June 15, 2006

NOTICE TO THE GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

You are requested to attend a Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

A G E N D A

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 June 28, 2006 Regular Meeting Agenda Staff Recommendation: That the GVRD Board adopt the agenda for the GVRD Board regular meeting scheduled for June 28, 2006 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 May 24, 2006 Special Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the GVRD Board adopt the minutes for the GVRD Board special meeting held May 24, 2006 as circulated.

2.2 May 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the GVRD Board adopt the minutes for the GVRD Board regular meeting held May 26, 2006 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS No delegations presented.

4. PARKS REPORTS

4.1 Pacific Parklands Foundation – Funding and Support Parks Committee Recommendation: That the GVRD Board: a) receive this report as information on activities of the Pacific Parkland Foundation, and; b) request staff develop a proposed multi-year funding program of cash contribution and in-kind support for the Pacific Parklands Foundation as part of GVRD 2007 budget considerations, and that the proposed multi- year funding program be linked to the Pacific Parkland Foundations multi- year business plan.

5. AGRICULTURE REPORTS

5.1 Agriculture Land Protection Agriculture Committee Recommendation: WHEREAS the South Coast Panel will deal with a number of significant applications with regional implications; AND WHEREAS the Tsawwassen Treaty lands decision will be precedent setting for urban treaties; AND WHEREAS there will be newly appointed members of the South Coast Panel; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GVRD Board request the Minister of Agriculture to appoint a full panel of 7 members comprising 3 members of the South Coast Panel, 3 commissioners from other regions and the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission to deliberate proposals for exclusion.

5.2 BC Agriculture Plan Agriculture Committee Recommendation: That the GVRD Board request staff to prepare, in consultation with the GVRD Agricultural Advisory Committee, a submission to the BC Agricultural Plan Committee for consideration by the Board.

6. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION REPORTS No items presented.

7. ENVIRONMENT REPORTS

7.1 Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Environment Committee Recommendation: That the GVRD Board: 1. Thank the Vancouver Port Authority, Fraser River Port Authority, Chamber of Shipping of BC, North West CruiseShip Association, BC Ferries and Environment Canada for their participation in the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop and request their continued collaboration with the GVRD to: a. Establish cooperative agreements, including the identification of objectives and implementation plan, with the GVRD and other organizations to address air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations; b. Develop comprehensive port-wide emissions inventories and forecasts, consisting of marine vessels, cargo handling equipment, trucks and locomotives; c. Develop implementation mechanisms for existing and proven control technologies with the objective of accelerating emission reductions, with a particular priority on implementation of shore power; d. Conduct feasibility studies and demonstration projects for new and emerging technologies; e. Require any new port facilities to implement shore power systems; f. Pursue other sources of funding to facilitate or accelerate implementation of emission reduction measures and strategies for the marine and ports sector.

ii 2. Strongly urge the federal government to: a. Expedite the ratification of the existing international standards (i.e., MARPOL Annex VI) through amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, and the designation of the West Coast area as a Sulphur Emission Control Area; and b. Pursue more stringent fuel quality requirements and emission standards for both new and existing marine vessels as part of the International Maritime Organization review of MARPOL Annex VI. 3. Direct staff to organize a public forum involving marine and port organizations to report on implementation of the best practices towards reducing emissions and impacts from marine vessels and port operations. 4. Request staff to forward the report dated May 30, 2006, titled “Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program” and any resolution passed regarding the issue to the federal Ministers of Environment and Transportation, the provincial Minister of Environment, and other appropriate stakeholders.

8. FINANCE REPORTS

8.1 Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Finance Committee Recommendation: That the GVRD Board adopt the framework for a new Sustainable Procurement Policy for Commissioner/CAO implementation.

8.2 2005 Schedules of Financial Information Finance Committee Recommendation: That the GVRD Board approve the 2005 Schedules of Financial Information for Remuneration & Expenses and for Payments to Suppliers for Goods and Services.

9. HOUSING REPORTS No items presented.

10. ABORIGINAL RELATIONS REPORTS No items presented.

11. COMMITTEE OF GVRD MAYORS No items presented.

12. INFORMATION REPORTS

12.1 2003-2005 Sustainability Report Staff Recommendation: That the GVRD Board receive for information the 2003-05 Sustainability Report.

13. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented.

iii 14. OTHER BUSINESS

14.1 Correspondence

14.1.1 YMCA Camp Howdy Purchase

15. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING Staff Recommendation: That the regular meeting of the GVRD Board scheduled for June 28, 2006 be closed pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Sections 90 (1) (e) and 90 (2) (b) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district.” “90 (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.”

16. ADJOURNMENT

iv

Board Meeting Date: June 28, 2006

To: Board of Directors

From: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer

Date: June 16, 2006

Subject: 2003-05 Sustainability Report

Recommendation: That the GVRD Board receive for information the 2003-05 Sustainability Report.

1. PURPOSE

To provide the Board with the 2003-05 Sustainability Report.

2. CONTEXT

The Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) provides a framework for the GVRD’s operations. The 2003-05 Sustainability Report provides an overview of how well we have been doing with respect to our commitment to sustainability over the last three years.

This is our first three-year report, a departure from our previous two annual reports. The format change to more of a story-based approach is designed to improve communication about our sustainability practices and to stimulate dialogue about sustainability within the GVRD and the Greater Vancouver region.

Attachment: 2003-05 Sustainability Report (under separate cover)

GVRD sustainability report 2003-2005 building a sustainable region Table of contents

4 8 12 22

About this Sustainable Sustainability Recognizing report Region in Design the Energy Page 4 Initiative Page 12 Value of Solid Page 8 Waste Page 22

The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) is a federation of 21 municipalities and one electoral area that make up the metropolitan region of Greater Vancouver. 26 34 38 42 One other local municipality – the City of Abbotsford – is a member of the GVRD for our parks function only.

The GVRD’s responsibilities are:

Ecological A Regional Challenge of Investing Conservancy Greenway Affordable in Regional • Essential utility services for participating municipalities: potable water, sewage Network Housing Transportation collection and treatment, and solid waste disposal and recycling Page 26 Page 34 Page 38 Page 42 • Regional parks and greenways • Affordable rental housing • Labour relations services for participating municipalities • Regional growth management planning 46 54 58 60 • Air quality management and pollution control • To ensure linkage of land use and transportation planning through ratification of Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (GVTA) strategic plans including limits on financial components • Electoral area administration, Sasamat Volunteer Fire Department and management of the 9-1-1 emergency phone system. Working Learning and The Way Ahead COVital SignsNOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC Together for Exchanging Page Total58 2003 (tonnes) 101 Page 52060 109 5 5 0 Corporate Knowledge For more information about the GVRD, visit www.gvrd.bc.ca. Total 2004 (tonnes) 115 581 96 15 13 13 Sustainability Page 54 Page 46 Total 2005 (tonnes) 460 60 112 12 10 0

GVRD SR2003-05 / P. GVRD SR2003-05 / P. Photo by Monica Crowder, Clerk III

About this report letterletter from from the the chair chair

I take great pleasure in introducing the Greater Vancouver Regional District’s Sustainability Report for The purpose of this report ployees. These measures focus on key achievements 2003-2005. The report clearly reflects the firm commitment and action-oriented focus of the GVRD as it is to provide an overview are presented at the end of and challenges rather than seeks ways to ensure both the livability, and sustainability, of the region today, and for generations to come. of our performance with the report (see Vital Signs). providing an overview of all We are blessed to live in one of the world’s great places – a place of stunning natural beauty, broad econom- respect to sustainability of our functional responsi- ic opportunity, and a diverse, vibrant social fabric. With that blessing comes the responsibility to under- practices and to stimulate Additional quantitative bilities. We hope this new stand, protect, and where possible enhance the values that are the root of our privileged quality of life. dialogue about sustainabil- data are available on the structure provides a clear GVRD website, including ity within the organization picture of what and how we To accomplish that, we as a Board of Directors have agreed, by way of the Sustainable Region Initiative, to our financial statements and the region. are doing at the GVRD. weave principles of sustainability into everything the GVRD does. This report demonstrates, through stories and related financial in- as well as statistics, our successes in that regard, as well as those areas where more work is required. The GVRD is committed to formation (see www.gvrd. We welcome and encour- sustainability. Over the last bc.ca/about) and an annual age comments on our Sustainability means many things to many people, and throughout the report you will find remarkable three years, we have been update and index of the performance. Building stories of how sustainable practices have become an integral part of GVRD planning and operations. From incorporating sustainability performance measures and maintaining a vibrant, realigning the footprint of our $600 million water filtration project in the Lower Seymour Conservation practices into our activities. derived from the Global healthy and sustainable Reserve so that important ecological features were preserved, to implementing energy efficiency programs In this report we describe Reporting Initiative (GRI) region is a collaborative at wastewater treatment plants that result in significant cost savings, the GVRD really is ‘Turning Ideas into some representative cases, sustainability performance process. To provide feed- Action’. including capital projects, protocol for public sector back or for more informa- waste management, land organizations (see www. tion regarding GVRD’s On a personal level, sustainability becomes even more real for me on my monthly excursions to the Delta- acquisition and usage, gre- gvrd.bc.ca/sustainability). sustainability practices Surrey Greenway. Integrated greenways take advantage of existing utility corridors to provide additional enways, housing, transpor- please contact us at the opportunities for recreation, habitat protection, and alternative travel, but more importantly, allow me to tation, corporate practices The three-year trend data address below: enjoy even more of what makes our region so livable. They are the product of innovative thinking and broad and learning and exchang- contained in this report, community partnership. ing knowledge. combined with the annual updates and annual GRI It is my hope that the GVRD’s commitment to sustainability shines through as you digest the information, We also provide a per- data which will be forth- GVRD, Attention L. King and personal stories, that make up this report. I am proud that, thanks to the collaborative efforts of the formance summary and coming on our website, 4330 Kingsway GVRD, its member municipalities and community partners we have made significant progress in our jour- trend data from 2003-05 provide a more com- Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8 ney towards a sustainable region. compared with previous prehensive quantitative E-mail: [email protected] And while challenges remain, I am convinced we are on the right road. Once you have reviewed the report, I years for 33 regional and overview of sustainability in am sure you will think so too. corporate performance Greater Vancouver and at Telephone: 604-432-6200 measures covering Water, the GVRD itself. Fax: 604-451-6614 Liquid Waste, Solid Waste, Lois E. Jackson Air, Energy, Land, Trans- This is our first three-year Chair, GVRD Board of Directors portation, Housing, Densi- report. It is a departure ty, Economic Performance, from our previous two Public Education, Health annual reports. We have and Safety, and our Em- changed the format to

GVRD SR2003-05 / P. GVRD SR2003-05 / P. letter from the letter from the chair commissioner/cao

Welcome to our 2003-2005 Sustainability Report. The lesson from all this is an old one: “No matter how heavy the blossom, if the roots be shallow the plant is vulnerable.” In political terms, in 2003 the SRI was shallow rooted and for the initiative itself to be sustain- able, this had to be addressed. For those familiar with our earlier reports, you will notice right away the change in timeframe. Our earlier reports were based on annual assessments. This report provides a three-year perspective, the timeframe Refocusing on core responsibilities, producing lauded new plans for drinking water, air quality manage- for the mandate of local government elections, and therefore the GVRD Board. ment and regional parks and greenways – all reflecting the new sustainability approach – as well as con- tinuing a parade of award-winning sustainability inspired projects, politically re-grounded the Initiative. At There is also a second major change to this report format. In this first triennial retrospective, we decided the same time, emphasizing our ‘facilitator and supporter’ role in such external endeavours as the creation to emphasize the broader assessments and the stories, and relegate the detailed quantitative information of the Greater Vancouver Economic Council began to validate the broader conception of our role in creating to the ‘vital signs’ appendix and even more detailed assessments to our developing website-based set of a sustainable region. This slow but steady process received a spark from the United Nations decision to lo- indicators. Our aim is for something more readable and impressionistic, leaving the appetite for detailed cate the third World Urban Forum in Vancouver in 2006, reinforced somewhat by the winning bid for the 2010 accounts to be satisfied in these other sources. Winter Olympics by Vancouver and Whistler based on a sustainability theme. The ‘sustainability community’ The compilers of these stories have tried to achieve a reasonable balance between our success stories and in Greater Vancouver was mobilized by these themes and a highly successful breakfast series was launched stories of attempts that did not always hit the bull’s eye. As I read them over, I share our Chair’s sense of our to help build that network. The GVRD, and its SRI, was seen as a major player and increasingly as a leader in commitment to sustainability shining through. But in all candour, from where I sit, I have to say we may have this process. captured the commitment more vividly than we have captured the struggle that underlies it. By the close of 2005, after three years of hard work, we could see a growing alignment of the GVRD commu- At the beginning of the period, staff were encouraged to see the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) as an nity, the elected officials of the GVRD and the GVRD staff. The approach of the new GVRD Board, which took evolution of past GVRD philosophies and practices, and challenged to bring forward ideas to make us an office at the end of 2005, reinforces that conclusion and allows us all to share Chair Jackson’s conviction even more sustainable organization. Staff responded well to this challenge and a number of projects yielded that “we are on the right road.” awards and recognition from local and international organizations. However, the sheer volume slowed us It would be unforgivable hubris to suggest we have reached our destination, or even that we are very far down, and by the close of the period it became evident that we had neither adequately responded to staff’s down that right road. While the weather forecast is brighter, there are still patches of fog and the prospect of sustainability ideas nor developed a full understanding of sustainability thinking throughout the organiza- likely squalls to be dealt with. But from 2003 to 2005 the SRI was challenged in the way ideas and initiatives tion. are challenged in a healthy democracy, and it has emerged into 2006 stronger and deeper rooted for the The newly elected Board of 2003 also raised questions about the existing initiatives. The ‘comprehensive’ experience. nature of a three-legged sustainability stool approach raised concerns that adopting such an approach As we enter the next triennial, 2006-2008, I am happy to report that we do so with ambition, energy and op- might lead to the expansion of the GVRD’s role, and thereby either invite downloaded responsibilities it could timism. The challenges and the distance to be traveled are formidable. But with the help of our community not afford to accept, or intrude on the autonomy of member municipalities. These political doubts put a and municipal partners, a livable and sustainable future for the GVRD is ours to achieve. brake on work conducted by 11 external task forces and proposals to establish a broader citizens assembly. Matters were further compounded by the confusion over the relationship of the SRI to the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP). The latter is the region’s official growth management strategy, dealing almost en- Johnny Carline tirely with land use and transportation. But, perhaps because of its somewhat ambitious title, it was widely Commissioner/CAO, GVRD assumed to be the comprehensive strategic plan for the future of the region. As controversial transportation plans came to dominate the political agenda, interest in the renewal of the LRSP increased, and there was not a clear or commonly held view of the role of sustainability thinking in general – and the SRI in particular – in relation to these political priorities.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P. GVRD SR2003-05 / P. Sustainable

