Hansard -- Thursday, April 11, 2002, a.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 4 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Committee of Supply		2761
	Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (continued) J. Kwan Hon. J. Murray B. Bennett

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we will be debating in this House the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: The minister has released a report that suggests global warming contributes to the pine beetle crisis. We learned that the Premier is opposed to the Kyoto protocol on climate change, and we learned yesterday that the minister is also opposed to the Kyoto protocol on climate change. The minister admitted that she has not seen the final energy task force report, which has a lot of ramifications on the issue around water, land and air protection, including the expanding reliance on coal as a source of power. Could the minister please advise whether or not she supports the use of coal as an energy source?

Hon. J. Murray: As with the previous day's estimates, I'll confirm that the Premier has never stated that he is opposed to Kyoto. The Premier's position is that there is work to be done before a decision on Kyoto is taken by the federal government. I have been working with the Ministry of Energy and Mines on some of the issues involved in energy policy. However, that report has not been released, and the decisions and direction around energy policy have not been considered by cabinet. I concur with the member that energy policy is a very important aspect of government policy-making.

Actually, I'm very proud that this government, as opposed to the previous government, has decided that an energy plan is an important tool for the province to move forward in a coherent way in terms of its energy policy.

J. Kwan: The minister has not answered my question. What is clear is that this Premier and this minister, as the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, have not signed on to the Kyoto protocol. That is clear. What is also clear is that this minister would not answer the question. Does this minister support the use of coal as an energy source — yes or no?

Hon. J. Murray: Coal as an energy source may be addressed in the province's energy policy, but as that policy hasn't come forward yet, that's a future policy.

J. Kwan: No, I'm not asking the question relative to the report. I'm asking a general question of the minister: does she support the use of coal as an energy source?

Hon. J. Murray: Again, the use of coal as an energy source may be part of the considerations of the province's energy policy. That process hasn't been concluded yet.

I would like to point out to the member that her colleague, a minister in the previous government, is on record as saying on December 18, 2000 — this is Joy MacPhail — that she is in favour of looking at generating electricity by burning coal. She said: "The environmental safeguards around coal production are rapidly advancing." This had to do with attempts to develop the Hat Creek coal site, so this is on the public record.

J. Kwan: I'm asking this minister where she stands on the issue of using coal as an energy source. Does she support it? Does she advocate for it, or does she say, "No, that is bad for the environment," and that is something she does not support?

Where does she stand? Or does she have no opinion at all? Where does this minister stand on the issue of utilizing coal as an energy source? Does she support it? Does she advocate for it? Would she please answer the question?

Hon. J. Murray: This government, through its New Era document, is on the record as being in strong support of alternative and renewable, low-emissions energy sources. I'm certainly part of the government that supports that view.

All energy sources will be considered in an energy policy. That policy hasn't concluded yet, so that's an issue of future policy.

J. Kwan: I'm not asking a question of future policy. I'm asking the minister a question of principle. Does she support the advocating…?

J. Kwan: If other members wish to rise up in this House and ask questions of the minister, they're welcome to do so. I'm asking the minister this question,

which she has not answered, and it's a simple question. It's a very simple question relative to the issue of limiting air pollution, which is the mandate of this minister. She is the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Air protection is a component that this minister deals with. She has the mandate to protect air quality.

I'm asking the minister: does she support the use of coal as an energy source — yes or no?

Hon. J. Murray: Cleaner air is part of this government's mandate. Air emissions — reducing air pollution is an important initiative in this ministry, and the portfolio of potential energy sources is being considered through the Energy Policy Task Force. This government will have an energy policy, but it hasn't been determined yet.

J. Kwan: Well, I wonder: do we have a Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection or not? She has not been able to answer the question, which is a relatively simple question on the issue around air quality relative to coal as an energy source.

Is that something that she would support — yes or no? I've asked this question a number of times. The minister is unable to answer. Is she there as the minister?

J. Kwan: Members are heckling, and they're saying: "Well, she's answered every time." She has not actually answered the questions. She gave some words about it being future policy. It's not a policy question I'm asking of the minister. I'm asking about her position as the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Does she support the utilization of coal as an energy source, and what are her thoughts on that issue?

She has not answered the question at all. She has evaded it. Why? Is it because she has no issue about utilizing coal as an energy source because she's not concerned about it? Does she have an environmental view on the issue of utilizing coal as an energy source? What is her view? Could she please explain this to the House? Does she support utilizing coal as an energy source — yes or no? It's not a complicated question.

Hon. J. Murray: I appreciate the member's obvious deep concern for the issue of air emissions and air pollution. I concur that is one of the main focuses of environmental protection in this day and age. Air quality is very directly related to human health. In fact, the research is now showing that children's health is directly impacted by smog and air pollution. That's a great deal of concern for people in a number of airsheds in British Columbia. The research is showing that air pollution doesn't just exacerbate conditions like asthma; it actually causes asthma in children.

Air quality is one of the top priorities for this ministry. This government has stated in the New Era document that cleaner air is one of its commitments. The ministry has a number of actions and policies related to air pollution and the reduction of air pollution, and that was canvassed in the estimates yesterday.

I'm clear that reducing air pollution is a top priority. I understand that in the government's energy policy, issues such as air emissions and many, many other issues will be considered. That policy has not been brought forward yet. I will not be commenting on the content of the potential energy policy for this government at this time.

J. Kwan: I'm not asking the minister to comment on the content of the final Energy Policy Task Force report. You know why I'm not asking the minister to comment on it? It's because she hasn't even seen a copy of it, even though she is the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. She has not even seen a copy of that report.

J. Kwan: No, it's not speculation. Actually, the minister admitted yesterday that she has not seen a copy of the report. I'm not asking her about the content of it.

Let me ask the minister this question: does the use of coal as an energy source fit within the minister's commitment to limit air pollution?

Hon. J. Murray: I'd just like to make a correction to the member's assertion about the issue of having seen the report or not. I was very clear with the member yesterday. I did not state either having seen or not having seen the report. This has not come to cabinet yet. I am involved in discussions that have to do with energy policy. The cabinet has not yet had a chance to review that report.

