Chair:
                          * Rick Thorpe (Okanagan-Penticton L)
 Deputy Chair:
                          * Evelyn Gillespie (Comox Valley NDP)
 Members:
                          * Pietro Calendino (Burnaby North NDP)
                          * Rick Kasper (Malahat-Juan de Fuca NDP)
                          * Hon. Joy MacPhail (Vancouver-Hastings NDP)
                          * Steve Orcherton (Victoria-Hillside NDP)
                          * Glenn Robertson (North Island NDP)
                          * Erda Walsh (Kootenay NDP)
                          * Murray Coell (Saanich North and the Islands L)
                          * Gary Farrell-Collins (Vancouver-Little Mountain L)
                          * John Weisbeck (Okanagan East L)
                          * Jack Weisgerber (Peace River South Ind)
 Clerk:
                          Kate Ryan-Lloyd

 * denotes member present
 
 

 Also Present:
                           Arn van Iersel (Comptroller General)
                           David Fairbotham (Office of the Comptroller General)
                           George Morfitt (Auditor General)
                           Peter Gregory (Assistant Auditor General)
                           Roger Brown (Office of the Auditor General)
                           Tin Lok Ng (Office of the Auditor General)
                           Geoff Stagg (Office of the Auditor General)
                           Gloria Back (Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology)
                           David Brown (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks)
                           Malcolm Clark (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks)
                           Jim Mattison (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks)
                           Jon O'Riordan (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks)
                           Harry Vogt (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks)
                           Doug Macfarlane (Ministry of Municipal Affairs)
                           Peter Owen (Ministry of Education)
                           Bob Smith (Ministry of Health)
                           Peter Van Rheenen (Ministry of Health)
                           Garth Webber-Atkins (Ministry of Forests)
                           Rich Coleman (MLA for Fort Langley - Aldergrove L)
                           Reni Masi (MLA for Delta North L)
                           Kelly Dunsdon (Committee Researcher)

                                           [ Page 1403 ]

The committee met at 9:09 a.m.
 

Thank you very much to the auditor general's staff, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Advanced Education and the
Ministry of Health for coming. We wish you all the best in your endeavours with respect to this report.

Arn, how are we for the. . . ?

A. van Iersel: We moved up our presentation on protecting drinking water. There is to be an update. The gentlemen are in the
audience today. I would also like to report back on a conversation I had with Stuart Culbertson. Unfortunately, he had a
meeting with the minister and advised me that his report is almost complete, but not yet. He did agree to be the first presenter at
the meeting in April -- April 3, I believe it is -- if that's the wish of the committee.

R. Thorpe (Chair): So he was ready to go, we shot the gun, and he didn't make the track.

A. van Iersel: He's ready for April 3, Chair.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank him very much. We'll decide on that.

                                           [ Page 1433 ]

R. Kasper: He's probably doing some spoon-feeding.

A Voice: Should we take a five-minute break?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Let's take a five-minute break just to. . . . Thank you. We'll reconvene at 2:07.

The committee recessed from 2:01 p.m. to 2:17 p.m.

[R. Thorpe in the chair.]

R. Thorpe (Chair): When you speak, speak into the microphone with it on, and introduce yourselves for Hansard. Thank
you, and over to Jim.

J. Mattison: I'm Jim Mattison. I'm director of the water management branch in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,
and I chair the directors' committee on drinking water that was formed in partial response to the auditor general's report. With
me today are Garth Webber-Atkins from the Ministry of Forests, Doug Macfarlane from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Bob Smith from the Ministry of Health.

We appeared before the Public Accounts Committee twice before, in July and October of 1999. After the October meeting
we were asked to present the information regarding our specific progress with respect to the directors' committee on drinking
water, to provide some specific actions regarding our plans to implement our responses to the recommendations of the auditor
general. Really, that's why we're here today. With your concurrence, I'd like to walk through this package and direct you to the
responses.

Protection of drinking water sources is really only one aspect of provision of safe drinking water to the consumer's tap. In
addition to protection of the source itself there need to be adequately functioning treatment systems and a properly functioning
distribution system, and there needs to be some kind of a monitoring and evaluation system that will provide feedback if any
one of those fails. We call these components the multi-barrier approach.

This particular report deals with the first one, which is also the most complex one. There's a number of issues involved in source
protection. There are particular concerns with respect to the differing land tenure and the amount of private land that some
purveyors need to deal with within their watersheds. The purveyor of water also needs the support of a number of provincial
and other local government agencies, as well as the private property owners, some of the resource users and an informed
public, in order to meet the challenges imposed in providing high-quality water. The auditor general's report focused on the first
component, source-water protection. Overall, the auditor's report supports government activities to protect drinking water and
improve treatment practice which were already underway.

                                                                                           [1420]

However, there have been responses, as well, to that report. I'd like to talk a little bit about some of our progress in
implementing those. It must be kept in mind, however, that we need a balanced approach, which includes also looking at the
other components of that multi-barrier approach. There are times when concentration on treatment may be more appropriate
than concentration on the protection of the source.

As I've said, the government agencies have taken several actions to strengthen efforts to protect drinking water. The directors'
committee has been formed and is now functioning. I'll talk a little bit about what we've done. The committee will also be
working with the provincial health officer to ensure that public health authorities and purveyors have a more thorough
understanding of the status of drinking water access with regards to health indicators, as well as the components and constraints
involved in the provision of safe drinking water.

I talked about the complexities with respect to mixture of private and Crown land. There is also some scientific uncertainty
regarding the impact of land uses on water quality. There tends of be a lack of public appreciation of the costs associated with
delivering safe water. This perception that B.C. is endowed with beautiful and almost free drinking water, requiring little
protection or treatment, is a major challenge to advancing source-water protection measures and to obtaining investment in
needed treatment and distribution infrastructure. Despite these challenges, government is committed to advancing efforts to
protect drinking water sources.

What I think I'd like to do is use the auditor general's summary recommendations to discuss some of the responses that we
have made in the past five months since we appeared before this committee. The first of the summary recommendations was:
"Ensuring that the province's efforts towards integrated resource management are effective, by seeing that all integrated land use
management processes affecting drinking water sources have appropriate representation, information-gathering and
implementation mechanisms."

It is government policy that provincial staff involved in LRMP, the land and resource management planning process, involve
both local government staff and elected officials. However, regardless of these efforts, miscommunication and misunderstanding
occur. To improve opportunities for drinking water interests to be represented, efforts are underway to survey those processes
where difficulties have been reported. We'll try and improve that communication.

