* denotes member present
 
 

Clerks:	Craig James Kate Ryan-Lloyd
Committee Staff:	Kelly Dunsdon (Committee Researcher)

The committee met at 8:37 a.m.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Welcome. I call this meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to order. Just in case you're wondering why I'm in the chair, Rick has indicated that he'll probably be here within the hour. He's travelling right now and wasn't able to make it here first thing.

We have before us an agenda. We're to start reviewing the draft committee reports to the House. So unless there are any immediate questions, I'll ask Kelly to take us first through the protection of drinking water sources report.

K. Dunsdon: Good morning. On April 5 our office circulated draft committee reports by e-mail, and then again last week hard copies were distributed to all members. First of all, I'll go through the protection of drinking water sources draft report. This report covers work done by the committee in July and October of last year and February of this year.

Just to summarize for members, the report contains information about the committee's consideration of various topics relating to drinking water in the province and the 26 recommendations that were made by the auditor general. As you go through the report, you'll see the eight case studies that were done by the auditor general in communities around the province: management of B.C.'s drinking water sources; management of activities that can impact on drinking water quality, including forestry, agriculture, mining, transportation, recreation, livestock grazing, septic tanks, oil and gas drilling activities and underground storage tanks. There are also sections that discuss groundwater management in B.C., small water systems and public education initiatives.

The report also includes a discussion of written submissions received by the committee from the B.C. Medical Association; the B.C. Tap Water Association; the B.C. Water and Waste Association; the city of Kelowna; the city of Prince Rupert; North Okanagan Water Authority and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

When this report was distributed, copies were also given to the office of the auditor general and to Mr. van Iersel. I've received comments back from the auditor general's office regarding some minor technical matters, and I've also received some comments back from the Chair. The Chair had one suggestion for the report. In that regard he suggested that a draft recommendation be included in the report, which reads as follows: "Your committee recognizes the importance of protecting drinking water sources and the high priority that British Columbians place on this issue. Accordingly, your committee recommends that the progress on the 26 recommendations made in the auditor general's report protecting drinking water sources be reviewed and reported on every six months to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts."

That's the end of my presentation.

M. Coell: I would prefer just to look at the recommendations. I think the recommendation the Chair made is worthy to add -- that the committee review it and that it's brought forward every six months at least for a year or so. It would give us an idea of whether there's progress being made.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Has that recommendation been included in this draft report?

K. Dunsdon: No, it hasn't.

D. Streifel: It's a bit awkward with the number of new members here. I would prefer to do some chapter-by-chapter work on some of these reports. I think it will help us as we go along to build a pattern and a protocol with the rest of the committee. If the drinking water one is a good one to start on, I'd recommend that that's where we begin on a chapter-by-chapter basis. It will get the new folks up to speed on the scope of the reports, what the writers are like, what they're presenting. Maybe at the end of the day, if we're not experts on drinking water, I'll treat you all to a bottle of my well water.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, are there any other comments about the way we proceed? I think it could be useful for all of us to do a quick review of what we've heard on the protection of drinking-water sources. Given that it's contained in this report, we can go quickly through. I was just looking in the report for the committee recommendations, and the reason there are none is that this committee made no recommendations. So the only recommendation to consider at this point is the recommendation that has been submitted by the Chair that this issue be reviewed on a six-month basis.

D. Streifel: A quick question. There were 26 recommendations by the auditor general. Did the committee accept all those recommendations or just accept the report?

K. Dunsdon: I believe that when Ministry of Environment officials attended, some of the recommendations were considered to be implemented. My thoughts on this were that I would draft the report and let members have a look at it and determine what recommendations they felt were appropriate for the committee to endorse.

D. Streifel: But we don't have the recommendations in this report.

K. Dunsdon: All the auditor general's recommendations are contained in text boxes in the report.

D. Streifel: Okay, they're buried. . . . They're within the. . . . Okay -- a different kind of printing.

J. Weisgerber: I wonder if it would be possible to include something in the report with respect to the issue of testing for MTBE. It's something that I raised peripherally in the discussions with the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environment officials. Again, I'm not certain of the format of these reports and how much we want to move the investigations into new areas. But it seems to me that the evidence coming

out of California and indeed the decisions that have been made by the President's office in the United States would suggest that this MTBE pollution or contamination of groundwater is seen as quite a serious problem in the United States.

In any event, I looked at the introduction and at page 6 of our report and thought that there might be one opportunity there, under the section on pathogens and chemicals, to perhaps introduce the notion of testing for MTBE.

J. Weisbeck: Yes, I think I would agree with that, and possibly. . . . Jack, you've given a fairly good explanation of the product MTBE. Probably in the report you could do the same -- explain what it is and the significance of it along with need for testing of it. I certainly agree with that.

