To watch video (2:50:36 - 3:20:42):
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/video/archive-dougfir.asp?video=20091116134...
To read Hansard transcript:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/D91116y.htm
2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
COMMITTEE A BLUES
________________________________________
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
________________________________________
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
________________________________________
COMMITTEE A BLUES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009
Afternoon Sitting
________________________________________
CSA - 20091116PM 006/LCG/1440
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
G. Gentner: I'd like the minister, if he can, to confirm whether or not he attended a meeting on February 9, 2009, with intergovernmental relations and other cabinet ministers — a briefing meeting with delegation relative to Shankers Bend. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I don't recall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Seven days after the meeting briefing cabinet members, the deadline for submission for intervener status, Shankers Bend, had expired. Can the minister explain why he did not pursue that matter and become an intervener on behalf of the province? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The member is referring to a proposal by the public utility district in a part of eastern Washington State to commission some studies looking at the potential for one of three options: a low head run-of-river-type project, a medium-sized dam or what is referred to as the high dam proposal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Discussions around these various options are not new. I believe the first time it was entertained and seriously discussed was in the 1920s. So almost 90 years or so ago was the first time that these proposals were under active consideration. Interest on the U.S. side of the border has waxed and waned over the decades, with renewed interest in the late '30s, I think, as a part of economic stimulus; waned during the 1940s while interest was directed towards fighting and winning World War II; renewed interest again in the 1950s; not so much in the 1960s; a bit more in the '70s; a bit more in the '80s; and again a bit in the '90s, not so much; and then back again for more discussion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
I have been involved in this matter for a couple years now, from when I first heard that the public utility district — I think it's called Okanogan County; pronounced the same but spelled differently from our Okanagan — in Washington State was requesting funding from the Department of Ecology in Washington State to pursue some studies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've engaged with the now former Director of Ecology in Washington State, Jay Manning, to indicate that the B.C. government would not support the high dam proposal. We don't feel that that is an acceptable project, considering the impact that that project would have on our side of the border. I believe that's a position supported by local first nations and others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This spring we did retain legal counsel, because in order for the studies to be undertaken, approval had to be granted by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, headquartered in Washington, D.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
I pause here to note that the U.S. regulatory process is considerably different [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
CSA - 20091116PM 041/BAH/1735
to be undertaken, approval had to be granted by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, headquartered in Washington, D.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I pause here to note that the U.S. regulatory process is considerably different than the Canadian process. So we retained legal counsel in the United States that assisted us ably in fighting the Sumas 2 power project. It's the same lawyer that we hired in Seattle, David Bricklin, who provided us with advice about how to engage in this matter and helped us draft our intervention pleadings. Then he filed them on our behalf. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We subsequently learned that FERC had already approved the study, and in their mind, the matter was closed. They said that there were no active proceedings at the moment. If there were to be an interest in proceeding further on the part of the public utility district, the utility district would have to come forward again to FERC to take any additional steps or studies. The B.C. Government, at that time, would be in its right to seek intervener status. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have subsequently written back to FERC, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and indicated it is the B.C. government's intention to seek intervener status if this matter should come up again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Depending on who you ask south of the border, the studies won't be complete for either a short period of time or a much longer period of time. I've been given conflicting advice on that from people south of the border. But suffice to say, the B.C. government's position is very clear. We've articulated it to my counterpart in Washington State as well as to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I think just a few weeks ago I wrote a letter to the public utility district directly to explain our opposition to their high dam proposal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Obviously, the government's on position now that it is opposed to the high dam proposal that would flood the Similkameen. But clearly, the minister's also on record that he's not necessarily opposed to the medium dam proposal or the low dam proposal, which could still have adverse habitat issues, particularly in the estuary of the Similkameen River. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I want to raise with the minister is the following. I read from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that states: "Development of new water storage sites on Similkameen River in Canada has been considered. A new Canadian investigation for a Similkameen River dam is currently underw
ay. Coordinated operation of any of the above Washington sites, in conjunction with the Canadian water storage facility under consideration, shall be evaluated." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can I ask the minister what facility is being considered, north of the 49th, relative to damming on the Similkameen? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
CSA - 20091116PM 042/KLM/1740
Hon. B. Penner: Just trying to find some of the information related to the member's second question. But just for the record, I can provide a bit more amplification of the B.C. government's position with respect to the Shankers dam proposals, and I did say plural. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here's what I said in part to the person named Kimberly D. Bose, a secretary at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on August 27, 2009, by way of a letter: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"There are three proposals for the construction of hydroelectric power under consideration at Shankers Bend. The government of British Columbia has concerns regarding the potential impacts to our province. Under one 'high dam' proposal" — which I believe would be up to 80 metres high or 250 feet high — "the resulting 9,000 acres of flooded land in B.C. could cover two first nations reserves, provincial protected areas, a potential national grasslands park, valuable agricultural land and some forested areas. This area includes 16 listed species at risk under the Canadian federal Species At Risk Act. There is further concern about flooding in the Great Basin Desert, which contains many endangered species. We have related concerns with the other two proposals.