Further, in respect to LRMP, steps are being taken to prepare and distribute information packages to these planning tables
regarding the auditor's report and the need to ensure that sources of drinking water are addressed in land use planning
processes. It is recognized that a key gap in that LRMP process has been the lack of communication and contact with the
regional health authorities. This will be rectified by directing the interagency management committees to involve regional health
authorities in this planning process.

In the case of community watersheds designated under the Forest Practices Code, information about land use, water use and
water quality is generally available. However, much less information is available on water supply areas which fall outside of the
Forest Practices Code's designation of community watersheds. Work will soon be initiated to improve data access and
exchange between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the regional health authorities to make better use of
existing information on source-water quality. The Ministry of Health is also in the process of developing policy to assist health
authorities in devising sanitary surveys of their drinking water sources. These are things that will advise the local authorities of
where there may be water pollution threats to their water supply.

If I move to the second set of summary recommendations, the auditor general said: "Giving better support to water

                                           [ Page 1434 ]

management processes by designating a lead agency for drinking water, by developing better accountability reporting and by
examining the rights of resource access of drinking water suppliers." The need for effective provincial leadership to protect
drinking water interests has been recognized by government. At the local level this leadership is provided by the regional health
authorities, and overall guidance is being provided at the provincial level by the office of the provincial health officer. The prime
responsibility of health authorities is to ensure that purveyors deliver potable water to their consumers.

                                                                                           [1425]

Additionally, the directors' committee, representing nine ministries and agencies with a role in water source protection, will
coordinate government actions of all those government agencies to address the auditor general's recommendations and to look
at the implementation of long-term measures to improve drinking water quality. The committee has met six times during the last
15 months, and a summary of the issues discussed at these meetings is attached. I think it's the last two pages in the package
that we distributed today. Member agencies of that committee are also listed in that summary.

One of the key actions undertaken by the directors' committee includes reviewing the rights of purveyors regarding access to
drinking water. A report reviewing the statutory and common-law rights is now under preparation and will form the basis for
developing future policy options. The Union of British Columbia Municipalities has been involved in this process, in this study,
and they will continue to be consulted during the review.

The third set of recommendations involves improving the protection given to drinking water sources as a result of single
resource management processes for a number of activities. I'd like to just hit on some highlights for each of those.

With respect to forestry, the phase-in of the planning requirements of the Forest Practices Code will be complete by June 15 of
this year, at which time terrain stability hazard mapping will be completed for all community watersheds. This is a requirement.
In fact, nearly all of this work has been done. Further, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of
Forests have agreed to procedures around monitoring and enforcement of water quality objectives in community watersheds.
Several community watersheds will have enforceable water quality objectives made known this year under the code, with more
to follow as objectives are established.

With respect to cattle grazing, the range management framework of the Forest Practices Code is considered sufficient to
prevent or minimize the introduction of parasites by cattle and to deal with problems if they arise. Proposed regulation
amendments will strengthen the Ministry of Forests' ability to require properly functioning riparian conditions with respect to
cattle management. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that distinguishing between water quality impacts of range use, traditional
ranching, wildlife and recreational activities is technically difficult. Therefore further scientific study of risk to drinking water
posed by these land uses is being considered. We're looking at how we might do that and the kind of research we would need
in order to understand the interactions of those different sources of pollution -- or infection, I guess.

With respect to recreation, a study of the impact of recreation on drinking water quality was begun in 1999, and it's a
three-year study. We're using watersheds on Vancouver Island and in the Okanagan Valley to look at the degree of
recreational access and changes in water quality, particularly with respect to Cryptosporidium and Giardia, as they may be
introduced or transmitted by recreational access in the watershed. This information will help direct policy development
regarding recreational access to watersheds used as drinking water sources.

With respect to transportation, the recently released highway environmental assessment process manual will heighten awareness
of ministry staff, contractors, agencies and stakeholders regarding environmental concerns. In addition, an existing
memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Transportation and
Highways will be updated to include a more specific reference to risks of drinking water related to highway spills, and
contingency planning will be improved as a result of that.

With respect to agriculture, it's recognized that dairy, hog and poultry operations -- in the Fraser Valley particularly -- produce
large volumes of manure, which can pose a threat to groundwater through nitrogen enrichment. Nitrogen leaches into
groundwater, either as non-point sources from runoff of surface water, improperly stored manure or manure applied in excess
of amounts required for the crops. On behalf of the province, the Fraser Basin Council is facilitating a consultation process with
the agriculture sector and federal and local agencies to develop an action plan for agricultural nutrient management. A draft of
that plan is expected later this year.

With respect to septic systems, model bylaws have been drafted and supporting maintenance guidelines are being prepared to
provide local government with several options to improve system maintenance. Some local governments have expressed
interest in piloting some of these bylaws, and we're working on furthering that.

The fourth set of summary recommendations of the auditor general concerns building an information base for better
management of groundwater through more extensive mapping of aquifers and monitoring of groundwater quantity and quality.
Efforts are underway to provide groundwater education to purveyors, local government and community groups to encourage
local level groundwater planning.

                                                                                           [1430]

We've recently formally released, about ten days ago, a groundwater protection toolkit. It's actually at the Queen's Printer right
now, and we should have copies of it distributed in the next few days. This toolkit provides a method for water purveyors in
communities to follow to protect the capture zone around their wells; it's a planning process. There has been a lot of interest in
it. We have held workshops recently in Duncan, Whistler and Langley with respect to protection of their groundwater sources.

There is currently a network of 150 observation wells to monitor both groundwater quality and the groundwater level. We're
committed to adding ten more wells to that observation network in highly used aquifers in this next year.

The aquifer mapping and inventory program continues. We have currently identified 78 aquifers. Their surficial extent has been
mapped, and that information is provided to local government for use in their land use planning. We are continuing that mapping
program in the next fiscal year. We

                                           [ Page 1435 ]

anticipate more than 20 new aquifers will be mapped; it should exceed 100 in this next year. Consideration is also being given
by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to groundwater protection legislation.

With respect to the fifth set of summary recommendations of the auditor general, "reviewing the responsibilities and needs of
small water-system operators," there is a series of seminars sponsored by the B.C. Water and Waste Association to educate
small-system operators of their rights and obligations as purveyors. These seminars include a source water protection
component.

Additionally, the environmental operators certificate program is a third-party process which presently provides certification of
wastewater facility operators. A parallel process is being developed for operators of waterworks systems. Such a process is
particularly applicable to operators of the smaller systems, who often lack adequate training.

Finally, I want to say that while the directors' committee was largely formed to coordinate government's response to the auditor
general's 26 recommendations, the committee recognizes that government's efforts currently go beyond -- and need to go
beyond -- simply responding to the auditor general's recommendations. A longer-term overall drinking water and source
protection strategy is needed to address existing and emerging drinking water issues. The committee is engaged in that process
of looking at the larger strategy, and we will continue with that work.