J. Kwan: I'll send a note down to my staff, and we'll get a copy of Hansard. I'll read Hansard into the record in terms of what the minister said.

She didn't answer my question. I asked the minister: does the use of coal as an energy source fit within the minister's commitment to limit air pollution? She hasn't answered that question.

Hon. J. Murray: My view is that the issue really is about results and outcomes, and the results and outcomes we're seeking to achieve with respect to air is cleaner air quality. This ministry takes a lead on that issue. It's one of our top priorities, and we will be working in a number of ways to ensure that the quality of air in British Columbia improves.

J. Kwan: I can only draw the conclusion from the minister's answer that she will not be an advocate on

behalf of the environment on this issue, on utilizing coal as an energy source. She refuses to answer what her position is from an environmental perspective, where she has the mandate as the minister to protect the air quality. She has no opinion whatsoever, and she's not prepared to offer it in this House to British Columbians.

The Chair: Order. Order. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: Members are talking about credibility. We can enter into a debate about broken promises. We could do that, but I'm going to try and refrain from doing that.

J. Kwan: Actually, it's true. It's been a short eight months, and the Liberals have already broken many promises that range from tax cuts that they said….

J. Kwan: You know that the members, the government bench, are going to be running for the woods when difficult questions are asked of the ministers of the government and when they're held accountable for their mandate. When that happens, the minister needs to get everybody on the floor. Why don't you get all 76 of you to come in here…?

J. Kwan: Actually, no, because the Speaker does not engage in partisanship — is not supposed to, anyway.

J. Kwan: Why don't the government members go and get everybody into this House so they can shout down the opposition, so that the minister will not be held accountable?

The Chair: I would remind the member that we are dealing with vote 45. This is estimates. If we could keep to the topic, thank you.

J. Kwan: Absolutely. I want to ask the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection what her position is on utilizing coal as an energy source. Does she advocate it?

J. Kwan: Here's what was reported in Hansard yesterday. I asked the minister about the Energy Policy Task Force report. I quote from Hansard:

The minister replied: "I'd be happy to comment on the contents of the Energy Policy Task Force report and its implications for the environment once the report has been completed and is public."

Question: "I asked a very straightforward question. A report relative to government policy that will impact directly on the area of responsibility of this minister, the Energy Policy Task Force report: has the minister seen this report, yes or no?

Answer: "I've had discussions with the minister and the task force on various parts of the deliberations. As a member of cabinet I'll be seeing this report and deliberating on it when it comes to cabinet."

Question: "Then the answer is no, the minister has not seen this report. Can the minister elaborate on what she's going to do to ensure that this province does not add to the climate change problems by increasing B.C.'s coal burning as a source of power?"

J. Kwan: You know, the minister can get up right now and say otherwise and say she has seen the report. I'll ask the minister again. I'll give her another chance to clarify herself, because my interpretation of the exchange yesterday is that the minister has not seen the report.

J. Kwan: Well, then get up, minister, and clarify the answer. Has she seen the report or not?

J. Kwan: Well, answer the question. Has she seen it? It's a simple question. Or does she need a briefing on that?

J. Kwan: Get another briefing to tell you. "I read the report" — yes or no?

Hon. J. Murray: The member's recitation of Hansard clearly supports what I said this morning.

Well, then, what is clear is that the minister has not seen the report. She's not getting up to dispute it. I'm giving her every opportunity to clarify her answer.

She said it on record yesterday. "Has she seen the report?" "Well, it'll be coming to cabinet shortly." "Well, has she seen the report, and what are her comments on it?" "Well, it'll be coming up to cabinet shortly," is what the minister keeps on saying.

Then, when I said that she hadn't seen the report, she didn't get up to dispute it then. She's not getting up to dispute it now.

This is the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection who has not seen the report that deals with energy uses — using coal as a potential energy source that would impact air pollution and air quality.

I ask the minister herself, from an environmental perspective: where does she stand? Does she support the utilizing of coal as an energy source — not relative to the report, but as a principle? Where does she stand? She has no answer for that.

I'm starting to wonder: where is this minister as the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection? Is she there as the advocate for the environment, or is she just there to toe the party line on behalf of this Liberal new-era agenda? She has been awfully silent on the issue around air quality. She has been awfully quiet on the issue around protection for the environment. She's been awfully quiet, and she knows it. She's been awfully quiet around the issue of protecting the environment for British Columbians. The silence is deafening.

J. Kwan: You know, this government thrives on trying to silence opposition. They thrive on trying to silence community voices. They've done it at every turn, and they will, I have no doubt, continue to do it.

J. Kwan: If members want to speak and ask questions of this minister and hold their own government accountable on the issue around the environment, they could rise up. I haven't seen anybody rise up so far; they are kind of silent on the entire issue themselves. That's probably because they too — all the government MLAs — have a muzzle on them so that they're not able to speak on issues.

I'd like to ask the minister this question. There appears to be a discrepancy in commitments made and funding allocated. For instance, under the core functions on page 4 of the service plan it says: "…will place greater emphasis on core 'planning' and 'checking….'"

Furthermore, under the "check" column, enforcement is listed as one of the key initiatives. However, once again we see that the budget for planning, innovation and environment is substantively reduced over the next three years.

How is this going to affect the commitments made by the ministry, especially when the fundamentals of the ecosystem approach — adaptive management and best available science — require a commitment to constant adaptation?

For the budget for planning, innovation and enforcement, the operational component has increased from $17.834 million last year to $19.894 million this current year for operational budget. Total budget, including capital, increases from $21.040 million in '01-02 to $21.529 million in '02-03.

J. Kwan: There is a substantive drop over the next three years, and the minister recognizes that. We see it in the budget numbers. How is the minister going to ensure that the enforcement is actually in place, especially when the fundamentals of the ecosystem approach that we talked about yesterday in the estimates are going to be critical in the area of protection of the environment for British Columbians? How do we make sure that constant adaptation is going to be in place, when we see the funding and the staff levels being reduced?