"Therefore, the province of British Columbia has continued interest in Project 12804-000, particularly if there are further proceedings with respect to this matter. If the Okanagan PUD" — I'll add here that that stands for public utility district — "files a development licence application in the FERC process, the Ministry of Environment will submit a motion to intervene at the earliest opportunity."
It's because of the obvious impact that the high dam proposal would have on the B.C. side of the border, as enunciated in the letter that I just quoted from, that the B.C. government was comfortable saying that we don't need to wait for full environmental review of that project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Knowing the amount of area that would be inundated on the Canadian side of the border and the sensitive habitat in that Okanagan Valley, we took the view that that project was a non-starter from our perspective and have communicated that clearly and directly to our counterparts in Washington State as well as to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have also pointed out, though, that the British Columbia government supports the responsible use and development of hydro power when projects are appropriately sited and designed to avoid unacceptable environmental impacts. But, in our view, the high dam proposal does not fit that criteria. We know enough to say that clearly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1745]
If there are other proposals, including on the Canadian side of the border, for power generation, those projects would have to meet our standards. That is something that would be subject to our review process. Depending on the size of the project, not only would it need [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
CSA - 20091116PM 043/AMM/1745
power generation, those projects would have to meet our standards. That is something that would be subject to our review process. Depending on the size of the project, not only would it need up to 50 different approvals and permits from 14 different government agencies, both federal and provincial, but it could also be subject to a complete B.C. environmental assessment process, something that we had some discussion about here a few minutes ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: I gather from the minister that the high dam is out but the medium dam is in, and it perhaps hinges on whether or not it offers opportunities of further damming up on the Canadian side. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Since the minister is busy reading letters, I have a…. Hatch Energy completed a report for Fortis, and they suggested that they can dam somewhere up by Princeton, British Columbia, in order to contribute to maintain the water flow. It's in tandem with what Washington State wants to do south of the 49th. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I want to ask the minister a question. He obviously attended the B.C.-Washington cabinet meeting this fall, October 9, and was…. Well, my understanding is that Shankers Bend was part of the agenda with the joint cabinets. What type of agreement did B.C. come with Washington State at that meeting, and what was discussed relative to Shankers Bend? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I have already told the member not once but, I think, twice that the province of B.C. has clearly articulated to the State of Washington what our view is with respect to the Shankers Bend proposal. We have expressed our outright opposition to the high dam proposal and also expressed our concerns about the other two proposals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, let me quote from the motion-to-intervene document, dated earlier this year; I think it was March 31, 2009. On page 4: "Under the low dam option, while there's no area within British Columbia anticipated to flood, the Province has concerns as to how the dam could impact British Columbia in years of high water. For this reason, we believe careful consideration and environmental scrutiny is required before any decision is made regarding the low dam proposal…. Similarly, we believe appropriate scrutiny should be given to the possible run-of-river option." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's the third option that has been proposed by the public utility district or at least being studied. It is still very preliminary. I think it was a $300,000 study. Depending on what that study says…. And by the way, Washington State has committed to share with us the results of that study. That's something that I asked for, and director Jay Manning responded at the time and said that they would be more than happy to share that information with us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We'll see what that says, that may well be the end of the matter. As I've noted at the outset, this has been a topic of discussion in that area for almost 100 years now, and it hasn't come to fruition. Nevertheless, we think it is important for us to remain vigilant and that's why we have undertaken the work that we've done to date directly with Washington State as well as with the federal energy regulatory commission. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If there is a proposal for a power generation facility on the Canadian side of the border, whether it's on the Similkameen River or any other watercourse in British Columbia, they would have to obtain numerous approvals and go through much scrutiny in order for that to happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Moving quickly, we'll talk briefly about the flathead. We had a United Nations delegation that met up with British Columbia. The overwhelming amount of people who attended were from the Ministry of Environment. My one quick question I have is: will the government agree to a non-staking reserve to all energy and mining activity in the entire Flathead River Valley? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1750]
CSA - 20091116PM 044/AJB/1750