Attached to the report is a set of work plans, which describe in detail. . . . Mr. Chair, at the last meeting you asked for time
lines and deliverables, and I think we have provided those with respect to the government's specific action plans aimed at
delivering or responding to the auditor general's recommendations. Also, as per your request, attached at the very back is a
summary of the items discussed and the action items from the directors' committee on drinking water.

I'll stop there, and we'll be happy to respond to questions.

G. Robertson: Glenn Robertson, MLA for North Island. Let's go back to page 7. You make reference to consideration being
given to developing groundwater protection legislation. What's the relationship between that priority or direction and the bylaws
that are being piloted by some municipalities? I'd like to understand what the local government responsibilities are and the
relationship that those responsibilities will have in conjunction with proposed provincial legislation.

                                                                                           [1435]

J. Mattison: The model bylaws that have been developed are largely with respect to septic tank operation and maintenance,
and they would be aimed at the individual homeowner's responsibilities to ensure that there is a properly functioning and
properly installed and operating septic system. The groundwater protection legislation -- and it's early days yet -- would be
aimed at standards for the well-drilling industry for the installation, operation and safe abandonment of wells. There is obviously
a linkage between leakage from a poorly functioning septic tank and what might happen to an aquifer. The type of legislation
that is under consideration is aimed at the construction of wells rather than septic tanks.

G. Robertson: The other question I might have is: has there been any consideration given to legislation or policy surrounding
the protection of aquifers within municipal boundaries, for instance? I know there are a number of communities that have
absolutely excellent water quality, and they get it from groundwater from wells. Obviously, in some instances, there are
concerns about industrial development, gas stations being built and constructed right beside the well -- things like that.

J. Mattison: I guess the simple answer to your question is: at this point there's no consideration for legislation for that. The
"Well Protection Toolkit" is really a set of information and a planning approach that local government can use to look at their
zoning and their municipal planning with respect to siting such facilities and how to examine their groundwater sources -- what
the recharge area might be, what the risk is to a well from different land use activities in the siting of facilities. At this point it's
voluntary, but we are trying to provide the information so that local government is able to make those kinds of informed
decisions regarding facility siting that would protect their groundwater source.

G. Robertson: The other question I have. . . . I bumped into a gentleman from California at a function a number of years ago,
who was involved with a company called ArcView and ArcInfo. They do most of their business in California. One of their
largest businesses -- it's three-dimensional mapping, as you probably know -- is inventorying water sources in California. I
wonder where, in your mind, we should be going as a province. In other words, for mapping aquifers and inventorying them,
where should we be going, where do we have to go, and where are we at? What's it going to take to get there? It was
identified, I believe a few years ago, as a bit of a priority.

J. Mattison: That's a good question. We've been struggling with the answer to that same one. Up until three, four, five years
ago, we had information, really, about 70,000 holes in the ground. We have a water-well database, but that's what it is. This
aquifer mapping program that we have been doing has really been a two-part program. One of them is to take all those holes in
the ground and the information we have with respect to surficial geology, bedrock geology -- all of the information that might
inform us about groundwater flow -- and with that information try to determine the extent of an aquifer and the potential water
yield of an aquifer and also its vulnerability to contamination. If something is poured on the surface, will it just make its way
straight into the groundwater, or are there impervious barriers between the surface and the aquifer?

We actually use ArcView and ArcInfo as our system for managing that information. I think it has been in part the development
of the technology tools that has allowed us to go from information about holes in the ground to information about the underlying
water supply structures -- the aquifers themselves. And we are proceeding with classifying with respect to not only where it is
and how much yield it is and how vulnerable it is with respect to contamination but how heavily it is used. Is it a source of
community drinking water supply? Obviously, if it's heavily used and highly vulnerable, those are the areas where we want to
put most efforts into source protection for groundwater.

G. Robertson: Okay. My final question would be. . . . I understand what the province is doing and what their pri-

                                           [ Page 1436 ]

orities are. But has any consideration been given to working with regional districts or local government in the mapping project
so that local government knows what their limitations are in regard to water sources and aquifers and what maybe some of the
potential concerns should be, so they can develop in a reasonable way?

J. Mattison: Certainly the next step is with local government. We have done that in a number of cases. The taking of our
information from the wells and developing the aquifer maps is really a scientific exercise. But the next step, where we have been
working with local government, is getting current land use and the cadastral information -- the property ownership information
-- from the municipalities.

We've done a lot of work with the municipality of Grand Forks, for instance. We have mapped their entire municipality with
regard to land ownership and land use and have classified it by type, so that we can see where the potential effects might be on
the underlying aquifer structures. So we have started that process, but only with a couple of municipalities -- Grand Forks being
one where we're well in front. There are a couple of places on the Gulf Islands, working with Islands Trust. That also is an area
where we've been trying to move into the land ownership and land use.

                                                                                           [1440]

R. Kasper: My question deals with the issue of septic tanks and wells. You made a statement in regard to the location of the
well in relation to the septic tank. What about the location of the septic tank in relation to an existing well? Aren't they equally as
important?

J. Mattison: Certainly. I guess it's a matter of which one was installed first. Drillers tend to go where they think there's a
probability of finding water, and if someone happens to have built a septic field there first, there's clearly a problem. At this time
there is no regulatory authority that would constrain or prevent that. What we are trying to do is ensure what information we
have with regard to the probable location of groundwater sources. We are also trying to find where the septic fields are. I
mean, they are equally valuable and interrelated, as you've said.

R. Kasper: Right. Plus within the Ministry of Health rules, it's a 100-foot setback.

B. Smith: Yeah, there is legislation, Mr. Kasper, about the location of wells and the location of contamination -- both ways. In
the sanitary regs, it has to be at least 100 feet -- at least -- from a probable source of contamination before a well can be
drilled. Under the sewage regs and under the municipal sewage regs, there's another setback of 300 feet because of the volume
of waste that's been generated. So there are regulations under the ministry related both ways to the location of wells and the
location of septic fields.

R. Kasper: But my sense, though, is that perhaps 100 feet isn't adequate.

B. Smith: Unfortunately, the legislation says "minimal." But when you have a minimal, it seems to become the accepted
standard.

R. Kasper: Yeah, I know.

B. Smith: But there are provisions, and the odd time they have increased that separation distance where there are known
situations where the contamination is greater or the likelihood is greater. They can increase it, and they have in some situations.