region initiative regional and business plans redefining business casing to principles into daily work. Staff The Sustainable Region Initiative is the overarching framework and policies in that same light incorporate sustainability, and submitted more than 500 ideas • Reach out and build a network reporting on our progress: for increasing sustainability in 62 for all The GVRD’s activities. brainstorming workshops involv- of partners and grow a similar 1. Speaker Series: Designed to region-wide commitment that ing more than 750 people. While inform and engage staff in sus- sound in design, the Sustain- will result in a truly sustainable tainability issues as told from the Informed by Minister Gro Harlem Conceptualizing and implement- Since 2002 the SRI began to ability Challenge experienced sig- region. perspective of people outside the Brundtland of Norway’s landmark ing the SRI is a dynamic process provide a common point-of-refer- nificant delays in execution, and Corporate organization, and to celebrate the definition of sustainable develop- that involves many stakeholders, ence. we are still addressing each of successes of GVRD initiatives. ment: Development that meets including our Board and mem- Implementing the SRI in the the ideas. One idea implemented “Turning ideas into action” GVRD began at the corporate the needs of the present without ber municipalities, business and 2. Sustainability Challenge: De- resulted in saving more than evolved as a tag line to represent level and involved engaging staff, compromising the ability of future community groups, and GVRD signed to encourage staff to find $60,000 per year and reducing the ‘here and now’ message. For adjusting our business practices, generations to meet their own staff. These groups tend to view ways to integrate sustainability vehicle emissions by disposing needs, the SRI focused atten- sustainability through their own the GVRD, the SRI includes three tion on how we can contribute to unique perspectives – this means commitments: the widespread and long-term that parts of the SRI that resonate • Re-examine and adapt our “ We often think of the future very abstractly and fail to ask the question, “How are we going to economic prosperity, social well- with one group do not necessarily corporate practices in the light live today in light of what we want the future to be?” The SRI is an umbrella for all the differ- being and ecological health and resonate with the others. of sustainability principles ent plans and issues that need to be examined in order to have a region that is going to be truly integrity of Greater Vancouver. sustainable for future generations.” • Review and co-ordinate all our “ Marvin Hunt, Surrey Councillor, GVRD Board Chair 2003-2005 GVRD SR2003-05 / P. GVRD SR2003-05 / P. SRI Framework Adopting the SRI framework social and community organiza- (BCGEU), Business Council of BROAD VISION FOR A SUSTAINABLE, LIVABLE REGION focused greater attention on the tions, and the public. While some British Columbia, Fraser links between different plans and actions will be our responsibility, Basin Council, Greater Vancouver systems and on the need for a achieving regional sustainability Gateway Council, Sustainable clear path from broad principles requires a collective effort. We Communities Initiative, Smart Sustainability Lens • Balance consideration of present and future generations to specific actions. see our role as a catalyst and Growth BC, Surrey Chamber of • Care for economic prosperity, community well-being, and facilitator for collaborative efforts Commerce, Greater Vancouver RI to the Region ecological integrity Expanding S at the regional level. Transportation Authority, United • Identify and protect assets and resources – Mitigate risks Responsibility for shaping a Way of the Lower Mainland, – Ensure stability and renewal sustainable future for Greater From 2002-2005, regional SRI Vancouver General Hospital, UBC – Improve and enrich through innovation and co-operation Vancouver is widely spread partners included BC Hydro, the Hospital Foundation and among governments, business, BC Government Employees Union Vancouver Labour Council.

Management Plans External “To the Fraser Basin Council, collaborative leadership is all about people working together Drinking Water, Liquid Waste, Indirect A Sustainable Organization Transportation, Economy, Social, towards common goals. We see the Sustainable Region Initiative cultivating this leadership by Solid Waste, Housing, Parks and Influence Business Plans, Emergency Preparedness, Security, Greenways, Air Quality, Growth fostering dialogue among all who care about the region’s future - through the partners group Management Systems Agriculture, Culture... Management, Biodiversity, Biosolids and through regional outreach. The Fraser Basin Council is pleased to be a founding mem- SRI, Partners Committee, ber of the SRI partnership, and looks forward by way of its continued participation to further Dialogues, Consultation, advancing sustainability in the region.” Intergovernmental linkages, International Outreach “ David Marshall, Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council

Indirect Actions Influence Policies, Programs, Projects, Processes

Cyclist on Bridge Performance Measures, Reports and adaptive management roughly 160 tonnes per year of signed to raise awareness of and/or revised three long-term non-recyclable residuals from the sustainability issues, to support management plans: Drinking Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment accountability and informed deci- Water, Air Quality, and Regional plant locally, rather than trucking sion-making, and to encourage Parks and Greenways (see www. them to the United States. people to find ways to improve the gvrd.bc.ca/managementplans). GVRD’s performance. To date we A consultation program was 3. Sustainability Business Cas- have produced two reports cover- structured to encourage resi- ing: Designed to help analyze and ing our performance in 2002 and dents, interest groups, business prioritize capital projects in long- Source: GVRD 2003. representatives, and mayors and citiesPLUS Wins Grand Prix range planning and help analyze councillors to participate. Activi- project options during design, Our initial focus on corporate ties common to all three plans In 2003, GVRD and its Cities Planning for Long- from 30 cities across implementing authority based on consistent and trans- projects made it easier to align included: a Council of Councils regional and national part- term Urban Sustainability Canada. parent economic, environmental our plans with sustainability prin- meeting where participants were • The plan proposes to ners won the International – or, citiesPLUS – focused create a world-wide and social metrics. The capital ciples and to begin expanding the asked to provide key issues of in- In awarding its top prize, project development process was SRI to the broader community. Gas Union sustainability on the GVRD and its 21 legacy network of cities terest to their local communities competition. municipalities and one the jury noted two key fac- interested in learning refined to ensure that sustain- tors in the plan’s favour: Management Plans relative to the plans; requests for electoral area working to- how to apply sustainabil- ability principles are considered feedback from local and regional Nine international teams gether to plan sustainable ity principles to urban throughout a project’s life cycle, We have been revising all GVRD each submitted a staged • Plan results were government agencies and Lower urban systems. developed with, and will system design. management plans and busi- 100-year plan for a and three tools for sustainability be applied by, an actual ness unit plans as they come Mainland First Nations; and nine major metropolitan area. This initiative involved 500 business casing were developed public meetings. local government juris- to facilitate the new process. up for renewal, adapting them Canada’s submission, experts and participants diction with planning and to the SRI model. Over the last 4. Sustainability Report: De- three years, we have developed

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.10 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.11 Sustainability Tree Frog Photo by Dave Samis, Operations Supervisor in Design Over the last three years, we • Recycling or reusing excavated • Using natural lighting and ven- The SRI has provided staff with a management framework that have been incorporating sustain- soils and construction debris; tilation design features ability principles into the design for example, over 95 per cent • Consulting with the public ensures we more clearly focus on the application of sustainability and construction of new GVRD of the Surrey Transfer Station’s regarding how to best mitigate principles and consistently integrate economic, environmental capital projects, including the construction debris was di- the impact on surrounding Little Mountain Reservoir, Sur- verted from disposal areas during construction and social considerations into our projects. rey Transfer Station, Cloverdale • Reducing water use through • Conducting environmental and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Storage efficient landscaping (natural Facility, and the Seymour Cap- noise monitoring and mitigat- and wetland grasses pro- ing impacts for affected parties ilano Filtration Project. These vide landscaping and reduce projects are part of ongoing during and after construction, surface runoff) and low-flow holding plant salvage events, improvements to provide drink- fixtures ing water, collect and dispose of protecting existing trees and wastewater and manage solid • Using environmentally friendly replanting and replacing trees. waste. They specifically address construction products, such as We continue to change the way regional issues such as growth, EcoSmart™ concrete, which we, and many others, look at reliability and quality. incorporates fly ash, reducing capital projects and the way these Cloverdale Seymour- the amount of cement needed projects ultimately will look. Little Mountain Surrey Transfer sanitary sewage Capilano Common design elements within to produce the concrete, reservoir Station overflow Filtration Plant Storage facility these capital projects include: thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.12 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.13 Little Mountain Reservoir Viewing Platform at Imagine an aging, partially buried concrete structure, Little Mountain equivalent to four football fields in size, filled with Little Mountain water, that needs to be completely demolished, removed reservoir Photo by A. Sukumar, Senior Structural Engineer and then rebuilt – in the middle of one of Vancouver’s most popular and environmentally sensitive urban parks. Dr. A. P. Sukumar, Senior Structural Engineer, on the Little Mountain Reservoir Reconstruction Little Mountain Reservoir located One of the first major capital proj- addition to those noted on page 13 in Queen Elizabeth Park is the ects undertaken under the SRI, that were incorporated include: minology a bit from social, tracted more than 500 a team member. It’s when environment, economic people. We pitched a big the common goal is in largest of 22 water reservoirs in the new reservoir contains 25 per to people, surroundings, tent on top of the roof. We everyone’s mind. the GVRD system. Due to signifi- cent more water than its prede- • Developing a state-of-the-art earthquake-resistant design resources. It made it more held five open houses. T he cant structural and seismic de- cessor while being built on the palatable to people work- fifth open house had no Our common vision and ficiencies, as well as operational same facility footprint. It has an • Optimizing water storage ing with it. Then we asked more than 15 people. The mission statement started limitations, a decision was made expected service life of 100 years capacity and cost without en- the question: what are the consultation process with with a partnering work- croaching on park areas things that are going to be the local residents had led shop. We developed a to demolish the old reservoir and and is designed to survive not only affecting people, either by to a point where they just project charter and then build a modern replacement on the maximum credible earth- • Implementing a partnering doing, or by not doing the were not concerned any- measured performance the same site. The $38-million quake for the site, but remain strategy with all the stakehold- project? more. And no complaints against these goals on a project was completed in Decem- functional after the event. were received during the monthly basis. ers to complete the project This was never a traditional ber 2003. We had an elaborate public project, which is a remark- Sustainability elements in within a tight schedule project, being that the consultation – way beyond able achievement. whole reservoir was well the normal – because we Photo by A. Sukumar, Senior Structural Engineer hidden in the middle of a expected a lot of resistance We used state-of-the-art great park in the middle of from the public. At one construction, which got us the city. So, you’re going of the open houses, one noticed in technical circles, to a prestigious place and participant said – “I don’t plus we installed things like demolishing a reservoir, want this project here, right sound barriers and a view- removing about 7,600 truck in the middle of my park.” ing platform for the public. loads of demolished con- But the consensus was an The viewing platform, made Charter crete, causing sound pol- understanding about its from recycled material lution, road closures, and necessity. The supporting from the top of the old res- When we had a dip in the so on. It was a very good structure for the existing ervoir, was very popular. graph we figured out why learning experience from reservoir was very weak. and brought it back. The Little Mountain beginning to end – and very Reservoir We couldn’t guarantee the We finishedthe project on key was monitoring. It was exciting. safety of people who lived time and on budget. This not just a charter that got adjacent to the reservoir. was achieved through the filed away. We managed to There were no clear guide- So we said “We are going to diligence of GVRD, con- it. It shows that partnering, lines available at that time disturb you for a while, but tractors and consultants when properly done, can on how to apply the SRI to for a good cause.” working as a team on a have great results. projects. When we looked partnering basis. Partner- at it, we changed the ter- The first open house at- ing is more than just being

• Arranging alternative facilities for lar park visitors and tourists alike Engineers of BC Award of Excellence the 500-plus daily tai chi practi- The Little Mountain Reservoir was in 2004. The project has received tioners who had been using the one of four GVRD projects to win the extensive coverage internationally reservoir rooftop to continue their first annual Sustainability Award be- amongst the engineering commu- daily exercise during construction stowed by the Association of Profes- nity through technical papers and • Providing a wheelchair-accessible sional Engineers and Geoscientists invited talks. construction viewing platform of British Columbia. The project which was well used by the regu- was also awarded the Consulting

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.14 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.15 Surrey Transfer Station Cloverdale sanitary sewer On April 28, 2004, the GVRD opened the Surrey overflow storage facility Transfer Station, which was subsequently To manage sanitary sewer overflows in Cloverdale, identified as the first Leadership in Energy Cloverdale we designed a unique storage system that will Surrey Transfer TM sanitary sewage Station and Environmental Design (LEED ) certified overflow reduce and eliminate wet weather sanitary sewer transfer station in North America. Storage facility overflows caused by major storm events.