Hon. B. Penner: When it comes to dealing with the United Nations delegation that was here a month or two ago and discussions with the state of Montana, it's the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations that is the lead on the file, and I know that she has been actively involved in this matter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've had a chance to visit the Flathead Valley twice in my lifetime. The first time was 12 years ago. I think it was the summer of 1997. Again, I had a chance to go there — I believe in September of this year — so 12 years later. The Flathead Valley looked much the same. Very little had changed in 12 years. It continues to be an area where numerous people recreate. There's hunting and fishing and some ATV use. There are forestry operations, although I suspect they've been reduced somewhat, given the recent market for our export products in lumber currently. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the area looks much the same as it did when I was there 12 years ago. That is to say, it supports many forms of wildlife and much outdoor recreation. Certainly, that's something that we want to see continue. We want to continue to see the wildlife protected in a sustainable way, and also, we want to make sure that the water quality is protected. That's why we have stringent requirements and regulations in place for any forms of activity that are proposed in that area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Now the minister can slough off the responsibility to the Intergovernmental Relations Minister all he wants, but I want to bring it to the attention just for the record. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Kathy Eichenberger, project assessment director, B.C. environmental assessment office, was there. Anthony Danks, executive director, strategic policy for B.C. Environment. He was there. Tom Ethier, director, fish and wildlife, Ministry of Environment. He attended. He was there at the meetings with the United Nations. Jody Frenette, hydrologist, environmental impact assessment biologist, Ministry of Environment. She was there. She gave a presentation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have Doug Martin, senior ecosystem specialist, the Ministry of Environment. He was there. Kerrie Mortin, environmental impact assessment, Ministry of Environment. She was there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, I'm counting the B.C. delegation, and it seems to me that 75 percent of the delegation representing B.C. were from this ministry. Yet the ministry refuses to talk about this issue. It sloughs it off to the minister. Now, I know time is limited, and boy, could we have fun with what's going on in the Flathead. The whole United Nations has decided to check it out because of the disgraceful attention this government has been placed and putting poor relationships with the state of Montana and others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I suppose with the little time, I have very little opportunity to pursue this matter which I was hopeful that we could be able to do here today. But I suppose that my question to you is this, hon. Chair — is that the province is on record. Mr. McClellan, who is an officer who works for the government, stated recently that he believes that there's a needed designation of this area to that of Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, and he believes that we better — than a national park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the minister why the government feels that. Why would it would be better than a national park? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
CSA - 20091116PM 045/LCG/1755
Hon. B. Penner: Just to back up a little bit as to how we came to have a UN-sponsored delegation from UNESCO come to visit a part of British Columbia, this spring a number of environmental groups signed a petition to UNESCO asking that they add the international peace park to a list of world heritage sites deemed to be "in danger." There was a meeting that was held — I think it was in Barcelona, Spain, either in May or June of this year — of UNESCO, and the petition asked at that meeting that such a designation be added by UNESCO, saying that this part of the Flathead Valley was in danger. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It wasn't reported in the media, but in fact, UNESCO declined to make such a finding. It did not find that the area was considered to be in danger. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Alternatively, the government of Canada, I think, supported by the province of B.C., invited officials from UNESCO to come see the area for themselves. We're proud of our environmental record in British Columbia. As I've already indicated, I've been to the Flathead area two times now, and it is an area that is spectacular. There's no question about it. So we were quite interested in having officials from UNESCO visit British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But we also felt it was important that they take a look at what's happening south of the 49th parallel in the state of Montana. While the member here might want to pretend that Montana has got environmental standards that we should aspire to, I would choose to disagree. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1800]
One notable observation is that they have only about 5 percent of their land base protected in the form of parks or protected areas, whereas in British Columbia we have almost three times that percentage — but many more times that amount, or many millions of hectares, when you compare it [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
CSA - 20091116PM 046/EBP/1800
of their land base that's protected in the form of parks or protected areas, whereas in British Columbia we have almost three times that percentage but many more millions of hectares when you compare it in terms of actual amount of area covered by protected areas here in British Columbia. So I hardly think that we'll be in a position to take too many lectures from the conduct of officials south of the border. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I note that at the very time that the UNESCO delegation was visiting Montana there was a U.S. federal court decision that had to do with grizzly bears. The judge specifically made comments that officials in Montana had to do more work to protect the grizzly bears in their state. By contrast, grizzly bear populations in British Columbia are much more healthy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We do have concerns in certain regions of the province, but the Flathead area is not one of them, when it comes to the overall health of wildlife. We want to make sure that that wildlife is maintained, but certainly, when we compare what's happening on our side of the border to what has happened in Montana, we can all conclude that things have been much better from an environmental perspective. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our goal as a government is to make sure that that continues to be the case. We want to continue to learn. We welcome the UNESCO officials. I'm sure they'll be making some comments in the near future, certainly, but our environmental practices, I think, are top-rate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can we learn from others? Sure, we want to continue to learn from others, but we can also learn from others about how to not do things. I think some of the things that have taken place in the state of Montana are some of those things that we can learn not to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]