Hon. J. Murray: This discussion occurred yesterday as well. I just want to confirm and reiterate to the member that enforcement is a very important part of this ministry's responsibility. In fact, I believe, as the minister — and the ministry believes — that we can actually be more effective in protecting the environment by focusing our resources and activities on the setting of standards and then ensuring that compliance and enforcement take place.

We've taken a number of steps to increase the effectiveness of our enforcement activities. We have cooperative agreements with other enforcement agencies, and we're strengthening those. We have created a new designation of ministry staff called a compliance officer. I believe we have 35 compliance officers, who will be working very closely with the conservation officer service members so that we will identify any gaps and duplications and have the work of compliance enforcement be much more effective. Conservation officers will be able to spend more time out in the field,

where they are valued and their work is important to protecting the environment.

One of the reflections of our understanding of the critical importance of compliance and enforcement is that when we restructured this ministry, we maintained a ministry presence in 60 out of 67 communities around the province, not including Victoria. We did that deliberately, because we recognize that a ministry presence in a community has the latent benefit of providing a deterrent. It also provides confidence to the public that the environment is important to this government. It provides a link to the public if they should have concerns about any impacts on the environment in their community.

There are a number of ways that we are making our compliance and enforcement operations more cost-effective but more effective than they have been in the past, because of the importance of enforcement.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise us of the role of the enforcement and compliance staff within her ministry? What responsibilities do they have, and what are all the areas assigned to them?

Hon. J. Murray: This ministry's operations span many, many kinds of activities. The job of compliance and enforcement is essentially to ensure that environmental standards are respected, to educate people where they are inadvertently not respecting them, to provide feedback so the public or specific groups understand those standards and how their operations are measuring up, and then to take stronger actions if there is a continuing or deliberate disrespect of standards. Given that the ministry's operations cover a very wide variety of activities from the recreational use of wildlife in British Columbia to major industrial activities on the land, to a whole variety of issues…. The actual activities in compliance and enforcement will be directed to what the specific threat to environment is. There isn't a cookie-cutter.

I'll just give an example to the member of a compliance inspection and review that the ministry took part in with respect to oil and gas development. The ministry inspected stream crossings; works in and about a stream; snow, ice fills and ice bridges; sewage disposal at campsites; well sites; producing wells; drilling and construction; special wastes; registration of the generation of special wastes; transportation and disposal of invert drilling muds and cuttings; water usage by camps, drilling rigs and seismic crews; forestry practices of crews conducting seismic camp access roads, drilling leases and pipelines; gravel use; Crown land trespass; unauthorized removal and use of gravel. This was a team that consisted of representatives from various ministries and agencies, including this ministry. The teams each consisted of at least one conservation officer.

This is an example of compliance activity in the oil and gas sector. It would vary, depending on what the particular risks of the activity are to the environment.

J. Kwan: The minister advised us yesterday that there are about 155 enforcement as well as compliance officers in the ministry. How is that 155 broken down region by region throughout British Columbia?

Hon. J. Murray: I have here a list of every conservation officer in each community that they are located in throughout the province. I'd be happy to pass the member a copy of this document, which is called Summary of Staff by Location and Function as of January 2002.

J. Kwan: Yes, if the minister could share that information, I'd appreciate it. Could the minister at this time just give me a general number in terms of how many enforcement officers are in each of the regions?

Hon. J. Murray: We don't have it broken down by region here in this information, but we can take the list that we'll be passing to the member and aggregate the communities by region so that information is more accessible.

J. Kwan: Thank you, minister. If you could pass on that information to the opposition caucus.

The service plan states that the ministry will put more emphasis on planning functions such as developing clear environmental standards and performance expectations. Granted, the budget information on page 14 of the service plan shows an initial increase in funding for planning, but then it drops significantly thereafter. Is the minister expecting that all the necessary planning and performance standards will be completed within this next year, when the funding is higher?

Hon. J. Murray: The function of planning is not isolated in the planning innovation and enforcement decision. It's integrated into activities in each of the divisions of the ministry. Also, just to answer part of the question, the ministry is undergoing a transition to results-based standards and review of ministry standards. That review and that transformation will be taking place over the next three years.

J. Kwan: The minister said earlier that with all the new-era approaches and all of the changes, the staffing resources for environmental protection would not be as high as it needs to be. Of course, we see in the budget that it goes down significantly for '04-05. Likewise, in the area of planning innovation, the budget also goes down significantly for '04-05 — and for '03-04, I might add. The minister says there are these plans in place. What has the progress been in these areas to date?

Hon. J. Murray: This is a three-year plan, and the ministry is on target for its accomplishments over the three years. There are some regulation rewrites that are close to completion. Those would include the aquaculture waste management regulation, which will be a historic first in British Columbia.

Also, the results-based Forest Practices Code is something that the ministry has been very involved with to support the goals of having strong environmental standards in our forestry regulatory regime. That is the bulk of the work, and preparing that is behind us. We have not concluded, but there are a number of regulations in different stages. We're proceeding, and according to our plan, this will be taking place over the coming three years.

J. Kwan: When could British Columbians see the first round of the work that has been done by the ministry? What's the expected time line?

Hon. J. Murray: The aquaculture waste management regulation is already on the website, so the member can have a look at that and provide input if the member chooses. Some results-based regulations are already out and completed. That includes the organic material recycling regulation that I referred to yesterday. The Forest Practices Code will be soon. The regulations, as they're completed, become available for the public to review.

J. Kwan: Is there a time line attached to the work that is not yet public? When does the minister expect that information will be made available to the public?

J. Kwan: Well, the minister mentioned the Forest Practices Code will be out sometime soon. Could she please advise the House when?

Hon. J. Murray: Questions around the process for the completion of the Forest Practices Code would be better directed to the Minister of Forests.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister just finished saying that she's been working very hard on this issue, especially on the results-based aspect of it. When does she expect that piece of work will be completed, on her side?