D. Zirnhelt: Excuse me. I'm new, but are we now going to broaden the scope of what. . . ? Not that I'm opposed to it, Jack, but. . .

J. Weisgerber: No, no, a fair question.

D. Zirnhelt: . . .I'd feel more comfortable broadening the scope of what we're dealing with if I was on an environment committee or something like that. If it isn't in the auditor general's report, can we raise it? Can we delve into it? I guess what may be my instinct is: well, let's get a report on it. Bring the environment people here. But where do we begin and where do we end? This is just simply what the auditor general is reporting on, not what we as legislators choose to investigate as important items. I'm worrying that we're straying quite a way from an auditor's report.

J. Weisgerber: If I could, I think the rationale. . . . And I understand. I've wrestled with the same question myself. But it seems to me, first of all, that we're looking at a report specifically on drinking water. We're looking at a report that has been quite broad in its examination of contaminants in drinking water.

I want to examine whether or not we can use the report. And let me say while I'm at it, although I was going to raise it a later time, that I wonder about the rationale for the reports generally. I mean, if indeed all the report is going to do is rehash the auditor general's statement, the response by the agencies and the comments by members during presentations or interviews of witnesses, it seems to me that all of that is there for anybody who is interested. Anybody who wants to read the auditor general's report will find a response from the agencies, can pick up Hansard and read the debate around the issues.

Unless we're going to do something significantly more than simply condense the things that have happened, then I wonder whether or not that's a good use of our resources. I'm comfortable feeling that while many of us can't find the draft reports when we come to the next meeting, if indeed we were to quiz our colleagues after we'd tabled it, we would be disappointed in the readership that our reports have.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): If the Chair might make some comments, I think this is a useful conversation about what kind of form we want our reports to appear in.

To respond to Mr. Zirnhelt, it is certainly within the scope of activity of this committee to be able to make recommendations further to the recommendations of the auditor general. These recommendations are then presented in the Legislature and can provide some further impetus to the activity of government.

R. Kasper: Well, you know, maybe one way to look at it is perhaps to make a notation in the report as an addendum where it says "chemical." Then maybe we should at least reference the comments that Jack made -- the fact that it was raised at this committee and that there was no testing done for this chemical. Well, it's fact -- right? Is it not? I just heard through you that it's factual that the issue or the questions were raised and that a testing regime did not include this chemical. Maybe that's the way to deal with it.

D. Zirnhelt: Well, I support the notion of noting it. If it has been omitted or has recently come to our attention, then we should note it. I guess my question is: what do we do after noting it? Presumably it will be read by ministry officials, but we should alert the ministry to our concern.

J. Weisgerber: Yeah. I don't think we're in a position to require or request testing, but indeed I would like to see the agencies wrap their mind around the issue and decide whether or not there is a case to be made for testing. I think that's a technical decision, one that I happen to think we should be. . . . But that's hardly scientific. I would like to see the issue acknowledged in some way. I would like to see a recommendation that the agencies consider the need for groundwater testing and that there be some interface with the federal Ministry of Environment. It seems that we're in one of those situations where federal and provincial agencies are looking at each other and saying: "Well, we kind of thought you were doing that." If there could be some kind of a recommendation that would reflect that line of thought, then I'd be more than satisfied with it.

K. Dunsdon: On page 51 of the draft report there is a section that discusses underground storage tanks. There's a bit of a discussion there about gasoline tanks and the experience in California. I suggest that this might be the most appropriate place for expansion on the MTBE issue and insertion of a recommendation.

G. Farrell-Collins: If you go to that section, "Groundwater Protection in Other Jurisdictions," the second and third
 

paragraphs deal with issues of groundwater protection in the United States. Perhaps at that point you may want to insert. . . .

J. Weisgerber: I think that would be a very appropriate place.

G. Farrell-Collins: You may want to just insert that while the auditor general didn't review or monitor that issue -- and there's currently no monitoring of that substance -- during the review of this report, it came to the attention of members of the committee that this continues to be an issue and a growing issue, and that perhaps it's something we should be looking at. Put something in there to that effect.

S. Orcherton: Yes, I agree. I think it should be included in the report. I was going to argue it should be included on page 6, but if that's. . . .

R. Kasper: How about both?

P. Calendino: Well, I'll add my two bits to that. I agree with Jack; I think it's an important issue. After all, the protection and quality of drinking water is related to the health of the citizenry, and this is a health issue more than anything else. I think it should be flagged. Wherever we put it, it should be flagged for the future, for agencies to monitor it.