The STS received the Silver pleted on schedule. from the design stage. The Sur- LEED™ certification in 2005, rey Transfer Station Monitoring The Cloverdale area of the City • Using gravity for most of the Since the start of construction Constructed on a successfully demonstrating that sustainable Committee (STSMC), composed of Surrey experiences sanitary operation of the facility, which in summer 2003, work progress remediated brownfield site in an features could be effectively of stakeholders in the Port Kells sewer overflows caused by ex- saves pumping energy has been slow and behind sched- industrial area, quantified high- incorporated into an industrial area, helped to identify, analyze, cessive inflow and infiltration of ule. Due to the performance of lights of the sustainability ben- • Devising an innovative vacuum facility at a very small additional and address construction and stormwater into sanitary sew- the contractor, we terminated efits of the construction include: flushing system that will use cost of approximately $130,000 on operational impacts on the neigh- ers during major storm events. a small amount of retained the contractor’s right to perform a $9-million budget. • 40 per cent occupant water use bourhood. They also provided When this combined wastewater wastewater to avoid pumping work under the contract, and are feedback on building and site de- and stormwater flow exceed now using our own construction The new benchmark for the reduction (compared with the in fresh water for tank cleaning sign aesthetics, ongoing commu- the sewer capacity, it overflows crews to complete the project. We rapidly growing field of green US EPA Standard and over 60 and flushing nication with the community, and the sewer system into overland expect to complete the new construction, the LEED™ Rat- per cent when compared to the support for the GVRD’s efforts to ditches and agricultural lands. • Having automated controls facility by fall 2006. ing System is a set of standards BC Plumbing Code or standard obtain LEED certification for the Such events, although infrequent, (linked to the GVRD’s Opera- developed by the United States practice) building. are undesirable. tions Centre in Burnaby) moni- In 2003, the facility’s design Green Building Council. It is used • 40 per cent reused/recycled tor and control the process, received the Association of Pro- to evaluate building performance materials used For example, to control odours When complete, the $6-million reducing the need for opera- fessional Engineers and in six categories: sustainable site • 26 per cent increase in energy that could have a negative impact new system will automatically tors to travel to the site Geoscientists of BC’s Sustainabil- choice, water efficiency, energy efficiency over American So- on the surrounding neighbour- divert overflows to a 6,700- With consideration of potential ity Award. and atmosphere, materials and ciety of Heating, Refrigerating hood, the STS was fully enclosed cubic-metre concrete storage social benefits now part of the resources, indoor environmental and Air-Conditioning Engi- with a concrete pit for unloading tank, store the overflow until design process, the project team, quality and innovation and design neers (ASHRAE) 90.1 Standard and storage with a built-in odour- the storm has passed, and then in consultation with the City of processes. The levels of certifica- neutralizing spray system. We return the stored flow to the • 80 per cent of materials manu- Surrey and the Agricultural Land tion are silver, gold and platinum. continue to work with the facility’s wastewater conveyance system. factured locally within 160 Commission, made allowance for The 5,600-square-metre facility is neighbours through the STSMC to kilometres, further reducing a road dedication so that farmers one of seven transfer stations in improve odour control by Other sustainability innovations emissions from transportation incorporated into the new facility can get their equipment to and the regional system. The station expanding the spray system and from their fields. receives solid waste from Surrey • 96 per cent of the construction adjusting operations practices include: and neighbouring municipalities debris diverted from disposal and procedures. for reloading into transport trail- • Diversion of storm water ers for hauling to disposal at the through a bioswale to reduce Source: GVRD Cache Creek Landfill. As part of the discharge of suspended an evenly distributed network of solids transfer stations, the facility’s lo- To encourage the use of green cation is convenient for residents transportation methods, bicycle and haulers to drop off residential storage and change rooms are Cloverdale SSO Facility and commercial wastes and re- provided for staff, public transit is cyclables, reducing fossil fuel use nearby and the facility has an on- and exhaust emissions. site charging station for electric It took longer than expected to vehicles. select the appropriate site for Impacts of the facility on work- the transfer station, resulting in ers, users and the surrounding a significant delay. Once started, community were also addressed however, the facility was com-

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.16 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.17 Photoby Paul Wilting, Senior Project Engineer (Civil) seymour-capilano

New Westminster filtration plant CSO Facility The Seymour and Capilano Watersheds supply

up to 70 per cent of our drinking water. Seymour- Capilano Construction of new water supply and treatment Filtration Plant facilities for these water sources is underway.

Water will be conveyed between of chlorine needed to ensure to reduce the need to drive con- Capilano and Seymour through water quality. The filtration plant crete and gravel trucks through twin tunnels located in bedrock will occupy approximately eight adjacent communities 160 to 640 metres below the hectares and filter up to 1.8 billion • Protecting wildlife habitat and surface. We have received com- litres of water per day – enough stands of large trees, such as Combined Sewer Overflow Storage Project at Poplar Landing mitments from the federal and to fill Madison Square Gardens Douglas-fir and Sitka Spruce provincial governments of $118 three times. Clearwells for water million towards this $600-million storage adjacent to the filtration • Protecting sensitive habitat by When rainstorms hit, the the project will result in system at GVRD’s Lake City • using EcoSmart™ con- avoiding work during bird nest- combined sewers (sanitary an immediate 30 per cent Operations Centre that the crete project, which is expected to be plant will store the treated water completed in 2008. for distribution at peak times. ing seasons whenever possible and storm) in parts of New reduction in combined plant now has capacity to • using recycled material Westminster, Burnaby and overflows to the Fraser process the wastewater • Salvaging tree stump root wads (including wood) from Filtration improves drinking We used many sustainable design Vancouver often do not River, a key objective of stored in the tank. The the dismantled City of for habitat enhancement have the capacity to carry the GVRD’s Liquid Waste tank’s contents will then be water quality by actively remov- and construction approaches, Vancouver works yard in • Implementing new software all the flow to the treat- Management Plan. pumped back into the pipe control building con- ing micro-organisms, organics, including: and systems to optimize op- ment plants. As a result, “This is an exemplary proj- system and treated at the struction silts and clays caused by heavy combined sewer overflows plant. • On-site concrete batch plants erations and provide “just-in- ect in that it is protecting • using beams and clad- rainfall, and reduces the amount (CSO) occur to receiving the environment, utilizing Built on an unused brown- and gravel resource extraction time” water delivery waterways. ding salvaged from a sustainable design and field site in New Westmin- sawmill The new $14-million construction principles and ster, the project demon- combined sewer overflow is a partnership between strates sustainable design • including a green roof Photo by Amanda Felker, Co-op Student storage project in New three levels of government. and construction by: and washrooms for future park users in the Westminster will help to As a bonus, most of the fu- Clearwell at the • reducing combined control building. reduce the CSO problem ture park users will not be sewer overflows to the Seymour-Capilano while the long-term solu- aware that there is a stor- Fraser River while maxi- This represented a unique Filtration Plant tion of CSO elimination by age tank buried beneath mizing conveyance and opportunity for partner- rebuilding older combined their feet.” treatment facilities ship between the GVRD and sewer systems with sepa- Paul Wilting, Senior Engi- City of New Westminster. rated sewers continues. neer, GVRD • providing a site develop- Access to the Canada/BC ment plan that includes Infrastructure Program Given the cost of building There are three com- housing built to green storage facilities to handle ponents of the project: was crucial to the proj- standards – the housing ect, and the partnership overflows, the traditional the West Branch/Poplar will be opened to the de- approach has been to Landing sewer reconstruc- provided the necessary velopment market by the leverage to access these invest scarce resources in tion, the CSO tank and the City of New Westminster a long-term solution. At control building. Construc- funds. In a shared funding after the tank construc- arrangement, the federal, the same time that other tion of the 20,000-cubic- tion is finished municipalities with com- metre storage tank began provincial, and munici- bined sewers (Vancouver in January 2005, and when • providing additional pal governments each and Burnaby) were com- complete will be able to parkland open space provided one-third of the mitting strictly to sewer store some of the excess with access to water- project’s final costs. separation, Pat Connelly, combined flows temporar- front and connection to then head of engineering ily during heavy rainfalls. greenways for New Westminster, was When the storm has sub- • integrating public art convinced the investment sided, monitoring equip- with urban infrastructure in sewer overflow storage ment at the Annacis Island was justified. Wastewater Treatment • developing on-site Plant will alert a control stormwater best man- When in operation, in 2006, agement practices

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.18 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.19 Photo by Dave Samis, Operations Supervisor

Construction on Twin Tunnel

Frog at Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. Courtesy of Inspector Hal Langpap, Hatch Mott MacDonald

• Enhancing terrestrial habitat the ground under the treated The Operations and Maintenance frogs on the mountain by using green roof technology water storage area. This geo- Centre building is being built us- designs exchange system will save 0.5 ing LEED™ standards, targeting The GVRD worked with the site could be left intact. The two large stormwater is a key part of our land • Selecting low-energy ultra- gigawatt hours of electricity gold certification on completion. local stewardship groups Unfortunately, tree clear- ponds are already devel- stewardship approach to per year and reduce green- to save a pond at the site ing was already underway oping into rich habitat for involve residents and com- violet light disinfection for of the Seymour Capilano in that area. Trees had been frogs, salamanders and munities in supporting the primary disinfection at the house gas emissions by about Filtration Plant, habitat removed up to the southern birds. Habitat protection goals and objectives of the plant - this will be the largest 325 tonnes per year. It is also to a number of native frog edge of the pond leaving it and creation are key ingre- Lower Seymour Conserva- UV light installation for water cost-effective, with a payback and salamander species. exposed to the sun. dients in our sustainability tion Reserve Management treatment in the world of 12 years when compared The pond was originally Community volunteers, efforts at this and other Plan. Local school groups, with electrical heat and only developed by a farmer in staff and the project project sites. North Vancouver Brown- • Building 42 kilometres of the early 1900s to serve ies, Scouts, and Capilano five years when compared with arborist transplanted This event and other heating and cooling coils in a natural gas heating system. his small homestead in the ferns, and cedar and activities such as the plant College students are also area. Douglas-fir trees along the salvage event involve and involved. Approximately A last-minute change in exposed bank to provide engage the community in 1,300 volunteers have the design of the project shade, shelter and habitat the filtration project. The helped enhance the habitat meant that a small pond for the pond ecosystem. Watershed Keepers, a of the amphibian pond and in the northwest corner of volunteer-based group, surrounding area.

Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant

“The GVRD has acted in an exemplary manner by providing a thorough public consultation process throughout the Seymour Capilano Filtration Project. Our community has taken great interest in this project, which is developing into one that we can all feel good about.” “ Janice Harris, North Vancouver District Councillor

Courtesy of Contractor, SNC - Lavalin GVRD SR2003-05 / P.20 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.21 Recognizing the energy value of “Electrical Substation at the GVRD Waste-to-Energy Facility” Photo by Ron Richter, Plant Manager, Montenay Inc. solid waste The GVRD provides solid waste While new strategies in recycling tonnes of steam, a portion of Improved waste-to-energy processes have changed the way people disposal services using an inte- are being developed to decrease which supplies the total energy grated solid waste management waste going to landfills, we have needs of a nearby paper recycling look at incineration. system consisting of a series of also been looking for innovative facility, and also generates a total transfer stations, two landfills and sustainable ways to deal with of 120,000 MWh of electricity and a waste-to-energy facility. In solid waste. every year at a rate of 15 MW. 2005, GVRD disposed of almost 1.2 million tonnes of solid waste The GVRD Waste-to-Energy Facil- As energy costs hit new highs, generated in the region. ity (WTEF) in Burnaby operates the idea of extracting energy from at capacity with a throughput of waste becomes even more Continuing efforts to increase approximately 280,000 tonnes valuable. the percentage of waste that is per annum, or more than 20 per recycled or reused result in the cent of the waste disposed in the diversion from disposal of about regional solid waste management one-half of all waste generated. system. This produces 880,000

GVRD Waste-to- Energy Facility

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.22 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.23 awards for the facility: lence Award from BC Hydro reduce common air contami- for outstanding achievement, nants. Pollutants are minimized Waste-to-Energy Facility 1. The 2003 Sustainable Com- Originally commissioned in 1988 to dispose of leadership and innovation in by strict control over combustion munity Award in the renew- electrical energy efficiency conditions, including tempera- solid waste through incineration, the people able energy category from the in B.C. ture and air flow. Federation of Canadian Munici- behind the facility realized they could use the palities. This award recognizes 4. The 2004 Facility Recognition GVRD Waste-To- energy released in the burning process to and promotes municipal leader- Award in the large combus- Energy Facility ship in championing sustainable tion facility category from the produce steam for sale to a neighbouring mill. community development and American Society of Mechan- best environmental practices. ical Engineers. This award recognizes achievements in 2. The 2004 Applied Energy solid waste processing for In 2003, an addition to the system 3. Reduce emissions to the air designed into the existing foot- Innovation Award from the allowed it to generate electric- shed by supplying energy that print of the facility. both combustion and mate- Canadian Institute of Energy rial recovery. ity from the steam and extract might otherwise have been cre- for the installation of the tur- even more value from the facility. ated by burning fossil fuels The turbogenerator that was developed allowed steam energy bogenerator at the WTEF. The WTEF has state-of-the-art This electricity is produced using emission control equipment to a turbogenerator. This project The initial stages of the SEE-Gen to be used regardless of steam 3. The 2004 Power Smart Excel- was named SEE-Gen, an acro- Project considered sustainability volumes required by the paper nym for the Social, Economic and in all aspects of construction and recycling mill. It also secured a Environmental Generation of operations, such as maintaining larger firm base of electricity for Electricity. zero liquid discharge status and sale to the BC Hydro grid. The recycling all waste steel. To opti- turbogenerator runs well and The generator project had three mize financial and environmental provides the GVRD with $6 million goals: benefits, work included an up- a year in revenue. Cache Creek grade of the combustion control 1. Create 15 megawatts (MW) system and boiler modifications. In 2003, the turbogenerator was of electricity, enough to power This allowed for increased heat one of four GVRD projects to earn 15,000 homes with little to no recovery and steam quality re- the Association of Professional impact on the environment quired to generate power. Design Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia’s inaugural 2. Create a revenue source to and construction considerations ensured no impact on the steam Sustainability Award. In 2004, help keep down the public cost of the GVRD along with Montenay waste disposal supply to the adjacent paper recycling mill, and the project was Inc., the plant operator, won four

Courtesy of Lex Engineering Ltd.