R. Kasper: But then that's subject to an appeal.

B. Smith: Not the location of the well, but the location of the septic field, yes.

R. Kasper: Of the septic tank. Right, that's what I was getting at. So is there any contemplation of changing the distances in
light of this report and its follow-up? And I don't mean to jump in on what the Ministry of Health is going to tell us, but. . . .

B. Smith: There's a lot of pressure to reduce the separation distances for some individual lots, because they can't get a building
permit because they can't maintain a 100-foot separation. The neighbour may have put their well here, and this neighbour put
his well here, and the person in the middle is in trouble because he can't maintain that 100-foot separation. So there's some
pressure to actually reduce that level. There might be some consideration for that if a high-tech treatment system for that septic
tank produces such a high-quality effluent and there are some assurances from a hydrogeologist that the risk is zero or minimal.
Then there might be some consideration. Those are some of the thought processes that have been going on. There's also the
thought process you suggest -- that maybe there's a need to look at increasing it under certain circumstances. That probably
should be considered.

R. Kasper: Right. Because, you know, the current rules say it's 300. . . . Now, what is it? The school of thought is that there's
a breakout point between 300 and 500 feet for E. coli bacteria to break out from a field. It can travel horizontal distances.

B. Smith: That depends on many factors, including the porosity of the soil and the moisture in the soil.

                                                                                           [1445]

R. Kasper: Right.

B. Smith: The faster it moves and the wetter it is, the longer it's going to travel.

R. Kasper: This is all very well. But I don't think that anybody should lose sight of this 100-foot rule, which is a minimum
standard and for 99 percent of the time is the norm -- and has been for, I don't know, decades, I guess.

B. Smith: I think part of the means to address that would be what was jointly done with MELP -- the well protection toolkit,
where you can identify sources of potential contamination including, as you mentioned, gas stations or other sources, and build
that into your protection plan.

R. Kasper: I need to get some comfort that. . . . Is the Ministry of Health, in light of this report and the fact that you're all
working together, and the obvious. . . ? It wouldn't

                                           [ Page 1437 ]

have been flagged if it isn't a problem in regard to septic tank systems. If it's a question of maintenance, then you have to say
specifically that if your septic field is 100 feet from a well, there are mandatory pump-out provisions. I don't get the sense that
that's where you're heading. You're sort of passing it on to a local authority to deal with, when the legislation is provincial. It just
doesn't seem to make sense, because this wouldn't have come as an identified item unless there's a problem. I think the root of
the problem goes back to that 100-foot distance -- for what it's worth.

B. Smith: I guess, first of all, working together -- the point that you made. . . . I think that we are working quite closely with
the Ministry of Environment in the development of our own on-site sewage regulations that are as compatible with the municipal
sewage regulations as possible. In their regulations they do have an operation and maintenance requirement, but the operation
and maintenance requirement is in a threefold method. It could be by local government bylaw, by insurance bond or by a
deposit of the developer. That seems to work quite satisfactorily for the large systems, but the individual ones. . . . It would be
very difficult for an individual to get an insurance policy or post a bond. So the idea there would be to cooperate and partner
with local government if they wish to buy into the process. If they don't buy into the process, then there wouldn't be a permit,
and then we do not have to worry about the well either. So it's sort of a two-way street.

J. Weisgerber: My question, my interest, is around the contaminants that the province tests for. As new chemicals and new
hazards are developed and come on the market, how does the province identify potential risks? When do you start to test for
them, and how do you go about setting acceptable levels? In fairness, my concern is around gasoline additives, MTBEs
particularly. California has started, over the last few years, testing groundwater for MTBEs. They've in fact closed down entire
community supplies, where they were supplied by groundwater. And I'm led to believe that the province has no standards for
MTBE, and in fact testing is not done for it. Could you give me some sense of where the province is at, particularly with
gasoline additives -- MMT, MTBE. . . ?

J. Mattison: I can't give you very much, I'm afraid. I don't know, Bob, if you can add anything, but I'm not that familiar. Some
of those additives are not used here, but some are. The province has looked at some standards for acceptable levels, but I
don't think we have any. . . . We currently have not published any guidelines or standards with respect to the levels of these
chemicals in water.

J. Weisgerber: Does that mean that you don't test for the presence of those chemicals in water?

                                                                                           [1450]

B. Smith: Which? In drinking water, for instance. . . .

J. Weisgerber: MTBE, particularly.

B. Smith: Yeah, we do. There is some minimal testing for MTBE in B.C., and it hasn't really detected anything yet. The
standard for MTBE will be set, if there's a need, by Health Canada -- in the federal-provincial subcommittee on drinking water
-- at the tap. So there could be a standard established. It would be established jointly by all the provinces and the federal
government as a risk-based level. It hasn't been established yet because -- again, I'm not that familiar -- Canada did not allow
MTBE in gasoline additives, whereas the States did. That's my understanding.

J. Weisgerber: No, the reality is that MTBE has been banned in California. It's currently the additive of choice here in British
Columbia.

B. Smith: It is?

J. Weisgerber: And it's about one part in five in gasoline. It's not a trace additive; it makes up a significant part of a gallon of
gasoline.

B. Smith: I apologize. I was not correct, then. But I know that there has been some testing for it, and there has not been. . . .
A very -- like 0.9. . . . I wouldn't even want to guess, but way down on the end of the spectrum they've detected it -- but not
anywhere near a level. . . . But they are doing some monitoring.

J. Weisgerber: California has determined that anything over 20 parts per billion represents a hazard, and there's been a lot of
discussion here about: is testing being done? If you consider that one gallon in five of what's being sold at the pumps is in fact a
highly toxic substance and that that substance has been showing up in alarming amounts in California, I worry about the fact that
we're not testing for it and, if we are testing for it, that we haven't established a safe level. As I say, California sets about 20
parts per billion. I understand that wells in the Fraser Valley have tested as high as 90 parts per billion, but I don't have any
hard evidence to that fact.

B. Smith: I can't answer that question. I'm sorry.

J. Weisgerber: How would we go about getting Canada or British Columbia to determine what a safe MTBE level would be?
Secondly, how do we go about adding tests for MTBE to the standard diagnosis of drinking water in the province?

J. Mattison: Certainly there is a suite of tests that we conduct with some of our observation wells. Often we choose to go
looking for something, because we suspect we might find it. These types of tests are generally extremely expensive -- often
involve gas chromatography -- tests that are neither simple nor cheap and that have a time lag. They must be done within so
many hours of sampling. So it adds to the complexity. That doesn't answer your question.

Two approaches. First, we would have to look at areas where we might expect to find it and test in those areas. Fraser Valley
is an obvious place to look. Secondly, I think, with respect to standards, working through the national committee on drinking
water. . . . I think that would be the place we would go to try and review what might be an acceptable level, if we are
determining it.