Hon. J. Murray: The Minister of Forests is the lead on this project. Our ministry has been providing input, as have other ministries.

J. Kwan: I'm going to be going through with the minister in terms of what each of the other ministers within the government have said in the area of responsibility for this minister, because all of the issues pertaining to enforcement, compliance, monitoring and the protection of the environment — performance-based work in terms of all of that work and its development — fall within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. I will be canvassing in detail with this minister and citing to her what other ministers have said, so I would expect that answers will be forthcoming from her and not for her to be referring that to other ministers, as she has continuously done so far.

Before I get into that, I want to actually touch on one area, which is the Living Rivers strategy. The strategy, I know, relates to another ministry, and that's Sustainable Resource Management. In the estimates we have engaged in some discussions. Here's my first question to the minister. What are the details of this government's definition of the Living Rivers strategy? What is it supposed to look at, and what is it supposed to look like? Are there similar initiatives in other jurisdictions on a living rivers strategy?

Hon. J. Murray: The Living Rivers strategy is a new-era commitment, and it is intended to be a strategy that integrates various activities and objectives with respect to protecting watersheds and a ten-year program for restoring damage to watersheds.

J. Kwan: The minister described what it would look like. Is there a definition of a Living Rivers strategy within government? Are there similar initiatives undertaken in other jurisdictions?

Hon. J. Murray: That's something that's being developed in the ministry right now. Yes, there are living rivers projects and programs in the United States. One of the things the ministry staff are doing is looking at those other programs to see what the good ideas and good models are that we can learn from and adapt to British Columbia as we develop our own.

J. Kwan: So there's not yet a definition from the ministry, and that's being worked on right now. There are other jurisdictions the minister cited; the United States is one of them. Are there studies that the ministry has with respect to other jurisdictions' experience?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry, in our reorganization, designated a manager for the Living Rivers strategy in government. That manager reports to the biodiversity division head. The manager of Living Rivers in the ministry has done a review of other programs that relate to living rivers in the United States.

J. Kwan: Could the minister share with the opposition the work that has been done by her staff?

Hon. J. Murray: The project of developing the Living Rivers strategy is in process right now. When it has proceeded to the point where it's ready for public review and input, we'd be pleased to share it with the member opposite as well as other interest groups.

J. Kwan: I'm interested in obtaining the studies that the ministry has been reviewing in terms of its outcome. Could the minister provide that information to the opposition?

Hon. J. Murray: Just to clarify to the member, this is policy development in progress. There isn't a completed product at this point, but we're happy to share with the member the website links and other informa-

tion sources that we've been pursuing in our review of those programs elsewhere.

J. Kwan: The minister has advised that she has ministry staff who have been looking at other jurisdictions' experiences and reviewing the studies and outcomes. What I was asking for was the information that staff have been reviewing — other studies, other jurisdictions' experiences and their outcomes. Could the minister share that with the opposition?

Hon. J. Murray: Just to confirm, my answer to that was yes. We will provide the member with information sources and links to the information about other programs that relate to living rivers.

J. Kwan: In the cases where the ministry is reviewing information that is not on the website, could the minister provide a hard copy of those studies to the opposition for our review?

Hon. J. Murray: I haven't used the word "studies." I'm not aware if it is studies that our manager has been reviewing. I've said that the manager has been reviewing programs that relate to living rivers in other jurisdictions. We'd be happy to provide the sources of that information about those programs to the member.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise how this initiative is going to benefit the ecosystems and the communities?

Hon. J. Murray: I'll just read the New Era document note and the promise about the Living Rivers strategy. The government committed to "pass a…living rivers act to protect and improve B.C.'s river systems with scientifically based standards for watershed management, enhancements to fish habitat and a ten-year program to correct past damage."

I believe that water is at the core of our environment. When we protect and improve the quality of water, that's the centrepiece to protecting and improving the environment. River systems in British Columbia connect with communities all across the province. When we are protecting and improving B.C.'s river systems, that's a project that does connect with communities throughout the province.

The scientifically based standards for watershed management support some of the discussion that the member stimulated yesterday in terms of an ecosystem-based approach. We'll be looking at our Living Rivers strategy having that kind of an ecosystem-based approach by looking at an entire watershed, as opposed to taking a piece of a watercourse and doing a project on it. I've heard that some of the criticism of past programs has been that they focused in on a specific project and a specific piece of a watercourse, as opposed to looking at the broader watershed issue. That's the redirection here — towards that ecosystem-based approach.

J. Kwan: What are the specific measures or outcomes to the notion of improvement under the new-era agenda?

Hon. J. Murray: That's exactly the kind of policy work that is underway right now in developing a Living Rivers strategy. That's one thing that this government is very committed to: having clear and measurable outcomes. We believe that holds people accountable for their spending of public dollars. Also, my view is that when there are clear, agreed-upon, measurable outcomes, government can work collaboratively and cooperatively with other organizations — whether they be professional associations, universities, scientists or non-profit groups — and combine forces and combine knowledge capacity to accomplish those outcomes. When they are specified, people can agree on them, and they can each do their piece. The pieces of the puzzle together can create the synergy and a more effective outcome.

Hon. J. Murray: As the member is aware, the budget was published about six weeks ago, so this work is just beginning. It's not at a point where consultation would add value at this stage, but there certainly will be public consultation into the Living Rivers strategy as we move forward.

J. Kwan: Would there be consultation before the strategy has been finalized, or would it be after the strategy has been finalized?

Hon. J. Murray: Definitely, there will be consultation before the strategy is finalized. In my experience, consultation isn't a nice-to-have piece of the process. It's an essential part of bringing experience and wisdom and diverse views to the project that enrich it and clarify its focus and improve its ability to succeed in achieving objectives. So we will be having consultation before the finalization of the strategy.

Hon. J. Murray: On page 10 of the service plan, the goal is: "Implement integrated Living Rivers strategy for protection and restoration of watersheds by 2004."