Photo by Jonn Braman, Project Manager Cache Creek Landfill Replacement

WTEF during Knowing that the Cache tion for an environmental Resource Management, a process to evaluate Turbogenerator Creek Landfill will reach assessment certificate the Hon. George Abbott, disposal options. Our chal- Construction - 2003 capacity and close by 2008, for the Ashcroft Landfill informed the GVRD of his lenge will be to determine the GVRD made a decision Project was accepted by decision to suspend the as- the best option to replace to purchase property in the provincial Environ- sessment pending a formal the Cache Creek Landfill, Ashcroft, B.C. where a new mental Assessment Office review of alternatives to the and either have it designed, solid waste landfill could on August 6, 2004. Prior project. This decision was constructed and operat- be sited alongside a work- to filing the application, based on the province’s ing, or have an appropriate ing cattle ranch. we consulted with the evolving understanding of interim solution in place, The province provided neighbouring communi- First Nations rights and before the facility closes. constant advice and over- ties of Ashcroft and Cache titles issues. sight to the assessment Creek and four nearby First Since the decision, we of the proposal and after a Nations bands. have been working with comprehensive study was On June 7, 2005, the the province and other completed, an applica- Minister of Sustainable stakeholders to develop

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.24 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.25 ecological Codd Wetlands Photo by Lori McGrath, Internal Communications Co-ordinator

Conservancy The purchase of Burns Bog and ecosystems and rehabilitating returning salmon to Stoney Creek Over the last three years, the GVRD participated in the Codd Wetlands reflects a shift habitat that was degraded by past and improving fish populations on from acquiring land primarily development. the Bonaparte River. purchase of two of the Lower Mainland’s most ecologically for recreational access to also sensitive sites – Burns Bog and Codd Wetlands. acquiring land for the protec- We also took on some habitat tion of valuable and sensitive restoration projects, including

Burns Bog & Fish return to Bonaparte river Codd Wetlands Stoney creek

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.26 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.27 Burns Bog & Codd Wetlands Photo by Sheila Gardner, Media Relations Officer (Former) Recognizing that many organizations within the community were also dedicated to preserving biodiversity in the region, in 2004 the GVRD Burns Bog & Codd Wetlands entered a partnership approach to securing and managing ecologically significant sites.

The $73-million purchase of supported by the community and Both sites will be managed as more than 20 square kilometres local stewardship organizations. “Ecological Conservancy Areas,” of Burns Bog was made possible a new type of protected area des- through a partnership including Both sites are extremely ignation within GVRD to maintain the federal and provincial govern- important acquisitions because and protect the ecological in- ments, the Corporation of Delta of their size, uniqueness, and tegrity and biodiversity values of and the GVRD. Codd Wetlands high biodiversity values. Burns the lands. They will also be used was secured with $4.5 million of Bog is the largest raised domed as ecological benchmarks for B.C. Pitt Meadows Mayor Don McLean and Premier Gordon Campbell funding from Ducks Unlimited, bog left in Western Canada and environmental research and for the District of Pitt Meadows, the home to some provincial- and na- monitoring climate change. Land Conservancy of B.C., the tional-listed species at risk. Codd Mayor Don MacLean, District of Pitt Meadows, GVRD and the province, plus a Wetlands is the largest intertidal donation from the landowners. wetland complex in the Pitt River On the partnership approach and why this acquisition Watershed. These purchases were strongly was important for Pitt Meadows

Codd Wetlands was identi- We were still going to be committed, but at the end cost versus $4.5 million “fied initially as an impor- short of funding, so we of the day, it worked. for the Codd Wetlands, and Photo by Lisa Pelles, Park Assistant tant piece of land to pre- contacted the owners, the People sometimes see I assumed the province serve by the Department Aquilini Investment Group Codd Wetlands as a local and federal government of Fisheries, who then and they also contributed acquisition, but it’s all would be the key players. I brought it to our attention. to make the deal possible. connected. Codd Wetlands am very pleased the GVRD Marcel Labreche fight- The Pitt Meadows Coun- Pitt Meadows put up supports many local spe- contributed money, and ing the Burns Bog fire. cil passed a resolution to $200,000, the province cies and allows spawning that Delta realized how conserve it, but early on $1.3 million and the GVRD salmon to migrate to the important preserving this we realized the cost of ac- was involved in a big way, Pitt River. If that had been was to the region and to quiring the land would be putting up $1.3 million. And lost we would have lost Delta. I was pleased to see prohibitive. So we looked ultimately the GVRD and valuable means for fish Delta committed a sum to partner with other NGOs the province put the proj- to complete their journey of $6 million. When you and government. It was ect together and did the – and the salmon fishery have this type of commit- certainly a collaborative agreement and everything contributes to all of the ment from all the partners process. We worked with needed to make a go of it. region and the region’s it comes together. Tim- our MLA to bring attention It is certainly proof that economy. ing is crucial to put these to the project in Victoria, deals together – there’s a partnerships work. Without Burns Bog was a more which he did and was in- any one of the group that window that opens up once strumental in assisting us. regional acquisition for in a while and you have to was involved, this would GVRD. I’ve heard it called We also worked with land not have happened. Some have the commitment of conservancy groups and the lungs of the Lower all partners at that time days we had to take a step Mainland, and it is truly the provincial government back and make sure every- – or quite often the window (Ministry of Environment). that. The players had to be closes. one was still involved and bigger as it is a $73-million

On September 11, 2005, a major fire started along the southeast border of Burns Bog and quickly grew to two square kilometres in size. Heavy smoke from the fire blanketed several areas of the Lower Mainland. A multi- agency firefighting response, involving Delta, the Province of BC and the GVRD worked quickly to contain and extinguish the fire, limiting bog impacts and restoring acceptable air quality.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.28 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.29 Fish Return to Stoney Creek Bonaparte River Until recently, maintaining fish habitat and The Bonaparte River Habitat Restoration near urban development were often mutually Cache Creek is an example of the multiple benefits exclusive in Greater Vancouver. of sustainability – in this case, how sustaining the Fish return to environmental health of a river leads to sustaining Bonaparte river Stoney creek the economic health of the community around it.

Paving over, culverting and pip- remarkable group of volunteers to build Newberry weirs in the ing streams and creeks were dedicated to maintaining fish Brunette River, which Stoney While there is a wonderful social Landfill. The Bonaparte’s fishery habitat along two sections of the historically accepted practices in populations. Creek flows into. Stumps and and educational benefit to main- is of great value to local First riverbank. The work involved opening up new areas for devel- woody debris were brought in taining healthy urban water- Nations and anglers. However, re-sloping banks, installing opment. For example, while it is While construction of a fish from the GVRD watersheds and sheds, fish are an enormous food because of large spring runoffs rock groynes, placing rip-rap estimated that there used to be ladder by Burlington Northern used for bank stabilization, fol- source and economic engine on and strong back eddies, sig- and planting trees. The results: many salmon-bearing streams enabled fish to return as far as lowed by the planting of native the West Coast, and it is not only nificant erosion has occurred improved populations of rainbow the Lougheed Highway, they running through Vancouver, shrubs and trees to improve fish urban areas that are having to along the riverbanks, negatively trout, chinook and re-established development has reduced that could go no further. In 2004, we habitat. Work was also done at deal with the negative effects of impacting crucial fish habitat. steelhead population. number to two. joined with the Department of Cariboo Dam to regulate the degraded fish habitat. In partnership with the Bonaparte Fisheries and Oceans Canada speed in which the gates open The Bonaparte River runs Indian Band, the Secwepemc In the case of Stoney Creek, cul- (DFO) and the Stoney Creek En- and close so the fish won’t be through properties owned by the Fisheries Commission and verting a portion of the creek dur- vironment Committee to design given a false sense to migrate up GVRD, used in association with Wastech Services, the GVRD ing construction of the Lougheed and construct a series of baffles the river only to be left high and operating the Cache Creek participated in projects to restore Highway cut off an abundance allowing fish to pass through for- dry with the closing of the gates. of spawning areas located in the merly impassable creek culverts upper portions of the waterway. located under the highway and After a 50-year absence, salmon Restoring the habitat of Stoney reach their traditional spawning are now returning to the up- Creek to allow fish to return to grounds. per reaches of Stoney Creek to their historic spawning grounds spawn. Courtesy of Kat-Katkam.ca is one of numerous sustainability The baffles, however, are just projects carried out on this and a small part of the restoration other creeks within the Brunette of Stoney Creek. In addition, we Basin Watershed by the GVRD, partnered with the Sapperton our municipal partners and a Fish and Game Club and the DFO

Courtesy of Lloyd Struck Bonaparte River

Volunteer streamkeeper at Stoney Creek

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.30 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.31 here and there is enough with actual product, actual Culex pipiens to knock out mosquitoes at results, and we believe our whole sites. approach is translatable to The only place we use it other jurisdictions. in great quantities is at wastewater treatment The WNV situation brought plants. The ponds are like a to the forefront the issue big incubation soup and we of mosquito control in the have to use large quanti- region. Like in almost all ties and on a regular basis. populated areas of Canada, We are actually seeing the spraying insecticide to con- population decreasing in trol “nuisance” mosqui- the region because we are toes is a practice that has hitting them at source. been done by some GVRD Courtesy of Culex Environmental The biggest challenge was municipalities; we admin- twofold – getting everyone ister the contract for four of West Nile Virus Monitoring to recognize that there was these and one municipality a better, scientific way of manages its own contract. managing the problem The work done by John what part of their life cycle gradually the amount of and it’s tied in with getting MacFarlane and his team they’re most vulnerable habitat that produces WNV everyone to recognize that on controlling the potential – there’s about a three day is decreasing in the region they are an equal partner sources of the WNV in a period in each genera- as we go along. tion – so we put bacterial On GVRD land we started agent in the water – it’s not out a few years ago Courtesy of Culex Environmental a chemical – this bacteria monitoring vigorously 1,200 hatches, multiplies in large locations - we now have it numbers, is only eaten by reduced to about two dozen John MacFaRlane, Policy Co-ordinator, the larva of biting insects locations of what we call A New Approach to West Nile Virus Mosquito Management – which are in fact mos- great interest. And we are quitoes in this area – the able to take sniper shots bacteria rot out their gut at those sites and know team dealing with WNV felt How John’s plan came the pieces together and and they die from that and that we are controlling the this was not necessarily together and was put into came up with an approach nothing else is affected. bulk of WNV mosquitoes the right approach. Or the practice is best described which says “no we won’t in- The bacteria die off within at those sites. The cost only approach. He present- in his own words. discriminately apply insec- eight hours – they’re natu- obviously goes way down, ed the Regional Engineers “Like anything this has ticide everywhere or even rally occurring anyway – we the monitoring cost has Advisory Committee with a been a team effort – people in a bunch of places – we’ll just produce them in large levelled out because we different plan that wouldn’t focus on me because I’m only put it where we have to numbers – and the rest of still watch other sites in Courtesy of Culex Environmental jeopardize the ecological the head of the group and we’ll do that by finding the system continues to case they become active, balance of waterways in- – it only works because we out where the places are function without even notic- but the actual application Culex tarsalis (adult) cluding delicate areas such have a magical collection that WNV mosquitoes live.” ing we’ve done this. of pesticide we use is a few as the recently purchased of a couple dozen different We know they don’t live So what happens is that sacks of this stuff – they Burns Bog and Codd Wet- everywhere, so let’s go the wetlands remain or literally use pinches of this Maintaining a sustain- people who each bring a in the solution of this thing less intrusive way has led lands. His arguments were through the whole region become healthier and stuff, a little in the water able approach to the piece to the puzzle as part - that’s the sustainable to a rethinking of this prac- persuasive. of this partnership - we put and find out every place environment can become they do live and figure out model – working together tise at the GVRD. John will a complicated issue when A regional WNV work - faster, cheaper, more now work with the member the environment natu- group, chaired by the GVRD effectively more efficiently, municipalities to incorpo- rally produces things that in 2003-05 and continuing, more responsibly. rate elements of his plan threaten human lives. The with representatives from When we started out this into their efforts to control West Nile Virus (WNV) is 15 municipalities and nine was a wicked problem. Al- nuisance mosquitoes. one such threat. Prepar- other jurisdictions, adopted though we still have some a unified approach based If his efforts are success- ing for its inevitable arrival big challenges, we are, as ful, John’s unique, sustain- is one such complicated on John’s plan. In 2004, he a group, very cognizant was recognized by Fraser able approach to dealing issue. that we have made huge with the potential problem Health with the “British progress. We’ve come so The accepted response Columbia Provincial Health of WNV could ultimately to the problem of WNV, far in this, way beyond the lead to a better region- Officer’s Award for Excel- wildest dreams of anyone and more specifically, the lence in Public Health” for wide, sustainable mosquito mosquitoes that bear the who started out at the control program. his “exemplary work in beginning of this progress. virus, is chemical pesticide intersectoral collabora- application. John MacFar- Courtesy of Culex Environmental Courtesy of Culex Environmental We genuinely have found tion around vector-borne a better way to manage lane, the GVRD policy co- disease protection.” ordinator heading up the Larvicidal Treatment Larvicidal Treatment this – we can back that up

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.32 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.33 a regional greenway Deer on Greenway in Delta Photo by Geert Kuiper, Welding Inspector

Network Utility corridors for sewer, water These combined corridors are and other projects nearby. the GVRD, our associated municipalities and community groups have been and other utility lines crisscross an innovative approach to sus- Community art is installed to en- working together to create a regional greenway network that will one the region. In 2000, GVRD plan- tainability, incorporating utility hance key sites along the green- ners and engineers overlaid functions with recreation, habitat way. A good example is a project day allow residents and visitors to walk, cycle and observe wildlife possible environmental and rec- protection and the vehicle-free on the New Westminster water- along linked greenways that stretch to all corners of the region. reational greenways with exist- movement of people. front where school kids designed ing and planned utility corridors their own fish illustrations. The to see how they could integrate Keeping with the GVRD’s part- best designs were embedded them. This was one of the proj- nership approach resulted in in tiles installed at Sapperton ects already underway when the off-channel fish habitat being de- Landing. The tiles have proved SRI was launched and so beauti- veloped with design input by the remarkably resistant to vandal- fully demonstrated the essence federal Department of Fisheries ism and are a wonderful addition of what the SRI was seeking that and Oceans, construction on land for visitors. it became one of its flagship donated by the local municipality, projects. Since then, we have channel design by the GVRD and integrated greenways, wherever trees bought and planted by a lo- cal streamkeepers group. integrated possible, with utility development greenways to take advantage of the sizable Community organizations and and utility linear corridors that make up the corridors schools are encouraged to adopt GVRD’s water and sewer network. streams and undertake studies

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.34 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.35 Integrated Greenways and Utility Corridors There are four greenways under development integrated which, when completed, will provide approximately greenways and utility 100 kilometres of trails. They are the Brunette- corridors Fraser, Delta-South Surrey, Pitt River, and Seymour River Greenways.