J. Weisgerber: Can you tell me what kind of mechanism would trigger the concern of your agencies? What causes

                                           [ Page 1438 ]

society to be aware of a hazard? What triggers testing for it and the establishment of standards for it? I guess I'm concerned
that if nobody tests for it and nobody looks for it, then there is no problem because nobody has detected it. I wonder what
mechanism gets that started and perhaps how a person who was concerned would raise that issue.

B. Smith: I guess an example might be that on the Sunshine Coast they have a cross-section of parameters that they will just
routinely test for, and I don't believe MTBE is one of them. In this particular case they picked up arsenic. So they did an
extensive testing for arsenic on the Sunshine Coast, and that would be the regional health authority's initiative.

We've devolved the funding to the regions for chemical analysis of water supplies, and they generally do it on kind of what you
might say is more of an experience basis or need basis. They would be prioritizing from their own experience as to what they
view might be a chemical contaminant in the water. We could encourage them, like you suggest, to do that in the Fraser Valley
as part of their routine program to see if there is a need or a concern, and that would be. . . . Then you would at least get the
process started from a testing point of view and again pull together any information that we do have to see if there is a basis in
certain geographical areas more than other areas.

                                                                                           [1455]

J. Weisgerber: Is there some kind of national or continental network that would alert your agencies to the emergence of a
new hazard? It would start you on the path of testing for a new potential.

J. Mattison: There isn't anything as well developed as, for instance, the centres for disease control or something, where there
is a worldwide warning network for disease outbreaks. But there certainly is literature, and we're constantly looking at the
publications and other areas in terms of what people are finding in drinking water -- both Health and Environment. We watch it
in the natural environment; Health's role tends to look at it in drinking water. So there is activity. We do very little research of
our own, but we do keep in touch with the research that's happening throughout the universities and in the federal government.
The federal government has a larger role with respect to Canada in alerting us to things that they may have found in the natural
environment, which I'm more familiar with.

J. Weisgerber: I recently ordered a copy of. . . . I believe it was "20/20" that did a program or series of programs on MTBE,
which is now banned in California -- on the residual effects of MTBE on groundwater in California. It's fair to say that there
was certainly enough indication there to cause me a considerable amount of concern, and I intend over the next little while to
pursue that, probably through the Minister of Environment. But perhaps your direction on that would be helpful. Where do you
go to sort of raise a concern -- not only me, but someone in the public who has reason to believe there is a new contaminant?
How do you go about introducing the testing for that?

J. Mattison: That's a good question. Certainly, if it's a human health concern, I think it's properly brought to the attention of
the Minister of Health, and if it's something occurring in the natural environment, then the Minister of Environment. We'll follow
up on your suggestions.

J. Weisgerber: Okay. If any of you are interested, I do have a copy of a video which I'd be happy to give you or lend you
and let you have a look at. I think it's something that at least should be looked at, for somebody with a lot more expertise or
knowledge than I have.

M. Coell: I'd just say that I appreciate the detailed report, as well, and the efforts you've gone to. I just want to ask -- and this
is obviously a priority: do you have the staff and the funds to carry it out?

J. Mattison: We think so. The work plans, when they were first developed, were somewhat more ambitious than what you
see there -- I'll be honest. And what you see there we believe we can deliver. There are other plans. We're bureaucrats, after
all; we would like more resources. But we believe we can deliver what we have tabled today.

                                                                                           [1500]

P. Calendino: Going back to pollutants in groundwater or any source of water. . . . You asked about traces of MTBE or
MMT, and Bob said that we don't do direct testing. But you must have an idea of what I want to know: what is the most
frequent pollutant that you find in groundwater, and how can we do something to minimize or prevent that?

J. Mattison: Generally groundwater in British Columbia is of good quality. There are a number of areas where we are
detecting pollutants, though. There is nitrate in Richmond in the Fraser Valley in a number of groundwater wells. I can't recall
the numbers offhand, but it's a significant percentage. In 10 to 20 percent of the wells we detected elevated nitrate levels. Only
in a handful of several hundred that we tested, though, did they exceed Canadian drinking water standards.

The second one that causes us concern is arsenic. These are natural levels of dissolved arsenic, and they are elevated in some
areas of the country where we're concerned and where it is suggested that people don't drink it, in some cases, when there are
warnings with respect to the use of groundwater. Other chemicals that occur naturally in groundwater. . . . There are elevated
levels of iron and manganese, often up north. I used to live in Smithers, and the wells we had in that area would quite often have
high iron and manganese levels. In some cases, the water is fine for bathing and washing and so on, but not for drinking. I don't
know, Bob, if you've got any other information.

B. Smith: Some uranium, maybe, in the Okanagan. In some of the other areas, in some of the wells it's there for the same
reason: naturally occurring.

J. Mattison: But generally groundwater is of high quality in British Columbia, and we want to keep it that way. The only
human-induced groundwater pollutant of concern at the present time is the nitrates, and that's largely from manure management.

Trace organics. We are currently detecting organics in Grand Forks and in the Fraser Valley at low levels. This is

                                           [ Page 1439 ]

from pesticide and herbicide use, and it's probably from high levels of pesticide and herbicide use in the sixties. The transport is
so slow that we're seeing the elevated levels now, but we expect that those are elevated levels from abuse of pesticides 30 to
40 years ago.

P. Calendino: Would that be from aerial sprays or home use?

J. Mattison: Both. Where we're seeing it is in the Penticton and Kelowna areas a little bit from the tree fruit management
there, and we're seeing it in Grand Forks on some of the market garden areas. I think it's just use of the kinds of pesticides and
herbicides that were used in the sixties. We're anticipating that those levels will decline with time, but we're continuing that
monitoring. Where much of our monitoring with respect to organics is focused in those areas.

P. Calendino: For the Fraser Valley, I guess, in particular, how deep have you gone down in the aquifer to test for traces of
those toxic elements?

J. Mattison: I don't know the answer to that question. We go until we reach water and sample at the water level. That's
where the pumps are. I honestly don't think I can answer your question in terms of. . . .

P. Calendino: So you just take water from existing wells.

J. Mattison: Yes. We have both. We have some existing wells. We haven't drilled any wells. But there are some wells that are
in use -- existing supply wells that are being sampled -- and there are some others that are used only for our purposes.
Typically we've taken over an abandoned well that we then operate. We'll pump it for an hour and then sample the water, to
ensure that we're not getting an artificial concentration from water that has been sitting in the bore. So we'll pump it, let it run for
an hour and then sample the water that's coming out.