J. Kwan: What's the time line in between with respect to consultation? When can one expect to see this document in the public?

Hon. J. Murray: The details of the process are not completed, and that's future policy.

J. Kwan: This is another new-era approach to accountability, openness and transparency. I'm asking a simple question: when does the minister expect to be consulting with stakeholders on this? Does the minister

have no projection at all in terms of when this work will go out to the communities for their review and input?

Hon. J. Murray: This is a three-year plan. The process time lines and workplan are not in place yet, so there is not an answer to that question at this point.

J. Kwan: In the service plan it states that scientifically based standards are to be established for watershed management. Could the minister tell us what standards will be utilized in establishing this watershed management and how that fits in with the government's strategy on deregulation?

J. Kwan: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection service plan from January 2002 states that scientifically based standards for watershed management will be used in the strategy. Can the minister tell us how this plan for standards fits in with the government's deregulation and what standards would be established for the watershed management?

Hon. J. Murray: Standard-setting is the essence of how this ministry is moving forward with its participation in reducing the regulatory burden in the province. In the past, the ministry has been involved with day-to-day details, sometimes reviewing a plan three times and providing advice to proponents on their planning at the taxpayers' expense — probably very competent advice but advice that should be bought and paid for by the proponent and purchased from a registered professional or expert who can provide that advice, as opposed to it being provided for free by government.

One of the things we're moving away from is that the ministry is in the business of free consulting, and we're moving towards the business of the ministry setting clear standards. That will be part of the ministry's deregulation approach.

Some of the resources that have been used on the day-to-day activities and operations of multiple sign-offs of plans and providing free consulting will be applied to the development of standards and ensuring that compliance, enforcement and strong penalties are applied.

J. Kwan: Whose science will be used? Will the science be established by the science officers within the ministry?

Hon. J. Murray: I'm sure that science officers in the ministry will contribute to the science of any particular environmental standard or issue that's being explored. I certainly wouldn't limit our use of science to internal resources.

The ministry has already demonstrated a commitment to getting science from outside the ministry through the scientific review panels that we've been using to look at specific issues. I think that's proven to be an effective way to harness the knowledge capacity outside the ministry and combine it with knowledge capacity in the ministry so that we're able to carry out our mandate of using the best available science.

Hon. J. Murray: One of the ways that we've used science is in the development of the aquaculture waste management regulation. The ministry scientists have been very involved in that process, but the ministry also requested an external review of the ministry's regulation development by a scientific advisory group, which has been providing advice to the ministry. I believe those are scientists from universities.

I have a document that the ministry is working with, which talks about some of the ways that we're considering improving our use of science in the ministry through establishing an external science advisory body to advise the ministry. That's something that's being considered: a scientific advisory panel establishing stronger linkages with universities and other research organizations; increasing the role of ministry scientists in developing policy options; establishing policies and guidelines for convening and utilizing outside scientific advisory panels to ensure the independence of outside advice; seeking to establish mechanisms to integrate the social services into decision-making processes in ways that preserve the independence and integrity of the scientific process.

The ministry is addressing this challenge of how to increase the knowledge capacity around science that the ministry can draw on to inform the decisions and the standards that are the ministry's responsibility.

J. Kwan: Within that mix, I didn't hear the utilization of science from industry. Is it the minister's commitment that the science we utilize would not actually come from industry — from other sources but not industry?

Hon. J. Murray: I'm happy to continue with the list of the options the ministry is looking at to improve our use of science. They include implementing a risk management approach to assessing, managing and communicating the uncertainty that is inherent in science; adhering to a policy of openness in decision-making, including establishing guidelines for documenting decisions and the science used to inform those decisions; conducting regular reviews of past decisions and the science on which they were founded; establishing science-based monitoring and evaluation systems to measure both compliance with established standards and the success of policies in achieving environmental objectives.

I think that there are credible, capable, trained scientists working in government, in universities, in non-profit organizations and in for-profit businesses and

industry, so at this point the ministry isn't limiting the access to scientists from any or all of those sources of employment of scientists.

Can the minister guarantee that the FTE positions for science officers, who have the knowledge and skill sets to complete this task, be maintained within the ministry, in the minimum?

Hon. J. Murray: The exact allocation of resources to FTEs and to divisions and regions for future years hasn't happened. From the previous discussion we were having, I think it's clear that I believe as the minister that it makes sense to draw on knowledge capacity and science capacity from sources outside the government and the ministry staffing as well as to use science expertise from within. There is some very specialized scientific input that the ministry needs from time to time. It makes sense to use perhaps the best scientists in North America to advise us on a particular issue. I wouldn't want to limit the ministry to only using the input from scientists within the ministry.

J. Kwan: The question is not about limiting to only the science officers within the ministry, although I do have some thoughts about taking the science from industry. The question is: will the science officers who have the expertise and the skills, who are providing their contributions toward this initiative, be maintained to see the project come to its full fruition — that it's implemented in a satisfactory manner and thereafter monitored in such a way that maintains the standard?

Could the minister tell us how many science officers now are dedicated to this project within the ministry?

Hon. J. Murray: I think the numbers of science officers were communicated in a previous session. This is not a single distinct project in the ministry. It's throughout the ministry that the goal and the process will be to incorporate science, continue updating standards and be working from a basis of the best available science. That's a principle we're incorporating throughout the ministry. All science officers in all likelihood will be involved in that project in some way or another.

J. Kwan: The previously canvassed question was: how many science officers are there overall within the ministry and within the respective different areas? My question to the minister now is: how many of those are dedicated to this particular project, the Living Rivers strategy?

Hon. J. Murray: Thank you to the member for clarifying the project. We can get the number of scientists that report to the manager of the Living Rivers strategy and are happy to pass that number onto the member.

I'd like to clarify that this isn't a project that's going to be sitting in isolation, and those aren't the only people that will be working on it. The people in the Living Rivers group will be working with other scientists in the biodiversity group. They will probably be working with other scientists in Sustainable Resource Management because that's the partner ministry for this project, so the number in this specific unit doesn't reflect the number of science officers that may, in different parts of the project, be involved.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can provide the information on how many science officers are working directly within the ministry on this project and who else related to it is working on it. What outside sources is she seeking advice and information from? To identify that information would be most helpful.