D. Streifel: Just a quick question on process here. After the next meeting I'll stop saying "I'm new." But we're here to review the report of the auditor general on water, and. . .

J. Weisgerber: We've already done that.

D. Streifel: . . .we've done that. I understand what Jack is doing or wants done, and I don't disagree with him. Are we perhaps now in the process of recommending to the auditor general a future area of examination that was not included in the original report? Is that what we're doing here? Does that fit with our terms of reference and mandate on this report, or should we write something else that attaches to this and that would move the study issue on more quickly than just burying it in this report?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): If I could perhaps summarize, the report that we have in front of us is the committee's report. This report summarizes the report of the auditor general on the protection of drinking water sources. It summarizes the Hansard of our discussion of that report, including the interviews with the witnesses. As well as that, it summarizes the research that Kelly has done.

What the report does not include are recommendations of this committee. This committee is empowered to make recommendations to government. The auditor general has made 26 recommendations. We have two additional recommendations that have been suggested by this committee, which are not yet in the report. One is that the activities around drinking water protection be reviewed by this committee every six months, and the other is that there be some discussion and some reporting back -- I believe from the Ministry of Environment -- with respect to monitoring for MTBE. Is that a correct summary?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I think that's accurate and, I think, the answer to Dennis's question. This committee makes recommendations to the House, which adopts or rejects our reports, and then government is supposed to take note of what the committee has done. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. Any member of the Legislature or the public, at any time, can offer or recommend to the auditor general or ask the auditor general to investigate anything, and the auditor general can say no or yes. We're not overstepping our bounds by suggesting to the auditor general that the office may want to monitor something or that the Ministry of Environment may want to start to monitor something as well.

D. Streifel: Just a clarification. Thank you for that, Gary. I was trying to offer some supportive questions on an issue that is, as Jack described, emerging and thought of as quite serious in some jurisdictions. I for one as a citizen and as a legislator, would like to see the issue move forward as opposed to being clipped in as a reference, buried in the middle of a document. If there's another way this committee can do that, it's fine.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): It sounds to me that you're suggesting it be included as a recommendation of this committee, further to the recommendations of the auditor general. That's probably the most visible way to put that out.

D. Streifel: It could be, because it is an emerging issue.

One quick question while I have the floor: do the committee members know what this substance is?

We've been moving in Canada from MMT, which is another fuel additive, to MTBE. MTBE is produced in Canada, and there's actually an ironic little case where Canada got sued for banning MMT from the United States. Now there's a counter-claim with California banning the importation of MTBE from Canada. I think it's fair to say that some of the interests in Alberta, where most of the MTBE is manufactured, are not going to be particularly happy with the events hap-
 

pening in the United States and probably will be quite resistant to change here in Canada.

S. Orcherton: I'm not an expert on this particular chemical, and I know the members raised a question in the House in this regard. I, frankly, would like to get some information on this. I don't discount what Mr. Weisgerber is saying; I think it's a serious issue. I'd be interested in hearing from someone about where this situation really is. Is it a huge problem? Is it one that's being managed or isn't being managed? What are other jurisdictions doing in this regard? I don't have enough information on it other than it strikes me that this is an important issue and should be mentioned in the report. I'd be interested in hearing more about it, frankly.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Kelly is indicating to me that she is willing to do some research on that, if you like. The other possibility is that if it appears as a recommendation in our report, we can ask officials from the Ministry of Environment to be prepared to answer questions on the issue of MTBE.

R. Kasper: Maybe the minister should come down and chat with us.

J. Weisgerber: But the initial response from the minister's staff that were here. . . . This groundwater thing bounces back and forth between Health and Environment. Those officials seemed to feel that this was a federal Environment responsibility. Because the federal government doesn't test for MTBE, nobody at this point is acknowledging that there could be a problem. Nobody's tested for it, so nobody knows. So I think the first thing that should happen is that some agency should do some tests on groundwater, very similar to what's being done all over the United States right now.

A Voice: So there's no testing going on right now?

J. Weisgerber: Apparently not -- not in Canada.

R. Kasper: Well, shall we note in the report that it's a glaring error?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Omission, perhaps.

R. Kasper: Well, whatever.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Mr. Weisgerber is going to put together a motion, and while he does that. . . .

J. Weisgerber: Yeah -- jacket off here. . . .

Interjections.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Perhaps while he's doing that, we can go back to a discussion of the format of the report itself.

Interjections.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Seeing no hands, then do I take it that that people are satisfied with the format of the report in its summary form?