P. Calendino: Have you done any projections on how far in the future those aquifers can still be used in the Fraser Valley or
the Okanagan or up farther north?

J. Mattison: There is some work going on. We believe we currently are using them at sustainable rates. What we want to do
is not pump at any greater rate than the rate of recharge. There is some literature that suggests that we are mining glacial
groundwater and that a lot of the groundwater levels are high because of glacial meltwater 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. We
want to track that, and that's the reason we are doing groundwater trend monitoring over time for groundwater levels. But
we've seen a real rebound in groundwater levels as a result of the wet winter and the wet spring we had last year and the years
before. Groundwater levels have dramatically rebounded after a series of dry years in the nineties. I think that gives me some
confidence that we are managing -- well, monitoring, at least -- our use of groundwater. We haven't yet exceeded recharge,
sustainable rates of use.

                                                                                           [1505]

P. Calendino: When you say "sustainable," what density of population are you referring to -- the current density or. . . ?

J. Mattison: No, I think there's room for a lot of growth yet. Many of the aquifers. . . . There are very few aquifers that we
are using at a level where we are affecting their ability to recharge. There are a few, and we are monitoring those. It's generally
where there is a high density of population using groundwater from that source, but it's quite localized.

P. Calendino: Well, if we look at the Okanagan, they don't get that much precipitation there. They do use groundwater
sources there, so there may be reasons to be concerned. After all, if we look down south at the Arizona and California
aquifers, it's my understanding that from 20 feet, where they used to find water, they have to go to 60 or 70 feet below. That's
a lot of usage of the aquifer.

J. Mattison: Agreed. But the bulk of the water or a large amount of the water use in the Okanagan is surface sources. There's
still an excess of water in Okanagan Lake. The surface water conflicts there are largely to do with gravity, not with water.
People want to withdraw water from the small tributary streams, and those have fisheries values at the mouth. But there's lots of
water from the lake, if people are prepared to pump.

P. Calendino: It's safe to drink?

J. Mattison: Well, not without filtration and treatment.

R. Thorpe (Chair): We drink it every day.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): It changes colour every season.

P. Calendino: We have chlorine in it.

Go ahead if you haven't finished.

J. Mattison: I think I've answered your question. The one thing I would add is that we did a study, as part of the growth
strategies for the Okanagan, of total water recharge to the Okanagan system and total demand. We calculated what we thought
was a so-called surplus or at least an amount that we could continue to allocate, and our regional staff are using that basis for
determining licensing decisions in the Okanagan. Certainly that's one area that will at some time, if population growth continues,
become water short. That requires improving our water use efficiency, and we have been taking steps to promote conservation
and improve efficiency in the Okanagan.

P. Calendino: You have a well-developed workplan here, but what's the most pressing issue for governments to address?

J. Mattison: The most pressing issue?

R. Thorpe (Chair): With respect to this subject.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): With respect to the. . . .

J. Mattison: Understood. Thank you. That helps.

I don't know where to start.

P. Calendino: Only one issue, not all of them.

                                           [ Page 1440 ]

R. Thorpe (Chair): We understand your dilemma.

J. Mattison: I think that's clearly a political decision. I'm not sure how to answer that question. We want to get on and we
believe we can get on with delivering those workplans. I think that probably the auditor general pointed out very clearly the
municipal infrastructure funding for improved treatment works and infrastructure improvements with respect to distribution
systems. I'd say that if there is a pressing problem, it's that financial one of supporting local governments in improving their
filtration and distribution systems. I think we have work to do in source protection, but I'd point to there as a priority area.

P. Calendino: Just one more, and of course this relates to funding as well. In greater Vancouver a couple of years ago, there
was this great debate about the filtration system, whether to continue with chlorination or fluoridation, or whether to use the
Swedish method of ozonation, I think it's called.

J. Mattison: Ozonation. Yes.

P. Calendino: Yeah. Have you any literature, or have you done any research on which would be the better method and
perhaps the more economical method to go with?

B. Smith: That's a good question. I think generally treatment's based on water quality. You know, you've got to consider your
source water and provide treatment from there. And there are various methods of treatment, and they're all effective. It's just
sometimes a matter of personal preference, such as that people don't necessarily want disinfectant in their water, so they'll look
at membrane filtration, such as the city of Revelstoke has done. There are various options available. But the cost-effectiveness
is usually driven by the users' acceptance of the various technologies and based on water quality at the source. So it's not a
simple answer about the economics. Membrane filtration is a very expensive system, and simple chlorination would have been
an awful lot more economical, but the public were more prone to wanting the membrane filtration than they were the
disinfection.

                                                                                           [1510]

P. Calendino: So is the membrane method the ozonation?

B. Smith: I don't think they even had ozonation there. One of the things you need is very clear water to start with, and water in
Revelstoke is very clear. It's not really susceptible to any kind. . . . At least from my knowledge of it when I lived there about
25 years ago, it's not really open to a lot of human activity. The illness they had was the result of animal activity in the
watershed. There's not a lot of turbidity in that particular water. They just put it into a very fine one- or three-micron filter
membrane. It's going into operation, I think, very soon -- a very expensive process.

P. Calendino: Can you then comment, from the Health ministry there, on the advantages of ozonation over chlorination, if there
is any?

B. Smith: Ozonation is an immediate high-oxygen, high-kill, and it will really zap the bugs in the water. But there's no residual
effect in. . . . Any subsequent cross-contamination throughout the system is not dealt with, with ozonation. If there's not good
operation and maintenance of the system, cross-connection control and all those sorts of things, you would actually have an
outbreak. And some of the outbreaks that we have attributed. . . . We've never been able to prove it, but they may have been
something to do with something in the system. Most health regions will want a mild disinfectant within the system after
ozonation, but it's considerably less because it's just to deal with the regrowth or some other source of contamination. It's really
killed the bugs right up the shot, right at the start.

P. Calendino: I guess the only way that would work is if you had a completely new water main system all over the areas.

B. Smith: Except that, again, the potential for cross-connections, particularly in more rural areas, where you might have
agricultural activity or you might have a small hobby farm. . . . You'll run a hose into your animal feed kind of slop thing, and if
you get a back siphon, you get that sucked right back into the water system. There are no backflow preventers on domestic
connections. There are on industrial connections but not on domestic connections, so that could shoot itself into the water
system. Generally you can't prevent that from happening, even with good clean pipes. You can minimize and keep reducing the
risk, but you won't necessarily eliminate it. That's kind of a choice of the consumers, as to what level they wish to accept.

P. Calendino: The example you have given me would be for a small usage, a single-family usage. I'm talking about a whole
system for. . .