One of the first integrated between Burnaby Lake Regional through the Delta Nature Reserve Red-winged blackbird greenways began in Burnaby Park and North Road is complete along the sewer maintenance at Delta-South Surrey and New Westminster in 2000 by and planning for the final phase road, and will provide interpre- Greenway combining installation of sewer between Sapperton Landing and tation for the recently acquired pipes with plans to connect, via the New Westminster Quay has Burns Bog. greenways, some of the area’s commenced. natural open spaces. This green- The newest integrated util- Photo by Dave Samis, Operations Supervisor way now serves more than 25,000 Planning, land acquisitions and ity greenways project is on the visitors each year. The project development are also underway North Shore. It is a partnership also involved replacing culverts along the South Surrey Intercep- between the GVRD, the District of Reserve with the waterfront along regular park, these greenways, property lines or through their to allow free movement of fish tor for a greenway that connects North Vancouver, and the City of Burrard Inlet. by their very nature as linear neighbourhoods make greenway through local streams. the Fraser River with Boundary North Vancouver. The Seymour corridors, involve many differ- installations a management chal- Bay through Delta and Surrey. River Greenway will connect Creating greenway corridors ent landowners, both public and lenge. The second phase of the project This greenway will eventually the existing trail network in the might seem like a simple proposi- private. Concerns of along the Brunette River corridor incorporate trails that run Lower Seymour Conservation tion, as urban parkland is usually landowners adjacent to these considered a good idea, but the corridors about increased process is in fact tricky. Unlike a Photo by Loger Aure, Research Technician recreational traffic near their

Source: GVRD South Surrey Greenway through Delta Nature Reserve

Stoney Creek section of Brunette-Fraser Greenway

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.36 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.37 the challenge of affordable Playground, Heather Place (GVHC) Photo by Lynda King, Division Manager

housing (which is the most affordable with families, who are Over the last three years, the Access to suitable, affordable housing is essential for regional rental stock) through aging, searching for affordable rental Greater Vancouver Housing sustainability. In Greater Vancouver, finding affordable rental housing redevelopment, demolition and housing. Shifting social patterns, Corporation (GVHC) completed conversion to strata units. New including immigration and single- just one significant social housing (both market and non-market) and affordable purchased housing is a construction has also focused parent households, are also a fac- project – the Inlet Centre in Port significant challenge at all income levels. In 2005, almost 21 per cent of on strata developments rather tor in high demand for low-cost Moody. High building costs forced than purpose-built rental housing rental housing. the cancellation of a potential Greater Vancouver residents spent more than 30 per cent on shelter - stock. This is not surprising given new housing project and are In 2004, the average monthly rent well above the national average of 16 per cent. that a 2006 pro forma showed constraining the development of that the rate of return on equity in Greater Vancouver was $821, new projects, while the struggle for building rental stock is 1.7 per which requires an annual income with the leaky condo problem The traditional focus of the housing of households have incomes at or above of $32,840 to be affordable. While affordability debate has been on lower $100,000. Greater Vancouver is in large cent compared with 57 per cent continued on some GVHC-owned for condo construction. the average household income properties. income earners, but this is only one part a victim of its own success, having of renters in Greater Vancouver part of the problem in Greater Vancou- created an environment that continues Shifting economic patterns, in 2001 was $41,640, the 2001 ver. to grow and attract new residents. The including a growing service average income of renters in core basic problem is an imbalance between economy and a reduced industrial need was $18,740. Roughly one in Greater In 2005, purchase of a single supply and demand. Vancouver family house in Greater Vancouver base, are creating a large number three renter households is in core Housing required a minimum household At the same time, there has been an of lower income earners, many need. Corporation income of $121,921 - only 16.4 per cent ongoing loss of existing rental stock

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.38 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.39 Recently, it was announced that “leaky condo” repairs required The GVHC continues to look Greater Vancouver direct-to-tenant subsidies will on 13 housing complexes. By for efficiency gains, and has be made available to low-income squeezing the existing replace- improved its annual operating Housing Corporation families that should help those in ment reserves, normally meant performance. Improved cash Between 2002 and 2005, the Greater Vancouver need. However, while this does for other repairs like new roofs flows from operations are being assist tenants to afford housing, it and other long-term main- directed to incremental water Greater Housing Corporation (GVHC) increased social does not necessarily support new tenance items, the GVHC has ingress repairs, so that over the Vancouver family rental housing being built. completed about $11 million next seven years all necessary Housing housing units from 3,397 units to 3,559 units. Corporation of the work. Over the last year, work should be completed. In 2005, the rising costs to sub- working with CMHC to refinance sidize each unit and declining our existing properties, we were federal grants forced the GVHC able to raise sufficient funds to do board to reduce the level of fund- We now house nearly 10,000 In addition to the challenge Low-cost mortgages provided the second major batch of repairs ing for “rent-geared-to-income” people, second only to the num- of building new rental stock, through the federal government – about another $8 million. It units, from 40 per cent to 30 per ber housed by BC Housing in this developers of social housing are on many GVHC properties has required, however, that we cent of total housing stock. region – but there are still more – including the GVHC – also face – but there are no new mortgages go further into debt to do it, not a than 10,000 households in the another challenge: how to afford to be granted under this program. Over the past three years, we favoured approach when finan- region on the province’s social to manage and maintain the prop- have also been struggling to find cial sustainability is a goal, but a The provincial government housing wait list. Half of these are erty while charging low rents. In a financially sustainable way to necessary one given the current continues to be a strong source family households. affordable housing, rent on 30 per pay for the $36-million worth of circumstances. cent of the units is geared to in- of various subsidies for family, The high cost of construction seniors and disabled housing, come. As a general rule, rents are Source: GVRD forced the GVHC to abandon a set so that a maximum of 30 per but new subsidies are becom- potential new family housing cent of a tenant’s gross income ing more limited. The current project in 2004, following which is charged for rent. However, the provincial government housing the last available program that policy is focused on subsidies difference between what it costs Inlet Centre provided subsidies for the con- to own and operate and a property for independent seniors’ liv- struction of family housing was and the (reduced) rental receipts ing – another growing segment cancelled. must be overcome. of affordable housing demand.

Photo by Lynda King, Division Manager

Local school, Heather Place

The Inlet Centre in Port Moody

The 96-unit Inlet Centre is owned by the City of together a range of grassroots organizations, at Heritage Mountain Port Moody, but leased to partners from both the including the Burquitlam Boulevard and Ungless GVHC for 60 years at a 35 public and private sectors, Lions Care Society, Way is the first housing per cent discount – an ex- including the City of Port B.C. Women’s Housing development in Canada to ample of how municipali- Moody, B.C. Housing, Coalition and Crossroads integrate a hospice with ties can support affordable Canada Mortgage and Hospice Society. affordable and support- housing by offering land to Housing Corporation, The Inlet Centre won the ive housing for families, social housing providers at and South Fraser Health 2003 CHRA Silver Georgie seniors and mature reduced rates. Authority, and encouraged Award for Best Public- single women at risk. The The project brought significant involvement Private Partnership. $2-million centre site from local individuals and

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.40 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.41 investing in Regional Transportation SkyTrain Source: TransLink The year 2004 was important for The STP included almost two along with the Federal Strategic the GVRD in that it ratified the billion dollars in much needed Priorities Fund, are significant 2005-2007 Greater Vancouver transportation investments fund- steps on the road to improving the Transportation Authority’s (GVTA) ed by the region, with other part- region’s transportation system. Strategic Transportation Plan ners adding additional funding to New Deal for Cities to Fund Transportation Approved (STP). This marked the beginning some of the projects. Ensuring “It’s very appropriate that the GVRD was the first recipient of these new funds.T his agreement was a long time coming, of a significant commitment to sustainable revenue sources was and actually originated in the GVRD boardroom,” - George Puil, GVRD Board Chair (Former) transportation in the region. also important. The new STP, It was former GVRD Chair George Puil who began the charge to have gas tax revenues returned to our cities, and “ successive GVRD chairs continued to work hard to make it happen. The GVRD was involved in developing criteria for disbursement of these revenues, to fund projects that are aligned with the desired sustainability outcomes of reduced GHG emissions - cleaner air and cleaner water.

GVTA Strategic Strategic Transportation Priorities Fund Plan

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.42 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.43 GVTA Strategic Strategic Priorities Fund Transportation Plan The New Deal for Cities sustainable In 2004, the GVRD Board, after much discussion revenue stream to fund the GVTA’s strategic transportation plan was a major achievement in GVTA Strategic and debate, ratified amendments to the Greater Strategic Transportation this period. Priorities Fund Plan Vancouver Transporation Authority’s (GVTA) Strategic Transportation Plan.

The new three-year plan and of improvements to transporta- the slimmest of margins at the In April 2005, an agreement in funding of GVTA. This is an im- in GVTA’s plan. All funds received ten-year outlook, developed by tion and transit networks, divi- GVRD Board – a single vote of the principle was reached with the portant agreement for the region. will be transferred to GVTA - in the GVTA was ratified by the GVRD sions were evident in regards to 119 in the region’s weighted vot- provincial and federal govern- The GVRD requested that 100 per 2005-06, this amounts to $36.84 Board, after successfully push- the priority and phasing of some ing system. ments for a portion of the gas tax cent of the federal gas tax funds million. This is a major source ing to secure provincial funds for proposed actions. As an example, to be provided to the GVRD for go towards the development of of much needed new funding for the northeast sector line, and approval of the Canada Line stable and predictable regional public transportation as identified public transportation. the inclusion of backup financial – formerly known as the Rich- strategies in the event federal mond/Airport/Vancouver (RAV) funding was insufficient. While line – was contentious. Ratifica- the board was strongly supportive tion of the plan was confirmed by U-Pass: Transit Solution to Community Growth

In September 2003, the by the GVRD Board in 1997. • Transit’s mode share of • Not having to provide ad- GVTA introduced a univer- U-Pass was developed in all weekday trips to UBC ditional parking spaces sal transit pass for UBC response to community increased from 17 per generated a cost-savings and SFU students at UBC concerns about the univer- cent in the fall of 1997 of over $20 million. and SFU. The U-Pass cut sity’s decision to develop to approximately 42 per Source: TransLink In 2005, the Federation transit costs for students surplus lands and build a cent in the fall of 2005. of Canadian Municipali- from $67 a month to ap- new community projected • Trips by automobile to ties honoured TransLink’s proximately $22 a month. to grow to 18,000 people by UBC were reduced by 29 U-Pass program with the The pass was introduced 2021. The community was per cent. FCM-CH2M Hill Sustain- in cooperation with the concerned about the traffic able Transportation Award two universities and their impacts of this growth. • Transportation cost savings to students for innovation and excel- Commercial Drive student societies and with UBC committed to reduc- lence in increasing transit SkyTrain Station financial support from both ing single occupant vehicle were over $3 million per month. ridership and reducing universities and VanCity travel to the campus by 20 automobile travel. Credit Union. per cent from 1997 levels. • Greenhouse Gas Emis- The idea of a U-Pass was The results of the U-Pass sion savings are over first introduced in UBC’s program exceeded expec- 16,000 tonnes per year. Official Community Plan tations. By the fall of 2005: (OCP) which was adopted

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.44 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.45 Working Together for Corporate Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Photo by Dave Samis, Operations Supervisor

Sustainability The internal implementation of Kingsway in Burnaby, the major- of corporate sustainability: Over the last three years the GVRD has committed to the SRI was done by attempting ity work from one of five sewage Eco-efficiency at the Wastewater to engage all staff rather than as- treatment plants, an operations Treatment Plants, Asset incorporating sustainability into its daily work. signing the task to a select group. centre, three area Parks’ offices, Management, Head Office It’s a decentralized approach for a and a number of works yards, Building Efficiencies, Health and geographically dispersed organi- parks and residential buildings Safety and GVRD in the zation – asking staff to interpret operated by the GVRD. Community. sustainability in their own daily work life. While about 500 people In the following section we will work at our head office at 4330 review progress in five key areas

Eco-efficiency Occupational at Wastewater Integrated Asset GVRD in the Health and afety Treatment Management Community (OH&S) Plants

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.46 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.47 Eco-efficiency at Waste- Integrated Asset water Treatment Plants Management Wastewater treatment plants account for over The GVRD has more than $5 billion of assets Eco-efficiency half of the GVRD’s total energy consumption. ranging from office chairs to wastewater at Wastewater Integrated asset Treatment treatment plants. These assets vary in age, management Plants complexity, importance and condition.