Could the minister also provide the budget associated with this initiative? What is the targeted budget for the ministry for this work?

Hon. J. Murray: As I indicated yesterday, we haven't completed the work of allocating budgets to specific divisions, projects and regions.

J. Kwan: For the Living Rivers strategy so far, then, how much of the budget has been contributed to this initiative?

J. Kwan: What I asked the minister earlier was: how much is budgeted for the entire project? The minister says: "Because we haven't completed the project, we don't know what the budget is." I asked how much she has spent so far on this initiative. It's a different question: how much has she spent so far on this initiative?

Hon. J. Murray: We're 11 days into the fiscal year, so I think there would be no reporting at this point as to what has been spent on this particular project.

J. Kwan: Well then, from last year's budget. This initiative started more than 11 days ago. The minister said that it was part of the new-era agenda, and so it's been on the government's agenda since they've been elected. How much was spent from last year's budget on this initiative?

Hon. J. Murray: The new-era agenda is a four-year agenda. We're 11 days into the fiscal year. This project is starting now. The service plan is a three-year service plan, so we're 11 days into the service plan.

J. Kwan: Was there no funding spent from last year's budget on this initiative? So this initiative only began since April 1?

Hon. J. Murray: A manager was assigned to this project January 17 of this year and of course was starting to gather information and think about the project. We consider the project to have been formally begun in this fiscal year, so that would be April 1.

J. Kwan: Does the minister anticipate that budget cuts will impact the implementation of the Living Rivers strategy?

Hon. J. Murray: The Living Rivers strategy is a new-era commitment. As the ministry contemplated how to restructure and refocus its funds to address the fiscal realities but also to address the ministry's mandate to protect the environment, the Living Rivers strategy was certainly part of the ministry's plans for how to move forward and accomplish those goals.

J. Kwan: Then can I understand from the minister's answer that the budget cuts would not impact the implementation of the Living Rivers strategy?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry has a three-year budget, and the ministry is making plans for the three-year period. Those plans include the Living Rivers strategy and the environmental protection and restoration the ministry is aiming to accomplish during that time. Future changes are not ones I can comment on. I can say that we have a three-year plan with stable funding, and our plan includes implementing a Living Rivers strategy.

J. Kwan: Will the minister please advise what stable funding is, in her definition?

Hon. J. Murray: By stable funding, I mean clear, predictable funding that is articulated in the plan in front of us.

J. Kwan: The minister was unable to give me a budget number in terms of how much is being dedicated for this project, yet she's able to say there's going to be stable funding for this. I'm trying to get clarity on whether there will be funding and, if so, how much. Would the funding be maintained to make sure this initiative is implemented properly?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry has a budget for this year. The ministry has a commitment to bringing forward a Living Rivers strategy and a commitment to this kind of focus on watersheds and on protecting and improving the functioning of watersheds in the future. Also, the ministry has not for this year concluded the allocation of dollars exactly by program, by region or by division. Certainly, the ministry has not done that work for year 2 and year 3 of the plan.

J. Kwan: What I'm trying to get at is to establish whether or not the ministry would actually have sufficient funding to complete this project. I have not received any assurances from the minister so far that it will in fact be the case. Maybe the minister can just give me this, because she doesn't know how much money is going to be dedicated for this initiative in this budget. She doesn't know what it's going to be for the next two or three years out, even though her service plan covers more than just this year's budget and programs within the budget the minister is looking at. Can the minister guarantee that funding to this initiative will remain intact, whatever the number is?

Hon. J. Murray: When the strategy is in place, there will be sufficient funding for the strategy. That's part of the planning that we're doing in the ministry. Just to give the member a bit more information as to the current resources devoted to developing this ongoing strategy — because this is a ten-year program that we're talking about — we have a manager of the Living Rivers strategy who has four staff reporting to him. Those staff are a clerk for the Living Rivers strategy, a standards and guidelines specialist, and two ecosystem specialists.

J. Kwan: The most important part of the minister's answer is that she feels there would be sufficient funds to ensure that the project is implemented and the initiative will remain intact. We'll canvass at next year's estimates in terms of how much money has been put forward and how much will be budgeted for future years. It is a multi-year program, and what I see within the minister's budget is that over the next three years the budget is going down. Somewhere along the line something's going to have to give. Which initiative would it be? Which initiative would not be funded so that we will see the full implementation of those initiatives? That's what I'm trying to get from the minister. But the minister doesn't know, because that planning has not been done as to how the budget is to be broken down on a project-by-project basis.

Let me ask the minister this question with regard to independent power projects and the concern for fish values on those rivers: what is the ministry's role in this regard, and what is the ministry doing to protect fish values on rivers subject to the development of independent power projects?

Hon. J. Murray: I just want to make a comment that relates to the member's previous statement.

My view is not that some things have to give. The budget is reduced because there are some things that the ministry is getting out of the business of doing. It is refocusing its resources on its key priorities. It's making transitions in the ministry in terms of the structure and priorities of the ministry so that the ministry can do the things it needs to do to protect the environment.

In terms of the independent power producers, the ministry's role is to identify fisheries values, to set standards for in-stream flows under our responsibility as regulators under the Fish Protection Act and to pro-

J. Kwan: Aside from fish values, are there any stakeholder concerns that the ministry is addressing around independent power projects — recreational issues, for example?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry's primary responsibility with respect to independent power production is environmental regulation. As the ministry responsible for freshwater fisheries, it would also focus on fish values.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise how this relates to the Living Rivers strategy?

Hon. J. Murray: The strategy isn't developed yet, so it's not possible to answer that other than generally. Since the strategy is about protecting and restoring watersheds, it will consider various uses of the watersheds including independent power production.