B. Smith: Oh, I know. I realize that, but what I'm saying is. . . . Yeah.

P. Calendino: . . .a metropolitan. . . . They would have the backup protection.

B. Smith: An individual house having an individual treatment system, you mean? Did you say it was a question to do with an
individual house having a treatment. . . ?

P. Calendino: No. Isn't that the example you were giving me -- the backflow?

B. Smith: No, what I was saying there was that this is a community water system where somebody in that system has their
spray hose out in the yard, into an animal feed, and it gets siphoned back into the community water system. That's happened on
occasion. That happened in Chilliwack once, for instance -- years ago when I was there.

P. Calendino: Okay, we'll list that one.

G. Robertson: This is an interesting topic. I don't think there's anything more important than clean air and clean water,
particularly when you've got to breathe it and drink it, and lots of planning is important.

It's interesting. I believe you have to be designated a community watershed to receive the entitlements or protec-

                                           [ Page 1441 ]

tion under the Forest Practices Code. On Vancouver Island a lot of the land mass is tenured, and an awful lot of it is also
private ownership by major corporations, sometimes around community watersheds that may or may not have been designated
as such. Regardless, the provisions under the code are not implemented unless it's Crown land. I have a number of concerns.
One is. . . . Okay, we can't deal with that, obviously, if it's not the Forest Practices Code, but it is a concern.

Getting back to your working plan, you've made some provisions in here for a response for spill reporting requirements. I see
that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and also MELP and Health are involved. I'm wondering if any consideration
has been given to forest companies. It seems basically to be concerned with spills through the Ministry of Transportation and
Highways. I'm not aware of any reporting provisions for major corporations that use resources such as diesel fuel, oil --
particularly hydraulic oil -- carcinogens and antifreeze in very large quantities.

I know for a fact that there are many companies operating in British Columbia, forest companies in particular, that have an
intake of maybe 30,000 or 40,000 gallons of hydraulic oil per year, and it disappears right into the ground. There are no
reporting provisions for it. A lot of the activities and work plans that you have laid out here would, I think, certainly be a step in
the right direction. What I'm wondering is if any thought has been given to incorporating in the resource sector some of your
ideas in your plan, so that watersheds are protected and there's some sort of accounting as to where all these petroleum
products are going -- antifreeze and hydraulic oil in particular.

                                                                                           [1515]

J. Mattison: There are a number of other areas where such reporting is required, but to my knowledge, there is no accounting
for a company -- for instance, a forest company that purchases so many thousand gallons of such things as antifreeze or
lubricating oil and so on -- as to where it goes. Much of that can be recycled or at least properly disposed of. But there is spill
reporting in a number of other regulations. In addition, there are requirements if it's discharged to a stream -- a spill that's
discharged to a stream. There's another set of regulations, both provincial and federal, that require that. In addition, many times
in environmental impact assessments for major developments, there will be conditions in the permits that are granted requiring
such things as a spill response plan or an emergency plan for that. That would be approved by government and followed up on.

There are penalties for improper discharge of waste, but that requires somebody finding out about it and doing monitoring and
follow-up. We periodically do that if we're made aware of it.

G. Robertson: I spent a lot of time on an environmental committee when I worked in the forest industry, and always a concern
of ours was the intake and output. In other words, we saw where maybe 20,000 to 50,000 gallons of hydraulic oil was being
brought in over the course of a year, and at the end of the year none or little was being recycled. So it went back into the
ground.

If you look at the reporting mechanisms for leaks and the protocols for cleaning them up and compare that to the input and
output, there are huge amounts of oil and carcinogens, in some instances, and antifreeze not being accounted for. Would you
consider implementing a plan where there would have to be some sort of responsibility as to what was purchased and brought
in during a fiscal year, what was recycled, where the oil went and some sort of an accounting as to how that relates to the
reporting mechanism for spills? I think it is a problem.

J. Mattison: Yeah, it's an interesting concept. We're constantly concerned with not adding a bureaucratic burden to the way
companies operate and trying to balance off the need for environmental protection with the need to keep a viable business that's
not burdened by a huge paper requirement for government. But on the whole notion of accounting for it from cradle to grave,
we've been working with a number of areas on the consumer side with respect to everything from paints to drinking containers.
But in terms of industrial lubricants and things like antifreeze, that's a good point. It's worth following up on. We've
concentrated on spills -- on large dumps of the substances -- and not on the small four-gallons-at-a-time kind of use. It's a
good point. We could certainly follow up on it.

G. Robertson: Well, my point is that if you're losing 30,000 gallons of oil a year, there's some substantial spillage; and if it's
not documented as mandated by the legislation, then obviously there's something wrong. I know that a lot of people who work
in industry are concerned about it and have been for years.

                                                                                           [1520]

R. Thorpe (Chair): Are there any other questions?

The Clerk's office has asked me to just follow up on a couple of things here. On February 25 of this year a letter was sent to
Mr. Fast, assistant deputy minister, and I'm just going to read two different paragraphs here. I'll do them one at a time. It
pertains obviously to protecting drinking water sources.

     "During its meetings, the committee received information indicating that model bylaws are being developed to
     improve maintenance of septic tanks and that stakeholder and technical committees were formed following the fall
     1999 [UBCM meetings] to discuss the model bylaws of the meeting. Please clarify whether this is the same as the
     process underway for amending the sewage disposal regulation and advise on the current status of the proposed
     amendments/model bylaws."

Is that covered in the document that you've put forward to us today?

J. Mattison: They're both covered in the document.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Both paragraphs there -- the top paragraph on that page and the second paragraph? Obviously you have
the letter there.

J. Mattison: Yes, I do. No, we didn't discuss the guidelines in detail. There is a separate package on the municipal sewage
regulation. The second paragraph there. . . . There is a separate package on municipal sewage regulation, which. . . . I'm not
sure whether we have forwarded it already. We certainly will.

R. Thorpe (Chair): No, you haven't forwarded it.

J. Mattison: In which case, we will, then. We have prepared a separate package on that particular. . . .

                                           [ Page 1442 ]

R. Thorpe (Chair): If you could get that to Kelly as quickly as possible, it would certainly help us move forward on our
project here.

With respect to the model bylaws that have been drafted -- and local governments have expressed interest in piloting the model
bylaws -- when do you expect that to move forward, Jim? I guess you need all these cross-referenced?

J. Mattison: I think page 25 discusses in general the work plan for the maintenance bylaws. We want to continue to work
with UBCM as well as with some specific municipalities who want to try this out. We're in early days with this, but we have had
some interest from municipalities.