Between 2003 – 2005, energy cent of this. These projects will a safety management system, Maintaining these assets and nor too late in their life cycle. software applications (People- consumption decreased by 6.6 have a payback of approximately an environmental management planning for their eventual dis- Soft, CDACS, CMMS, GIS) with per cent, while the volume and $350,000 and 10 million kWh per system, a divisional performance posal and replacement, and the While we have managed our as- smaller but valuable information strength of wastewater treated annum. In addition, the plants indicators system, and an as- acquisition of additional assets sets since we started operating repositories (Ops99). remained stable. We invested now self-generate more than 70 set management system (un- needed to support growth in the the first water main, this task has about $1 million in various per cent of the energy required to der development). The results region is a complex task. Ensur- typically been done on an often This work was started in earnest energy-saving projects at the treat the region’s wastewater with achieved over the last three years ing that we economically maxi- ad-hoc basis by individuals with in 2004. Not the sexiest of tasks, plants, including co-generation the Annacis Island Wastewater are testament to the value of mize the useful life of our assets a comprehensive knowledge of the first steps involved under- automation at Annacis, a light- Treatment Plant leading at 79 per effective leadership, thoughtful while meeting the needs of our the systems. These systems have standing what we expected of ing upgrade at Iona, pumping cent. goal-setting, teamwork, and in- customers is another sustainabil- become increasingly complex and an asset management system; automation and logic upgrade at novative technologies in realizing ity goal of the GVRD. interrelated, requiring structured communicating our plans within Iona and Annacis, and a digester The WWTP division’s Sustainable tangible gains from re-examining processes to manage these as- the organization; determining gas blowers’ upgrade at Iona, Operating Strategy comprises operations with a sustainability In March 2004, we released our sets. In addition, this infrastruc- how information was to be stored with BC Hydro contributing 50 per four management systems: perspective. Strategic Business Plan for the ture is aging, and with this comes and distributed throughout the integrated operations and main- issues of age-related asset organization and understanding tenance of the water and sewer replacement needs. the existing information reposito- Photo by Dave Samis, Operations Supervisor utilities. A key principle on which ries in use. this plan is based is that “assets The task of asset management are investments.” This plan has requires us to capture and easily In 2005, we developed a web- created a shift in our thinking retrieve critical asset informa- based Asset Replacement Annacis Island about assets – from a reactive tion from an integrated system. Forecasting Tool that calculates Wastewater Treatment Developing this system ranges replacement requirements for Plant approach to a proactive approach. Previously, we fixed problems from simple activities such as assets based on the age, condi- as they arose. Now, we manage creating common acronyms and tion, replacement cost and life ex- assets based on their expected equipment numbering standards pectancy of the asset; established remaining life, with the goal of to complex activities such as first order magnitude estimates replacing them neither too early connecting diverse “enterprise” of age, replacement cost and

Key Asset Management Activities to Ensure the Provision of Healthy Drinking Water

Ongoing activities to en- our smaller reservoirs, • Annual inspection of – turnover of water in sure the reliable provision using divers to vacuum submerged pipeline the reservoirs is minimal of healthy drinking water the tanks. This approach crossings. Ensuring ad- – over time the chlorine include: enables us to keep the equate sea or river bed used to treat the water • Water reservoir clean- reservoir in service dur- cover over pipe crossings dissipates. By limiting ing. Traditionally this ing maintenance. reduces likelihood of the amount of water has been done by shut- • Corrosion protection. breakage. going in and allowing ting down the reservoir This protects pipes and • Water reservoir exercis- the water to drain right every several years. In prevents premature cor- ing. During months of down, turnover, and 2005 we conducted a rosion failures reduced water demand water quality, are maxi- pilot project at three of – typically, winter/spring mized.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.48 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.49 life expectancy for our “vertical” up to 40 per cent. The integrated condition of our critical assets assets; developed tools that can asset management system will employed to meet agreed upon collect asset information and play a big role in providing the levels of service. We will plan the conducted preliminary pilot work information we need to allow us improvement or replacement at the Annacis Island WWTP. to make asset acquisition, main- of these assets to minimize the GVRD Head Office, tenance and disposal decisions in overall life-cycle costs to meet 4330 Kingsway Successful integrated asset a sustainable way. “In five years the service requirements.” Dave management programs have time, we will budget our opera- Duthie, Technical Support Divi- been known to reduce the operat- tions and maintenance expen- sion Manager. ing and capital costs of utilities by ditures based upon the known

As Chair of the Water Committee, I was the main political contact for the media during the 2003 water shortage. The situation was particularly difficult because we had to persuade the public to take the shortage seriously, while reassuring them that these circumstances were temporary and unusual. As we should have expected, the media focused on the more dramatic possibility that our reserve capacity was not sufficient for future growth and that global warm- Photo by Horst Unger, Senior Project Engineer ing was affecting our water supply. As a result, our communications strategy had to adjust to Ed Luccock, “ include both our short-term emergency plan and our long-term plans for the regional water services. I thought our staff did a very good job of providing the right emphasis on the immedia- Head Office Energy Reductions cy of our problem, without causing needless fear, after we recognized our early warnings were unheeded. We also learned to anticipate that a short-term crisis caused by the maintenance of and commitment to the in 2006 will give us better Of course, the focus can’t our assets can raise broader questions about future sustainability, so we need to be prepared sustainability program has control on a time clock just be on saving money. led to some interesting low, basis for turning things Having cold, unhappy with information that will address those issues. and high tech successes, in on and off and increased workers because you Derek Corrigan, Mayor of Burnaby his goal to reduce energy efficiencies in what kind of turned off the heat to consumption at head office. air quality we supply and reduce your energy bill can His approach includes: temperatures we maintain. cause serious consequenc- Being responsible for what es. Just ask Ebenezer you’re doing. Keeping it simple: Scrooge. From pumping as much fresh air into the The biggest bang for the Painting our parking building as possible for the Challenge buck, because it costs garage white got all kinds health benefits, to accept- Making the best of what nothing, is to get occupants of positive feedback from ing the fact that leaving the Every now and then we turned out to be one of the the consequences of not containing water restric- you have is a positive to cooperate with energy staff. Having the walls blinds open every now and have to take a major facility hottest, driest summers in reducing consumption. The tions to be enacted only principle that applies to saving measures. Things reflective make the space a then to enjoy the view out off line (for upgrades). We decades. Unable to access media ran with the story in cases of severe water life in general. It is also a as simple as closing or de- lot brighter. People thought a window has energy ben- know we are going to be at source water from Burwell and it worked. Consump- shortages or extreme principle that is practised flecting the blinds can save we had added lighting, but efits too keeping the people risk – we do everything we Lake, the possibility of tion was reduced and the emergency situations. by the people in charge 30-40% on energy use in a we were actually able to in the head office operating think we can to manage the water shortages became a situation was brought Nothing probably could of building operations day. A huge gain, if people reduce the amount of light- as efficiently as possible is risk, but nonetheless, the real issue. under control. have been done differ- at the head office of the will do it. ing we used. It also helped also being considered by GVRD. Faced with the from a security point of view stars can align in the wrong Stage One of our drought It was a good dry run for ently to alleviate a potential Ed as he continues to make way. drought that summer. You challenge of contributing Setting proper schedules as a brighter area is more the most of what he has plan was implemented as our drought plan. Forgive to a sustainability cause, and running things ef- secure. In 2003/04 we did In summer 2003, neces- is customary on June 1st. the pun. After that event need to forecast the risks – which is a key component and have a contingency while operating a building ficiently: a lighting upgrade, which of learning to live sustain- sary repair work on Bur- The usual notices were the drought response plan that was designed in a pre plan in case absolutely ev- When we aren’t here, the changed all the lights to ably. well Lake, one of the upper put out to the public about was revised to stress the “sustainability” time, mak- low energy consumption mountain lakes within our water conservation. But urgency of the situation, erything goes wrong. And printers/copiers go to sleep you hope it never will. ing the best of what they bulbs. It cost $190,000, but source watershed, was nothing happened. Water sooner. In 2004, the GVRD have is one of their guiding and the lights are turned off. A new building man- we got a $55,000 rebate undertaken. It was a major consumption continued also extensively revised the mantras. from BC Hydro and yearly job and the optimum time at the same rate. Stage original 1993 Water Short- agement system approved Building manager, Ed in 2005 for implementation operating costs will be to fix these facilities is the Two was initiated, with a age Response Plan, adding reduced. summer. Unfortunately, it sterner message about a Stage four of the plan Luccock’s understanding

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.50 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.51 Occupational GVRD in the Community Health and Safety (OH&S) the GVRD ensures that community involvement Fewer GVRD workers are being affected by and support for others is a part of the cultural fabric of the organization. Occupational injury and illness, and the severity of those GVRD in the Health and afety Community (OH&S) incidents is also decreasing.

This is a reflection of the com- management system was first Accident frequency rates and As a publicly-funded organiza- more than 200 people watching Multiple Sclerosis Society Annual mitment of staff who are work- introduced at the GVRD, the severity rates for 2005 remain tion, we can provide very limited the “GVRD Idol” karaoke contest Carnation Drive, Food Bank, Used ing to advance their safety. Staff continuous reassessment and below the four-year average and resources to fund charitable in support of the United Way. Book, Clothing and Toy drives, participate in extensive training refinement of safety standards we continue to see the GVRD per- causes and events. However, se- Showcasing over 50 singers it Run for the Cure, 24 Hour Relay, and spread the message of safe and supporting programs has led forming near the top of its WCB nior management and the Board raised just under $900. Sun Run, Dragon Boat Festival, work practices. Their commit- to steady improvement in worker classification unit (Local Govern- of Directors provide our Commu- Christmas Craft Fair, and Bowl- ment to implementing a pro- safety, with a decrease in injuries ment and Related Operations, CU nity Team, a volunteer body made One indication of the level of ing for Big Brothers. gram that meets or exceeds all from 49 in 2002 to 37 in 2005. #753004). Improvements in our up of employees from across participation and growth in giving legislated occupational health Improvements in GVRD safety safety management system are the organization, with an annual at the GVRD is the annual United The GVRD and its staff benefit and safety procedures and, more over the past three years have ongoing, ensuring a sustainable budget of $15,000 in support of Way campaign. through a year-round calendar of enjoyable events that foster team importantly, one that is embraced resulted in a Workers’ Compen- strategy for managing our safety employee initiatives. Employees The GVRD now exceeds the aver- by workers and management is sation Board (WCB) merit award efforts and regulatory compliance are encouraged to participate in spirit and morale. We take pride age participation rate among in our efforts and achievements. paying off where it counts most. equating to a 0.9 per cent de- requirements. community events and charitable municipal employers by three per crease in our 2005 rates. fundraising through this team. Since 2001, when the safety cent. And we’ve been recognized Also, through the Joint Corporate for our efforts – in 2004 and 2005 Leadership Initiative, manage- we were finalists in the United ment and our two unions jointly Way’s Spirit Awards program. sponsor community events, The United Way campaign is only including our annual charity golf one of 16 major events, each of Photo by Lori McGrath, Internal Communications Coordinator tournament, which in its first which attracts its own group of three years has raised more than enthusiastic promoters and par- $10,000 for local charities. ticipants. Other major charitable, This innovative resourcing and non-profit and community events involving GVRD staff include: Red Safety Week promotion model supports a host of fundraising events. Imagine Cross Blood Donor Program,

United Way Donations

2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Dollars Raised $45,457 $43,248 $53,404 $60,635 Participation Rate 22% 21.7% 27.5% 26.8% Average Donation $177 $155 $149 $180

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.52 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.53 Learning and

Exchanging Great-horned Owl in Stanely Park Photo by Andrew Hunt, Operations Supervisor knowledge more resilient cities able to Board members and staff often Many articles are published in GVRD participates in a number of local, national and cope with economic, ecological attend and make presentations at trade journals, and we recently international activities relating to the exchange and transfer and social stresses. local, national and international prepared a best practice chapter • The National Water and conferences, learning and shar- for a book published by the Asian of knowledge and best practices between organizations. Wastewater Benchmarking ing their expertise with others. Development Bank showcasing Initiative, which allows us, as a Notable among these were the the GVRD’s approach to sustain- charter member, to “partner” Innovating Cities UN-HABITAT ability. conference in Geneva in 2005 with 32 other Canadian water In addition, some of our staff and wastewater utilities for the and the FCM Community Plan- ning Missions in Europe in 2003, volunteer for non-profit organiza- Why do we do it? It’s a win-win • Sustainable Cities Initiative (In- • PLUS Network, a peer learn- purposes of comparative anal- 2004 and 2005. This knowledge tions that promote helping others situation. Exchanging best prac- dustry Canada), a partnership ing network of cities sharing ysis of a significant number of is transferred back to the GVRD, gain knowledge. For example, tices and learning helps us to do a between the Government of best practices on integrated performance measures. Infor- bringing new ideas and ways of one of our engineers is active in better job in our region, and shar- Canada, non-government or- long-term planning for sus- mation on the best practices approaching challenges to the Engineers Without Borders, and ing what we’ve learned hopefully ganizations (NGOs), the private tainability, thereby improving of well-run utilities is shared region. Also, we have hosted another in Water For People, both helps others to do a better job in sector and local government members’ ability to develop ac- through this initiative. This has foreign delegations from such non-profit, international humani- theirs. to develop and implement tion plans and assess results, led to identifying opportunities places as Sweden, Italy, Austria, tarian organizations dedicated sustainable economic develop- reduce development costs to improve how we manage our Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, to helping people in developing Some of the activities we are ment plans for cities. and compare their progress infrastructure. and the Philippines. communities. involved in include: to benchmarks and to one another. The goal is to create

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.54 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.55 Source: Istockphoto.com Source: Istockphoto.com