R. Kasper: Does this set a precedent for other reports?

K. Dunsdon: Are you referring to the auditor general's recommendations or to the draft?

D. Streifel: This is our report, as I understand it. We're reviewing our report and contained in the report, as you go through section by section, the office of the auditor general recommends that. . . . Is that the general format of the reports we deal with, or is this compiled specifically for this report? I would prefer to see the recommendations all together.

K. Dunsdon: Generally, I insert each auditor general recommendation in the section that discusses that in more detail. I can also compile those on a separate page that includes every single recommendation, if that's what members would like.

R. Kasper: Well, just a question through the Chair to Dennis, then. Are you suggesting that we expand on the conclusions that the committee reached on page 65? Because the committee. . . .

D. Streifel: If I could interject, I did not suggest anything. I asked a question. We were discussing formatting of the report, and my question was directed at how the reports are formatted -- if this is the way they all come. Or are some formatted differently? That was my question.

K. Dunsdon: Generally, each recommendation is referenced at the beginning of every section that discusses that topic, just so that there's a reference point for that section of the report. That can be changed, though, if that's not. . . .

D. Streifel: I just asked the question, honest. It was a question only, on the formatting.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): This is a new committee beginning a new year's worth of work. The question has been raised. Actually, Mr. Weisgerber -- who's busy now -- also raised a question about the formatting of the report.

P. Calendino: I was just looking at the conclusion there, since Mr. Weisgerber is drafting some recommendation. It says here that there has been a new chair established at the University of Victoria to look at the environmental management of drinking water, starting with Victoria, Vancouver and the Cranbrook area. That's perhaps one of the agencies that can look at this issue of monitoring the MTBE. It's my understanding that Chevron now again is adding MMT to their gasoline, so that's another compound that should be examined also. It seems to me that this is a research chair at the University of Victoria and probably the best place to look at this.

J. Weisgerber: In fairness to Chevron, I'm not sure that they are at all alone in adding MTBE. I think probably most
 

major refiners are now using MTBE, although there's a changeover from MMT with some refiners.

P. Calendino: Yeah. But I just meant there that Chevron has started adding MMT again, after the court case against the federal government. I read that in the newspapers, and I didn't pick up that other refiners are doing the same thing.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, there seems to be general agreement on the format of the report. Really, all we're doing now. . . . Unless there are some changes that you want to draw our attention to, Kelly, what we are dealing with now are the recommendations.

K. Dunsdon: Right.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, so we have the conclusion of the report, which basically pulls together the conclusions of this committee, and two recommendations to consider.

Kelly, would you read that first recommendation again, please, the suggested draft recommendation from the Chair?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Any discussion?

R. Kasper: I just have a question. Would the six months start from the date that the report is tabled, or would it be six months from when the auditor general's report was done?

R. Thorpe (Chair): My intention in making that suggestion was to tie in with the six-month review process that we agreed on at our past meeting. This would just become part of that regular cycle.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): And were you anticipating an end date when the committee is satisfied with the progress or. . . ?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes. I would suggest that when the committee -- whoever may be on that committee at the time -- believes that the issue has been dealt with, the committee would then strike that from their review process.

R. Kasper: So do you need a motion?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I'll accept a motion to accept that recommendation as the recommendation of the committee.

R. Kasper: I'll move the recommendation as read.

A Voice: It's recommendations, but we haven't accepted the recommendations. How can we do that?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): All in favour? Accepted by the committee.

Motion approved.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Mr. Weisgerber, have you got your recommendation ready?

J. Weisgerber: Yes, I gave it to Kate.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, here's the recommendation. This would be a second recommendation of the committee: that given the serious concern in the United States regarding groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive MTBE, the Ministries of Environment and Health examine the need for testing in British Columbia and report back to this committee with their findings. Any discussion?

P. Calendino: I'm just concerned with the last part of the recommendation, because it simply asks those two ministries to examine the need for monitoring, and then it also asks to report back on the results. There's a bit of conflict in there. We have to allow them to decide whether they want to do it or not.

J. Weisgerber: Well, they'd have to report back on their findings. . .

P. Calendino: Of their examination.

J. Weisgerber: . . .to examine the need and then come back.

P. Calendino: Yeah, that's the part. Perhaps the words "of their findings," should be left out -- just report back to us. We don't know whether they'll find anything or not.

J. Weisgerber: Well, they're going to find something.

P. Calendino: If they decide that they will do the testing.

J. Weisgerber: Yeah. But if they find there's no need, I guess that's still a finding. I don't want to be picky about it, but I now have ownership of this thing, and I've got to defend it. I don't care.

A Voice: You do care.

J. Weisgerber: However you decide to word it is fine with me.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Any other comments, Mr. Kasper?

R. Kasper: Does the recommendation then replace a need to expand any reference of this issue on page 51 or page 6, or is that going to happen naturally in the report?