J. Kwan: What is the minister's reaction to Bill 22, which will change the Water Act to allow stream diversions?

J. Kwan: Does that mean the minister will send me something in writing with respect to my question? I'm not quite sure what taking it on notice means.

Hon. J. Murray: This bill is before the House, and that's the place debate on the bill should take place.

J. Kwan: I'm sure that the minister probably won't speak to the matter, but I can send the question to the minister after Bill 22 is debated and then ask her for a response. If the minister prefers that, I could do that. Or when she takes the question on notice, does it mean she'll actually forward her perspective on this issue to us at a later date?

The Chair: I'd like to remind the members that legislation is not the subject of debate in Committee of Supply. We're here for the estimates of the ministry.

J. Kwan: I'll simply, then, send a letter to the minister and get a response from her. She was actually going to, I think, prepare that for the opposition, but I guess she's changed her mind since the Minister of Forests advised her otherwise.

What role will WLAP have in maintaining stream diversions, then? While I wait for the minister to get her answer on the stream diversions question….

Actually, Bill 22 passed yesterday, so it's no longer before the House. So I would expect the minister to provide that answer.

The Chair: Legislation is not the subject for debate in Committee of Supply.

The Chair: It doesn't matter. Legislation isn't the subject of debate in Committee of Supply. This is for the ministry's estimates, the budget debate here.

The Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant rises on a point of order.

J. Kwan: Yes. I think I'm still waiting for an answer from the minister on the question around diversion.

Hon. J. Murray: The area of water management is the responsibility primarily of three different agencies. I'm happy to share with the member the breakdown of responsibilities, because the ministries have worked together to ensure that any gaps or duplications are addressed.

Land and Water B.C. is the lead for operational policy, administers the Water Protection Act, is responsible for water allocation planning, is responsible for water allocation including issuing and managing water licences, resolves water use disputes, ensures compliance with water licences, establishes water licence fees, calculates bills, accepts payment, reports on water revenues, and conducts management information and backlog tracking on water licensing. That's Land and Water B.C.

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is the policy lead for water pricing, the policy lead for water allocation; is responsible for water planning at the strategic landscape and watershed level; maintains and operates registry, inventory and monitoring databases; and conducts inventory and planning for community watersheds.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is the policy lead for in-stream flow, conservation, bulk water, groundwater and water quality. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection supplies criteria for protecting fish, conservation and human health; conducts water quality and groundwater monitoring; conducts effectiveness reporting; is responsible for enforcement action, for floodplain management and for dike management. In any issue involving water, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection would have input or set standards, as appropriate, on those issues I've listed.

J. Kwan: Will the ministry be undertaking a monitoring role and an enforcement role in the area of stream diversions?

Hon. J. Murray: The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is responsible for policy around water allocation and for the agency that is responsible for water licensing, including water diversion. If there's any issue of water quality, however, then Water, Land and Air Protection would be involved and provide input and standards in terms of water quality and fish habitat protection.

J. Kwan: Who will be doing that monitoring? Will it be this ministry that'll be doing that monitoring work?

Hon. J. Murray: This ministry does the water monitoring for water quality and fish protection issues.

J. Kwan: On the issue around stream diversions where there may be impacts on water quality and fishery habitats among other environmental ecosystem-related matters, would it be this ministry that would be actively taking a role in monitoring the impacts?

Hon. J. Murray: This ministry is responsible for monitoring and enforcement done with respect to water quality and protecting fish and fish habitat. It depends on the specific licence to whom that monitoring is actually delegated.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. I missed the last part of the minister's answer, because I was interrupted by a member. Could she just repeat that for me?

Hon. J. Murray: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is responsible for ensuring that the monitoring and enforcement takes place on water quality and fisheries issues. Depending on the licence, that monitoring may be delegated to other parties.

J. Kwan: On the question, though, around this issue which the opposition had canvassed with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, who has the authority to make these decisions, he advised that in his ministry the monitoring aspect of this work would actually fall under the Ministry of WLAP.

I would assume, then, generally speaking, that those monitoring and enforcement aspects would fall under WLAP and that WLAP would take an active role in ensuring that the impacts of the stream diversions on our fish habitat, water quality and so on…. WLAP would actually take an active role in ensuring that those things are protected.

As I understand, there are other members who would like to ask the minister a couple of questions in this set of estimates, so I'm going to yield the floor to them at this time.

B. Bennett: I just have two questions that I want to address to the minister. First of all, by way of explanation, I am heading back to my riding of East Kootenay in about 15 minutes, so this is my only opportunity to question the minister.

My first question relates to the province's management of grizzly bears. I wanted to read in the House today a copy of an e-mail that I received from George Wilson in Fernie to Minister Murray with respect to a decision made just a few days ago by the European Union. They have decided that they are not going to ban grizzly bear imports from B.C. The e-mail reads as follows:

I want to congratulate the minister in following through on our new-era commitment to make decisions about environmental issues on the basis of good solid science. I also want to congratulate Mr. Austin for having convinced the European Union to make the right decision.

My question is: can my constituents and other people in the province who hunt the various species of wildlife be reassured that decisions on wildlife management in this province will continue to be made on a sound scientific basis, as opposed to the way they were made in the past — on the basis of politics?

Hon. J. Murray: The answer to the member's question is yes. I'll add that I was also very pleased at the decision of the European community.

One of the reasons for that is that we did base our lifting of the blanket moratorium on the scientific advice of the wildlife biologists in the ministry, who were very confident their scientific methods were leading to a conservation approach that ensured the viability of the grizzly bear population would not be impacted by a limited and carefully managed hunt. The fact that the European community has seen an outline of the scientific approach and has agreed there is a justification for the government's claim that our approach is based on sciences is very positive.

I think this is also an indication of the ministry's commitment to bring in outside science. We do have a scientific advisory group that was proposed by an independent international bear association. The members put forward by the association were accepted by myself to provide independent scientific advice on our approach. I'm looking forward to that panel's report as well. I think ministry staff are also interested to see an independent review of the scientific approach, bearing in mind that grizzly bear management in British Columbia has been the recipient of a major investment of

time and resources to ensure that we're doing a good job of conserving our grizzly bear populations.