R. Thorpe (Chair): More information to follow, I guess, is probably the correct way. . . .

I want to thank you, and I hope the auditor general's staff has received a copy of this detailed presentation with the workplans
here. I want to thank your working committee and everyone that's working on this project for coming forward with this very,
very comprehensive work plan. I guess the big challenge now is managing through it, making it happen.

I don't know if this is applicable or not, but I'm going to do it. Whatever this committee can do to help you facilitate this
workplan. . . . Please don't be too distant from us, because we want to work with the auditor general's department. We want
to work with all the ministries that are involved here, because as Glenn and others have said, this is a very, very important
subject that has to be pursued aggressively. I am really quite pleased with the detail here, and I wish everybody. . . . I noticed
we only had two ministries make comments. I wouldn't want the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to feel
left out.

D. Macfarlane: We've done our job if you haven't asked us any questions.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay. That's interesting.

Thank you very much. George, I don't know whether you or the comptroller general want to make any comments.

                                                                                           [1525]

G. Morfitt: The only comment I would make is that we will do our usual follow-up, as we do as an office. We're very pleased
to receive this document. It will help us with that follow-up, and we'll be staying in touch with these people to see that the
workplan is carried out, or at least monitor that.

A. van Iersel: I too think the ministry has done a good job. Just a little technical glitch: not all the copies seem to have the full
package. Mine does not, so members may wish to check that they have 30-some pages.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Maybe that's why Forests and Municipal Affairs didn't get the questions, so we'll reconvene at 4 o'clock.
No, I'm joking.

So what is the complete package? Do we know how many pages the complete package. . . ?

B. Smith: It's 33 plus the last page, which is the summary of the directors' committee meeting minutes.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Are there any other comments noted from anyone? Well, thank you very much, one, for changing your
schedules and, two, for bringing forward this ambitious workplan. Of course now we'll be looking and monitoring: March
2000, April 2000, July 2000, etc. So thank you very much.

If the committee members could stay for a minute, we've got a couple of other things we can handle.

A Voice: Not me.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Tentatively, we're talking about having the first meeting the first Tuesday in April.

M. Coell: The third.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Is it the third of April?

K. Ryan-Lloyd: It's the fourth.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Actually, it's the fourth. Thank you, Murray.

M. Coell: Well, he told me the third this morning. I wrote it down.

R. Kasper: Kate.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Kate? No, Murray said the third.

R. Kasper: Oh, Murray. . . .

Interjections.

R. Thorpe (Chair): This is Kate here.

I just think that maybe. . . . Obviously we won't know who all are going to be on the committee. But it might be a good idea for
us to have staff prepare, for that first meeting, the status of all of the reports -- the reports have to be prepared to be tabled in
the House -- any drafts we have and outstanding items that we have to review at this committee. So then one of the things we
can do is. . . . Whoever's on that committee can establish our workplan for while we're in session here. So if we could have that
ready for April 4. . . .

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): A workplan -- yes! [Laughter.]

                                                                                           [1530]

R. Thorpe (Chair): I would ask that the auditor general's office and the comptroller general's office work with the Clerk's
office in pulling that together so that we can approach our work fairly orderly, starting April 4.

Are there any other matters? No, George? Well, I guess. . . . Yes?

A Voice: Not on the microphone.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Not on the microphone?

A Voice: After.

                                           [ Page 1443 ]

R. Thorpe (Chair): Oh, after -- okay.

I guess the only other thing is, George, as the auditor general of British Columbia. . . . The next meeting is not until April 4, so I
guess this is your last official meeting here as the auditor general of British Columbia. I would like to express my sincere thanks
to you, not only on behalf of myself and my caucus colleagues but on behalf of all British Columbians, for the efforts that you've
made in serving British Columbia as the auditor general. Hopefully we'll see you around, and you'll be very involved in British
Columbia. But we might not see you as the auditor general in this committee room. So thank you very much.

G. Morfitt: It's been my pleasure. If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to also take this opportunity to thank the members of the
committee for their indulgence over the last number of years. As I've said on other occasions, the office of the auditor general is
blessed by the fact that they have a committee of the House to deal with, to talk to and to discuss matters with. It's a privilege
that other offices of the Legislature do not have.

I've seen quite a change in this committee over the last 12 years, as you can imagine. There was a time that this committee
would not discuss anything other than the very rigid, narrow parameters provided by the financial statements that were
published on a year-to-year basis; it would not discuss forward-looking matters at all. In fact, if they were brought up or even
sniffed at, they would be ruled out of order. A lot of it was around the time, I think, when ministers used to sit on the
committee. The ministers felt that they didn't want the committee starting to look at future operations of the government in any
form or type. So those matters, as I say, were not dealt with by the committee. The move to agree, by all parties, that the
committee should consist of persons not holding ministerial positions made a huge change to this committee in the way it acted
and the material it addressed.

Another impact on the committee was the movement by the office from a single, once-a-year report issued in March or April of
the year, containing everything for the last 12 months, which used to be dealt with during the session or part of the session, and
then there was nothing happening for another ten or 11 months of the year. The movement to the issuing of periodic reports by
the auditor general's office has also changed the way this committee has worked, and I think it has changed for the better.
There's much more in-depth discussion of individual items now than there ever was in the past, so that's been a positive and
progressive way to move too.

This committee has also taken a leadership role nationally, starting really in the days of Darlene Marzari, when she was Chair.
She took an active position in the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees. It moved along through Fred Gingell's
regime, and we know how much good work Fred did as well. Craig James has been the coordinator of that council for a
number of years, so B.C. has taken a leadership role in a whole variety of areas.

I think the interaction between my office and the comptroller's office -- which has been very healthy and very good -- and with
this committee is rather unique in the country. I don't think any other province benefits as well as we do from this interaction.

A lot of positive things have come out of the discussions of this committee. I'm sure that it will happen in the future. It's been a
privilege for me to serve, and I look forward to seeing you all in the future. I wish you the very best. Thank you.

                                                                                           [1535]

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): George, I'd like to add my respects, as well, as Deputy Chair of this committee. I would agree
with you that this is an extremely valuable committee of the House and, I think, one of the best ways for legislators to learn
about the workings of government -- in particular, those places where your office has shone a light to really examine some of
those areas of government. Sometimes government doesn't always appreciate the audits brought forward. They may be difficult
for government to deal with, but I think they're always important for government to deal with. I would hope that your legacy will
be the work that you have done with the deputy ministers' council and your work on Crown corporations governance. I think
you've provided some very clear direction, some parameters that government ought to always look at when developing
programs and initiatives. I look forward to seeing more reporting out on that. Thank you.

The committee adjourned at 3:37 p.m.