J. Weisgerber: I would like to see an expansion, particularly under. . . . I'd like to see some kind of an explanation that gives. . . .

R. Kasper: On page 51.
 

J. Weisgerber: I think it's the appropriate place for it, because this concern is clearly coming out of the United States.

R. Kasper: And perhaps there should be a notation on page 6, where the definition reference to chemicals and the fact that this is excluded or. . . .

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): You're suggesting in the section on the work of the committee, because the section above that on page 6 is a review of the auditor general's report, not of the committee's work.

R. Kasper: Well, we should make a note there or something -- right? It should be noted -- you know, a little number and a footnote that there is an omission for this particular chemical. That's all.

J. Weisgerber: Yeah, it could probably come at the end of the paragraph on the work of the committee -- right?

R. Kasper: Yeah. I don't mean to confuse the issue that we're dealing with right now, which is the recommendation. I just want to clarify it in my mind. We're going to do some notations on page 51 and possibly page 6, and that's understood and accepted by the committee when we pass this recommendation. Good.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, and I see Kelly noting this. We'll go back to the resolution, then. There's been some discussion about whether or not "with their findings" should be included in the resolution. Any strong feelings about this, one way or the other?

All those in favour of adding this as a second recommendation of the committee on the protection of drinking water sources?

Motion approved.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): We've taken a look at the format of the report and accepted that. We've added two recommendations from the committee, to be added to this report. Is there any further discussion on this report?

D. Streifel: We started the day off by discussing whether or not we'd go through this report clause by clause or section by section. I would like to do that, actually, to get comfortable with this report. I'd also like to get into at least the septic tank section of the report, because I think it is fairly thin, frankly.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's 9:15 and we've been here for 45 minutes, and we've managed to get the two recommendations done. If we were to go through each report in detail as a group, we would never get any reports done. I understand the desire of new members to become familiar with the work that the committee had previously done. But if members were able to read reports in advance -- I think they've had them for several weeks now -- and come in with specific questions about those reports or perhaps speak to their colleagues beforehand, the committee would be able to get its work done. Otherwise, if we work through these reports as a group, page by page, chapter by chapter, we'll never get them completed. There is simply too much on our agenda to do it that way, in my opinion.

P. Calendino: I don't want to object to what Mr. Farrell-Collins is trying to say, but I thought that at the beginning of the meeting it was agreed to do that, to just give the new members an idea of how the committee functions for today. In the future, I think, we won't take that much time. That's what we had discussed earlier.

R. Thorpe (Chair): This committee has continually had new members brought on side. Other members have not found that necessary. I think they experience the fact by reading the reports, checking with staff and following up. That has been the way we've operated for several years. Most members, I believe, have found that beneficial.

The other issue: if we are ever going to consider going through these line by line, we're going to have to make sure that we have technical resources here in case there are questions, or else we're going to get into debates back and forth. Quite frankly, a lot of people are going to be speaking without the background that they need to speak to these points. I strongly believe that members, when they get these reports, should read them. We purposely said we were only going to do two reports at this meeting so that members could have the opportunity to go through them and check with staff. I think the ways of the past have worked well for this committee, and given the workload we have, I think we have to be prepared to move along here.

D. Streifel: The last I'll say on it: I raised the issue right off, and I find it a little bit peculiar that the committee is not willing to go through their own report piece by piece, to bring some of the new members up to speed.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Make a motion.

D. Streifel: But I will take direction from the Chair and accept the consensus of the committee.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've been trying to be polite. The fact of the matter is that we have a big workload in this committee. Members are expected to come here prepared, having
 

obtained the reports, having read them and being prepared to have questions. If the member has questions about the report, let's hear them; let's talk about it. But I haven't heard that yet, and I'm not prepared personally -- not to mention everybody else and staff -- to sit here while we go through every single page of the report. I understand that the member mentioned it earlier. There was also a comment made by another member -- I can't remember which -- to deal just with the recommendations. There was no resolution on that. There were two suggestions. The Chair has, as she said, gone through and done it in the way that I thought had been recommended by Mr. Coell, I guess it was -- that we look at the recommendations.

It's not that the committee is not prepared to deal with its own report; we've dealt with it. I think even new members have had this report for two weeks. If there are questions, I'm more than happy to spend time going through it. But if there aren't and it's just a general grazing of the report, then I think that's a waste of time.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I believe that at this point we need a motion to accept the report as has been amended by this committee, with the additional recommendations. Moved by Murray Coell, seconded by John Weisbeck. All those in favour? Opposed? Thank you; we can put that report forward for final presentation.

Motion approved.