The approach includes recovery programs where there are areas that can support a viable population and for whatever historic reasons currently aren't and that do have a population that's at risk. Also, it includes some of the other aspects of grizzly bear conservation, like conservation areas where there is a viable population but the impacts on the grizzly bears are limited. That can be a population that's a basis for research and study and comparison with other areas where there is a limited-entry hunt. I think it's a well-balanced scientific approach. The European community decision reflects confidence in the ministry's scientists.

I appreciate the member giving the gesture of confidence in the lead member of the ministry's staff, Matt Austin, who I believe does a great job of protecting the viability and the well-being of grizzly bear populations in B.C.

B. Bennett: I just wanted to make sure that I said who the e-mail was from. It was from George Wilson, who is a director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation and also a director of the Kootenay grizzly bear committee. I know he's also past president of the East Kootenay Wildlife Association.

My second and last question was actually initiated by some earlier questioning of the minister by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant about coal-fired power generation. I have a bit of a preamble to my question, hon. Chair, that I think is necessary to put the question in context. I wanted to say, first of all, that these days the East Kootenay supplies pretty much all the coal that is exported from British Columbia and which is used here in British Columbia. It's a very high-quality, low-sulphur coal.

I think it's important to recognize that B.C. has some of Canada's largest accessible coal reserves and that we produce none of our electricity with coal today, while Alberta, the province next to us — in fact, the province that is adjacent to my riding — produces 80 percent of its electricity from coal. The U.S.A. produces 92 percent of its electricity primarily from fossil fuels, and that's mainly coal.

We in this province haven't needed to produce electricity with coal because we've had lots of available electricity produced with our hydro systems, but over the past couple of years we've been a net importer of electricity. It has become necessary for us to generate more electricity in some fashion. Certainly, I don't hear in my riding that people want to dam up more river valleys or build more nuclear reactors. Also, green sources don't seem to be sufficient.

I would like to ask the minister or get some clarification from the minister about the ministry's position on the inclusion of coal in the provincial energy policy. I recognize that the policy is not complete yet, but given the fact that in this province we have, of our total hydrocarbon reserves, 4.3 percent in gas and 0.5 percent in oil and the rest of our hydrocarbon reserves are in coal…. In this province 95.2 percent of the hydrocarbon reserves are in coal. Given those facts and given the fact that in my riding, in the Elk Valley — which used to support the NDP — this particular project that's been proposed, to build a coal-fired power generation plant north of Elkford, is extremely important to the people who live there…. Given all of those facts, are we taking seriously the possibility that we will include coal in our provincial energy policy and that we will give serious consideration to generating electricity in this province with coal?

Hon. J. Murray: The outcome of having adequate electricity for the province, now and in the future, is an outcome that all British Columbians have an interest in. The means for accomplishing that are the work of the energy policy discussions that are currently happening. That document hasn't been considered in cabinet yet.

J. Kwan: I'm going to move to the area of land use planning. My question to the minister is: could the minister please elaborate on the role of her ministry in providing technical information to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management for land use planning?

Hon. J. Murray: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, with respect to land use planning, provides input — including guidelines and standards — around issues involving wildlife habitat, freshwater fisheries and their habitat, and parks. The ministry staff in the regions take part in discussions concerning land use plans. There's a deputy ministers' committee that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection participates in, which reviews the progress and recommendations of land use planning.

J. Kwan: What percentage of the ministry's budget goes into providing the land use planning process with information about ecosystem integrity issues?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry doesn't segment its budget out by land use planning. Also, the specific regional and divisional budgets have not been finalized for the year.

J. Kwan: What we've been able to get so far, in terms of the budget to date with respect to the ministry, is that the minister doesn't know how much money will be diverted to the Living Rivers strategy. We don't know on a regional basis how much land use planning would be diverted into the different regions from the ministry's budget. Those are two areas we don't know about in terms of how the budget is to be divided up. I'm going to make a list of all the areas in which the minister doesn't know where her budget is going and how much is going to be dedicated to it.

The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management has committed to completing the land use planning process over the next three years using best science.

How many WLAP scientists are currently out in the field collecting the necessary data to achieve the land use planning process and ensuring the integrity of the ecosystems?

Hon. J. Murray: I'd just like to touch back on the question where the member was listing what the ministry hasn't finalized in terms of its budget. In fact, it hasn't finalized any of those activities at the regional and division level at this point. I did make an offer in a previous session to brief the member fully on the entire budget allocation when it's completed, so I'd just like to extend the invitation again.

The ministry takes a holistic approach to the environment and a holistic approach to biodiversity. One of the aspects of biodiversity is inputting into land use planning, but the ministry is not structured so as to have a separate, independent or isolated unit that is focused on land use planning. That will be one part or one element of the job responsibilities for the staff members that are involved with the biodiversity division.

J. Kwan: I thank the minister for offering the briefing from her staff for the opposition members to understand when she knows how the budget is going to be divided up regionally throughout British Columbia for different initiatives. The point I'd like to make at this point is this. The minister does not know so far what budget is required for the Living Rivers strategy, and she doesn't know what budget is required for the land use planning.

In fact, she just said she doesn't know what the budget is for any of the initiatives within her ministry. I hasten to ask: how does the minister come out with the overall budget of X amount to make sure that all of these programs are funded and that they would actually be implemented to her satisfaction? She doesn't have a projection of what those budget numbers would be or how they'd be divided up regionally.

How could the minister rise in this House and say she is the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and that she will ensure that monitoring work is being done, that compliance work is being done and that the health and safety of British Columbians will be protected, when in fact she doesn't even know how much money will be dedicated for these important initiatives that will speak to exactly that mandate?

Quite frankly, it doesn't make sense to me that the minister doesn't have these numbers, but she doesn't. It raises the question from an accountability point of view of how the minister can rise up in this House and say she will be protecting the environment on behalf of all British Columbians.

Hon. Chair, noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.