issue at significant length last year with the previous minister. As a result of that task force, a new stringent permit was put in place that was going to require Burrard to introduce selective catalytic reduction units at the rate of one boiler per year, beginning in the year 1995. We have two boilers already fitted. The third boiler is actually now operating. As a result, there have been very significant reductions in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions coming from Burrard Thermal.
The member knows that the permit also requires that it not be used on days when the ambient air quality is such that it would add significantly and cause health distress. Those are the efforts we have made.
We've also made the commitment to your town council -- and others, as well -- that in the eventuality that there is to be a repowering of Burrard, it would be subject to a full environmental review.
C. Clark: I know that this minister and previous ministers like her always like to try and dance their way around the issue of Burrard Thermal and its contribution to the poor air quality in the lower mainland by talking about the repowering of Burrard Thermal.
I would point out to her a report from August 27, 1996 -- actually, it wasn't released -- done by John Allan, the former Deputy Minister of Environment, called "Report of the Independent Power Producers Review Panel." The review panel looked at six projects and rated each of them on capital costs, efficiency costs and social costs. On almost every single measure of its social and environmental costs, Burrard Thermal came last. This is comparing it to other proposed power projects. I want to be clear about that in putting this in context.
I'm not suggesting that British Columbia can somehow do without power production. What I am suggesting is that Burrard Thermal isn't the best way to meet our power needs, because it is such a heavy polluter. The minister talks about this repowering, and she talks about the installation of SCRs, but the results of this report were based on the social and environmental costs of Burrard Thermal after it had been repowered and the SCRs had been installed.
I'll read for the minister from page 38 of the report. There's an environmental impact matrix. On COx emissions, Burrard Thermal is fifth; on NOx emissions, it's sixth; on other emissions, it's sixth. Even on the other environmental impacts
This review, which was done by the former Deputy Minister of Environment, concludes that even with these mitigation measures -- which the minister always likes to refer to and which every previous minister liked to refer to, to say that Burrard Thermal isn't really a problem
[11:45]
[ Page 5732 ]
Hon. C. McGregor: The independent power producers review panel made a variety of recommendations. They ranked ICP Elk Falls first. Government made a commitment in October '96 that Hydro should negotiate an electricity sales agreement with ICP Elk Falls, and they are currently preparing an application for the environmental assessment office. Government is moving forward on that independent power producers review panel recommendation. If the member has more questions about it, I would ask her to address her comments to the minister responsible.The Chair: Noting the time, member
C. Clark: Yes, hon. Chair.
The minister is not going to be able to avoid and dodge these questions so easily. Clearly this is a matter for the Ministry of Environment, given that this is the ministry that made the commitments about greenhouse gases. She's not going to be able to dodge these questions about Burrard Thermal. Clearly it's within her ministry's mandate. I will continue this line of questioning after we break, hon. Chair.
Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.