Lake Geneva, City of Salvador, Brazil Switzerland

Lucien Bradet, Director General [former], Source: Istockphoto.com Sustainable Cities Initiative, Industry Canada, on GVRD’s involvement in SCI Intersection in the his- toric EDSA, Philippines What we were trying to do SCI a lot of credibility and own, could have been the GVRD is still part of the “was to show that we have a lot of depth. A level of seen to be just looking for discussions there the private sector capac- confidence was built more contracts. The value for Canadian ity to do a lot of things at rapidly because GVRD is One of the best examples public sector participants the municipal government knowledgeable and from is the waste management is in exposing managers level in terms of infrastruc- the public sector, so the project in the City of Salva- to issues and problems ture and so forth, but also international participants dor, Brazil. outside of our region. In that we had a lot of knowl- were more open to talk the best-case scenario we edge of good governance than they would have been GVRD worked with Salva- dor, reviewing contracts, can help to solve things and good administration with just the private sector. elsewhere, while bring- and we could show that, GVRD played an in-be- tenders, really helping them to understand the ing back to Canada new not only from a private sec- tween role in many cases. solutions and maybe some tor point of view, but from a This was a very major governance aspect of the project. Public and ways of looking at issues in public sector point of view. asset for us – they were a different manner. GVRD was an extremely knowledgeable – people private sector partners in good example of the public would listen to them and Canada and Brazil have all sector point of view as Van- they would also bring this benefited from the trust couver is known by people in-between value to the and personal relation- as one of the best cities in discussion, whereas the ships established between the world. It brought to the private sector, on their officials in Salvador and

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.56 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.57 the way Container Vessel at Vancouver Terminal Photo by Zorik Pirveysian, Division Manager ahead We will continue to incorporate Sustainable development is Please direct your comments to: OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, WE HAVE FOCUSED OUR ATTENTION ON sustainability principles as appro- an ongoing and collaborative priate in all of our activities and process. Telling our story in this GVRD, Attention L. King CLEARLY ARTICULATING AND INCORPORATING SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES practices. In 2006, this includes report is one of the ways in which 4330 Kingsway INTO OUR ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES. Starting IN 2006, WE began TO completing five new management we can contribute to this col- Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8 plans – Regional Growth Strategy, laborative effort. We would like E-mail: [email protected] MOVE THE SUSTAINABLE REGION INITIATIVE (SRI) INTO THE COMMUNITY. Solid Waste Management Plan, to hear your assessment of this Telephone: 604-432-6200 Regional Housing Strategy, Biodi- report, our sustainability perfor- Fax: 604-451-6614 versity Plan and the Biosolids mance in general, or any other This includes launching the “Fu- leaders and municipal official, Forum (WUF3). This biennial UN- Management Plan – and deliver- topic related to sustainability. ture of the Region: Sustainability this dialogue series will help HABITAT event on urban sustain- ing our first sustainable procure- Dialogues”, a series of high-pro- decision makers shape the future ability examines and identifies ment policy. file debates and discussions that of the region. solutions to the critical problems will challenge and stimulate fresh facing cities around the globe. thought on a range of regional is- In 2006 we also have an oppor- The GVRD is an active participant sues. Topics will include Housing, tunity to share experiences and in WUF3. In addition to showcas- Industry, Labour and Immigra- ideas with the world. In June ing our region, we will be sharing tion, Drugs and Crime, Economy, 2006, more than 6,000 partici- the lessons we have learned over Transportation, Energy, and pants from 150 nations will gath- the last three years, and learning Agriculture. Targeted at business er in Vancouver, Canada for the some new ones. third session of the World Urban

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.58 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.59 REgional

1. Greater Vancouver’s ranking in the Mercer Quality of Life Survey

2002 2003 2004 2005 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd (behind Zurich) (tied with Geneva and (tied with Vienna; Zur- (tied with Vienna; Zurich – 1st; Vienna; Zurich – 1st) ich – 1st; Geneva 2nd) Geneva 2nd) (Toronto 15th; Calgary 25th)

2. Greater Vancouver’s Ecological Footprint Greater Vancouver’s ecological footprint is 7.71. Of the 20 Canadian municipalities and urban regions studied, York Region, Calgary and Edmonton had the largest ecological footprints, at 10.33, 9.86 and 9.45 hectares per person, respectively. The three smallest footprints were recorded by Greater Sudbury, Niagara Regional Municipality and Quebec City, with 6.87, 6.88 and 6.89, respectively. [From Ecological Footprints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions” a report prepared for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities by Anielski Management Inc.]

3. Total Storage for GVRD Usage (Dry Season)

100 21 2003 2004 90 244 2005

80 216 vital Note: Water supply conditions are pri- 0 189 marily influenced by precipitation and

Total Storage water use. During the summer, the river 60 162 flow into our reservoirs decreases while the public demand for water increases. signs 50 135 With this high demand on water supply our summer storage decreases until, in GVRD Vital Signs is a collection of 33 performance measures. 40 108 most years, the fall rains return and fill up our reservoirs. Percent of Total Storage of Total Percent They include information on Water, Liquid Waste, Solid Waste, 30 81

Air, Energy, Land, Density, Transportation, Housing, Economic 0 0 Performance, Public Education, Health and Safety, 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov and our Employees.

4. Annual biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) discharges (Tonnes per year)

The following information has Additional quantitative data are performance measures derived 2002 2003 2004 2005 been collected to provide a pic- available on the GVRD website, in- from the Global Reporting Initia- BOD 21,969 19,814 18,453 20,331 ture of sustainability in Greater cluding our financial statements tive (GRI) sustainability perfor- SS 14,109 14,556 13,232 14,583 Vancouver (see Regional) and at and related financial information mance protocol for public sector the GVRD itself (see Corporate). (see www.gvrd.bc.ca/about) and organizations (see www.gvrd. Note: Total Annual discharges for all five wastewater treatment plants. Wastewater treatment removes a portion of the suspended an annual update and index of the bc.ca/sustainability). solids (SS) and organic matter from the waste stream. The remaining portion of solids and organic matter in the treated wastewater use oxygen as they break down naturally in the environment. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) describes the oxygen used up as this organic material decays.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.60 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.61 REgional REgional

5. Biosolids Production and Use/Disposal 8. Regional Energy Consumption

23,963 25,000 Delivered for Land Application (Dry Tonnes) Regional Energy Consumption (per cent used Carbon/Non-carbon) 22,505 21,562 Stored in Inventory (Dry Tonnes 19,863 20,000 5,850 2002 2003 2004 2005 5,850 6,840 5,2 74 Carbon 75.2% 74.1% 74.8% 75% 15,000 Non-carbon 24.8% 25.9% 25.2% 25% 18,113 15,12 15,665 10,000 14,589

5,000 Regional Per Capita Energy Consumption (by type)

150 Diesel 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 120 Gasoline Natural Gas Note: Biosolids production can vary due to screen adjustments at WWTPs 90 Electricity 60

30

0 6. Solid Waste Flows 2002 2003 2004 2005

Note: Since 2005 Natural Gas data was not available, 2004 data was used for 2005 as well.

3500000 Total 3000000 Total Recycled 2500000 9. Transportation Total Waste to Landfill 2000000 Total Waste to Waste to Energy 1500000 Regional Gasoline Sales Passenger Trips - TransLink (Bus, SkyTrain, Seabus and West Coast Express) 1000000 180000000 2,000,000,000 500000 160000000 140000000 1,500,000,000 0 120000000 2002 2003 2004 100000000 1,000,000,000 80000000 500,000,000 60000000 40000000 0 20000000 7. Exceedances of GVRD Air Quality Objectives in Lower Fraser Valley Airshed 1990 1995 2000 2005 0 1990 1995 2000 2005

12 Note: Time Scale at five year intervals Note: Time Scale at five year intervals 11 SOURCE: TransLink SOURCE: TransLink PM2.5 24-Hour Objective 10 Ozone 8-Hour Objective

8 7 2 6 10. Publicly Protected Regional Green Space (km ) 6 5 5

4 2002 2003 2004 2005 3 2 ALR 537.7 537.8 536.9 536.7 2

Days objective exceeded in LFV Airshed exceeded Days objective 0 Regional Parks 116.3 116.6 127.7 128.7 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve 56.7 56.7 56.7 56.7 Watershed 523.0 523.0 523.0 523.0 Note: GVRD air quality objectives are medium-term, health-based objectives relevant to Greater Vancouver’s situation.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.62 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.63 REgional Corporate

11. Housing Starts by Structural Type in the GVRD 2002 - 2005 1. Water Quality (% meeting Health Canada Guidelines)

2002 2003 2004 2005 80.0% Single-Det Met requirements of the B.C. Drinking Water 100% 100% 100% 100% 0.0% Multiple 60.0% Protection Regulation pertaining to total coli- 50.0% form levels 40.0% Met all health-related Canadian Drinking Water 100% 100% 100% 100% 30.0% Quality Guidelines except for Turbidity 20.0% Met Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines for 98.8% 99.6% 99.3% 99.4% 10.0% Turbidity less than 5 NTU* 0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 Annual Average Source Treated Turbidity (NTU) 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 Note: Canadian Guidelines, published in 2005, indicate that source water turbidity levels for unfiltered supplies should be around one nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) and should be less than five NTU 99.5% of the time (363 days in a 12 month period). This 2005 12. Regional Housing guideline also introduced new water treatment requirements and the GVRD is currently upgrading its water supplies to meet these new guidelines. MLS Average Residential Price, Total Rental Unit Completions, 1997 - 2005 Canada Select Urban Centres, 1997 - 2004 (dollars) 400000 Calgary 2,000 2. Water Main Leaks and Breaks or Interruptions to Service 350000 Edmonton 1,600 300000 Vancouver 2002 2003 2004 2005 1,200 250000 Toronto Loss of service none* none none none 800 200000 Montreal Main breaks 0 2 2 2 150000 400 Mains out of service 0 0 2 2 100000 0 Total Rental Unit Completions Unit Rental Total 1998199 1999 2000 200320022001 2004 2005 1997 Year 2004 Leaks 34 43 35 21 Rental - Private Rental - Assisted Number of Mains affected 10 15 13 11 (Row & Apartment) (Row & Apartment) * Reported 30 minute pressure drop in Burnaby

13. Economic Activity Highlights

2002 2003 2004 2005 Change 02-05 Population 2,095,780 2,114,061 2,131,340 2,155,880 2.9% 3. Treated Wastewater Quality (% meeting guidelines) Total Labour Force 1,167,700 1,198,500 1,223,600 1,221,700 4.6% Total Jobs 1,076,200 1,110,800 1,140,400 1,152,200 7.1% 2002 2003 2004 2005 Unemployed 94,500 87,700 83,200 69,500 -26.5% Total No. of tests 6418 6395 7509 7291 Unemployment Rate 7.8% 7.3% 6.8% 5.7% -26.9% (% meeting guidelines) 99.92 99.89 99.95 99.68

Building Permit Values (000’s) 3,711,866 3,817,278 5,029,595 5,700,975 53.6% Note: Percentage of all effluent tests conducted for all five wastewater treatment plants. Regulatory requirements were met in 2005 (99.6% of all measurements) for flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), loadings and Chlorine residual with a Commercial (000’s) 465,820 607,764 657,916 628,615 34.9% few minor exceptions: Annacis (1 case) : SS loading Industrial (000’s) 290,297 216,508 261,705 344,798 18.8% Lions Gate (4 cases): BOD (1); SS (1); SS loading (1); chlorine (1) NW Langley (18 cases): most (15) originating from one temporary process upset; due to plant influent containing extremely high levels Institutional (000’s) 359,284 141,129 326,550 580,932 61.7% of solids, organic loadings & metals. Residential (000’s) 2,596,465 2,851,877 3,783,424 4,032,878 55.3% Compliance requirements vary for wastewater treatment plants. These requirements are based on level of treatment and flow for a Housing Starts 12,844 15,626 19,430 18,914 47.3% given plant. The requirements for concentrations and loadings are more stringent for the secondary wastewater treatment plants than for primary ones.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.64 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.65 Corporate Corporate

4. Sewer Incidents Summary Table 7. Public Education

Wet weather discharges 2002 2003 2004 2005 K-12 Storm events 8 5 7 8 The GVRD K-12 Education program reaches students and citizens of the region through teacher workshops Sanitary sewer overflows 29 29 11 23 which equip K-12 educators with the information, motivation and teaching tools to encourage sustained Locations 21 16 6 13 lifestyle choices that will maintain and enhance a healthy and sustainable region.

Spills School Year Teacher Workshops Participants How many students are potentially reached each Pump station failures 8 3 9 4 year? Other 10 3 2* 3 2002-2003 19 483 11,930 2003-2004 21 534 13,190 Leaks 34 0 2 3 2004-2005 41 708 17,487 Total 81 1725 42,607 Breaks 0 0 0 1 Assumptions: 1. Average classroom size for K-3 is 24 and 4-12 is 30 (Ministry of Education guidelines). * Caused by snow and sand blocking intake 2. K-7 teachers teach 1 class per year or 25 students/year. 8-12 teachers teach 150 students/year. We estimated 50 students/year. 3. Therefore, the K-12 class average per year is 38 students. 4. It has been estimated that 65% of teachers who take our workshop, use our resources in the classroom. 5. Sample Calculation for three year period: 1725 teachers x 0.65 x 38 students = potential reach of 42,607 students. 5. Visitors to parks and LSCR Regional Parks and Watershed Education 2002 2003 2004 2005 In addition, we offer education programs to provide meaningful opportunities for participants to experi- Total park visitor use 6,531,736 7,398,107 7,755,802 7,835,057 ence the unique features of our Regional Parks and the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve and closed (not including Greenways) Watersheds and affect long-term influences upon perspectives and decisions as individuals for maintaining # Visitors to the Lower 514,535 525,000 555,000 560,000* a healthy and sustainable region. Seymour Conservation Reserve 2002 2003 2004 2005 Note: Construction has restricted growth Regional Parks 18,690 17,713 21,115 14,302 LSCR and Watershed 10,400 10,632 11,688 11,418 6. GVHC Housing Note: There is a temporary decrease in participation in regional parks attendance from 2004 to 2005, while staff resources normally dedicated to public programming were shifted to develop new programs better aligned with the Parks & Greenways Plan. 2002 2003 2004 2005 Social housing 3,397 units 8% 3,566 units 7% 3,555 units 7.8% 3,555units 6.2% Broadcast/Web (excluding special of total available of total available of total available of total available The GVRD produces two shows- The Sustainable Region and co-produces GVTV with the City of Vancouver. needs housing) affordable rental affordable rental affordable rental affordable rental These air monthly on Shaw TV (Cable 4) and Delta Cable, averaging about 25,000 viewers per show (accord- housing housing housing housing ing to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurements). In addition, The Sustainable Region was licensed to The Proportion of rent- 34.90% 33.68% 34.26% 31.25% Knowledge Network and ran a 13 week series in the fall of 2005, with a viewership of about 11,000 per show geared-to-income and (delete the) stories are also licensed to Science World and Novus Cable (downtown Vancouver). assistance Number of stories created for broadcast 2002 - 2005

2002 2003 2004 2005 The Sustainable Region N/A N/A 50 41 GVTV (co-produced with City of Vancouver) 60 40 48 41

Note: These stories are in a database available on our website.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.66 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.67 Corporate Corporate

8. Corporate Energy Consumption 11. Facility CAC and other emissions (WTEF and WWTPs)

Corporate Energy Consumption 4,000,000,000 3,500,000,000 WTEF self-generated energy (from steam) 3,000,000,000 Gasoline & Diesel (on-road) 2,500,000,000 WWTP Co-gen kWh 2,000,000,000 1,500,000,000 Electricity (Corporate and WTEF) 1,000,000,000 Natural Gas (Corporate and WTEF) CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC 500,000,000 0 Total 2003 (tonnes) 101 520 109 5 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total 2004 (tonnes) 115 581 96 15 13 13 Total 2005 (tonnes) 460 60 112 12 10 0

9. Corporate Co-generation (total and as per cent consumed) Notes: 0 does not mean zero emission. It means emissions did not meet the NPRI reporting threshold. Increase in CO emissions in 2005 is due to changes in estimation methods. 2003 and 2004 WWTP CO emissions were estimated based on published emission factors; 2005 emissions were estimated from site specific emissions factors based on emissions testing of the 2002 2003 2004 2005 cogeneration units at Annacis and Iona WWTPs. Increases in NOx are due to higher throughput of wastes and higher flue gas velocity at WTEF. WWTPS Variations in Sox, PM10 and PM2.5 are due to variations in CEMS (Continuous emissions monitoring system) measurements. Energy consumed 237,436,877 240,715,531 230,182,837 222,802,866 Energy generated 162,383,622 177,990,537 167,201,908 162,301,127 12. Paper Purchases – per cent recycled content Self-generated energy consumed 68.4% 73.9% 72.6% 72.8% 2002 2003 2004 2005 Recycled paper purchases that included 73% 76.8% 83.7% 81% WTEF 20-30 % post-consumer recycled fibre Energy consumed 39,604,294 40,240,094 37,233,820 42,445,094 Tonnes paper purchased 45.45 44.45 42.25 42.20 Energy generated 252,827,656 324,885,014 242,506,799 374,572,301

% Self-generated energy consumed 51% 44% 39% 45% 13. O, H & S Metric: Injuries and Days lost due to injuries Steam energy sold to Norampac 232,561,691 247,279,920 92,029,979 235,159,208 2002 2003 2004 2005 Electrical energy sold to BC Hydro 0 55,060,000 133,568,000 116,868,000 Injuries requiring medical aid 76 59 59 47 Notes: Steam energy in 2004 was low due to eight-month labour dispute at Norampac where they weren’t consuming steam, and elec- trical energy was higher due to increased production resulting from lack of steam export to Norampac during strike. Injuries Resulting in lost time 49 45 30 37 Electrical energy in 2003 was lower as the facility didn’t begin generating electrical power until July. Days lost due to injury 1335 1527 593 1149

10. Green Power Purchases as a per cent of Head OfficeN eeds 14. WCB Merit Discount

2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005 Green Power purchases as a % of Head Office needs 10% 10% 25% 50% WCB merit discount, based on performance 15% 16% 10.7% 14.1% relative to our industry sector

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.68 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.69 Corporate Corporate

15. Training and Development 20. Awards

2002 2003 2004 2005 2003 Average training $ per employee $940 $947 $ 992 $909 IGU Grand Prix - citiesPLUS Average training days per employee 5.6 4.6 4.7 4.0 APEGBC Sustainability Award - Little Mountain Reservoir Reconstruction project, Integrated Utility/Green- Internal training program course completions 1,668 1,308 1,561 1,308 way Corridor project, SEE-Gen Waste-to-Energy project, Cloverdale Sanitary Sewer Overflow Facility CHRA Silver Georgie Award – Inlet Centre 16. Staff Turnover BCWWA Safety First Award 2002 2003 2004 2005 Power Smart Partner Excellence Award Regular turnover 3.39 2.75 2.82 3.66

Note: Regular turnover (regular full-time employees) does not include auxiliary and seasonal hiring. 2004 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Sustainable Community Award Turbogenerator at Waste-To- Energy Facility (WTEF) 17. Average Days Absent Canadian Institute of Energy (CIE) Applied Energy Innovation Award – Turbo-generator at WTEF 2002 2003 2004 2005 BC Hydro Power Smart Excellence Award – WTEF Exempt 5.53 5.07 5.41 5.02 ASME Facility Recognition Award – WTEF EU 13.4 12.12 13.5 12.74 CEBC Award - Little Mountain Reservoir Reconstruction project Teamsters 8.93 10.08 9 8.97 ACEC Award of Excellence - Little Mountain Reservoir Reconstruction project Average 9.91 9.57 9.81 9.34 IABC Blue Wave Awards – “Check it Out” publication ARMP Records & Information Management Award – eRIM 18. Work Stoppages

2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 Legal work stoppages 0 0 0 0 Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Excellence Award – Surrey Transfer Station Number of days lost 0 0 0 0 Note: The collective agreements for the GVRDEU and the Teamsters expire on December 31, 2006. FCM–CH2MHILL Sustainable Communities Award – BuildSmart/Green Buildings BCWWA Safety Competition – 1st & 4th place 19. Financial Statements Canadian Society of Landscape Architects Award of Merit – Stormwater Source Control Design Guidelines See audited financial statements and related financial information for a picture of our financial perfor- and poster series mance (see www.gvrd.bc.ca/about). Golden Rooster Award by the BC Council of Agriculture for excellence in TV journalism in agriculture in 2005 – The Sustainable Region Canadian Blood Services Partners for Life Top Performers – 70 units Penticton Dragon Boat Festival – Silver

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.70 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.71 Photo Credits

Cherry Blossom Monica Crowder Clerk III Page: 3 Lake City Control Room Rick Marchand Utility Systems Control Page: 9 Superintendent Construction Source: GVRD Page: 8 Skytrain Station Science World Courtesy of Translink Page: 9 GVRD’s Operations Challenge Team Rick Marchand Utility Systems Control Page: 8 Superintendent Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page: 9 Plant Integrated Greenway Utility Corridor Source: GVRD Page: 8 Construction Interior Turbine Waste-to-Energy Facility Courtesy of Montenay, Inc. Page: 9 Red winged blackbird at Delta-South Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page: 8 Codd Wetlands Lori McGrath Internal Communications Page: 9 Surrey Greenway Coordinator Contractor identifying Larvae Species Courtesy of Culex Page: 8 Burns Bog Courtesy of Don DeMille Page: 9 (West Nile Virus) Environmental Chinatown Source: GVRD Page: 9 Ashcroft Ranch Cattle Source: GVRD Page: 8 Cyclist on Bridge Source: GVRD Page: 11 Nutrifor Garden Lori McGrath Internal Communications Page: 8 Little Mountain Reservoir Construction A. Sukumar Senior Structural Engineer Page: 12 Coordinator Underway, June 2003 Cache Creek Landfill and Airport Courtesy of Kat-Katkam.ca Page: 8 Surrey Transfer Station Courtesy of Eye in the Sky Page: 12 Hydroseeding Guy Gerath Watershed Operations Page: 8 Aerial Photography Technologist Cloverdale Sanitary Sewage Overflow Courtesy of West Coast Page: 12 GVRD Head Office, 4330 Kingsway Horst Unger Senior Project Engineer Page: 8 Storage Facility Illustration Container Vessel at Vancouver Terminal Zorik Pirveysian Division Manager Page: 8 Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant Courtesy of SSBV Consultants Page: 12 Inc. Annacis Island WWTP Safety Inspection Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page: 8 Tree Frog Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:12 Marcel Labreche fighting the Burns Bog Lisa Pelles Park Assistant Page: 8 & 13 Fire Little Mountain Reservoir Construction A. Sukumar Senior Structural Engineer Page:14 Local school, Heather Place Lynda King Division Manager Page: 8 Underway, June 2003 Deer along Greenway Geert Kuiper Welding Inspector Page: 8 Little Mountain Reservoir A. Sukumar Senior Structural Engineer Page:14 Tree Frog Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page: 8 Viewing Platform at Little Mountain A. Sukumar Senior Structural Engineer Page:15 Cherry Blossom Monica Crowder Clerk III Page: 9 Surrey Transfer Station Courtesy of Eye in the Sky Page:16 Multiculturalism Source: GVRD Page: 9 Aerial Photography Head Tightening Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page: 9 Cloverdale Sanitary Sewer Overflow Source: GVRD Page:17 (SSO) Storage Facility Dragonboating Robert Ng Chemist/Analyst Page: 9 Cloverdale Sanitary Sewer Overflow Source: GVRD Page:17 Cyclist on Greenway Source: GVRD Page: 9 (SSO) Storage Facility Beach Source: GVRD Page: 9 New Westminster Combined Sewer Paul Wilting Senior Project Engineer Page: 9 Shiney Stack WTEF Source: GVRD Page: 9 Overflow Facility (Civil) Satellite Photo Greater Vancouver Region Source: GVRD Page: 9 Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant Courtesy of SSBV Consultants Page:19 Inc. Cell 1 Site Work Little Bill Heyman Survey and Inspection Page: 9 Mountain Reservoir Clearwell at the Seymour-Capilano Amanda Felker Co-op Student Page:19 Filtration Plant Valve Chamber Little Mountain Reservoir Bill Heyman Survey and Inspection Page: 9 Frog at Annacis Island WWTP Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:20 Playground, Heather Place (GVHC) Lynda King Division Manager Page: 9 Construction on Twin Tunnel Courtesy of Inspector Page:21 Heather Place (GVHC) Lynda King Division Manager Page: 9 Hal Langpap, Hatch Mott Great-horned Owl in Stanely Park Andrew Hunt Operations Supervisor Page: 9 MacDonald Minnekhada Park Sara James Payroll System Specialist Page: 9 Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant Courtesy of Contractor, SNC Page:21 - Lavalin New Westminster Combined Sewer Paul Wilting Senior Project Engineer Page: 9 Overflow Facility (Civil) Inside the Turbine at the GVRD WTEF Courtesy of Montenay, Inc. Page:22 Electrical Substation at the GVRD WTEF Courtesy of Montenay, Inc. Page:23

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.72 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.73 Inside the Turbine at the GVRD WTEF Courtesy of Montenay, Inc. Page:24 Commercial Drive SkyTrain Station Source: Translink Page:44 GVRD WTEF during Turbogenerator Courtesy of Lex Engineering Page:24 Skytrain Source: Translink Page:45 construction – 2003 Ltd. SkyTrain Source: Translink Page:45 Cache Creek Jonn Braman Project Manager Page:25 Annacis Island WWTP Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:46 Burns Bog Courtesy of Don DeMille Page:26 Coquitlam Dam Maintenance Geert Kuiper Welding Inspector Page:46 Fish Return to Stoneycreek Page:26 Safety Training Malcolm Schulz Watershed Operations Page:46 Bonaparte River Page:26 Assistant Codd Wetlands Lori McGrath Internal Communications Page: 26 Dragonboating Robert Ng Chemist/Analyst Page:46 Coordinator & 27 Annacis Island WWTP Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:47 Burns Bog Courtesy of Don DeMille Page:28 Annacis Island WWTP Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:48 Marcel Labreche fighting the Lisa Pelles Park Assistant Page:28 Annacis Island WWTP Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:48 Burns Bog Fire Coquitlam Dam Maintenance Geert Kuiper Welding Inspector Page:49 Pitt Meadows Mayor Don McLean and BC Sheila Gardner Media Relations Officer Page:29 Premier Gordon Campbell (Former) GVRD Head Office, 4330 Kingsway Horst Unger Senior Project Engineer Page:51 Fish Return to StoneyCreek Source: GVRD Page:30 Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) Malcolm Schulz Watershed Operations Page:52 Assistant Volunteer streamkeeper at Stoney Creek Courtesy of Lloyd Struck Page:30 Safety Week Lori McGrath Internal Communications Page:52 Bonaparte River Courtesy of Kat-Katkam.ca Page:31 Coordinator Bonaparte River Courtesy of Kat-Katkam.ca Page:31 Dragon Boat Festival Robert Ng Chemist/Analyst Page:53 Culex pipien Courtesy of Culex Page:32 Great-horned Owl in Stanely Park Andrew Hunt Operations Supervisor Page:55 Environmental City of Salvador, Brazil Source: Celso Pupo istockphoto.com Page:56 Larvicidal Treatment Courtesy of Culex Page:32 Rodrigues Environmental Lake Geneva, Switzerland Source: Mike Morley istockphoto.com Page:57 West Nile Virus Monitoring Courtesy of Culex Page:33 Environmental Intersection in the historic Source: Tony Oquias istockphoto.com Page:57 EDSA, Philippines CulexTarsalis Adult Courtesy of Culex Page:33 Environmental Container Vessel at Vancouver Terminal Zorik Pirveysian Division Manager Page:59 Larvicial Treatment Courtesy of Culex Page:33 Environmental Poplar Landing, New Westminster Source: GVRD Page:34 Deer on Greenway in Delta Geert Kuiper Welding Inspector Page:35 Poplar Landing, New Westminster Source: GVRD Page:36 South Surrey Greenway through Delta Loger Aure Research Technician Page:36 Nature Reserve Red winged blackbird at Delta-South Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:37 Surrey Greenway Stoney Creek section of Burnette-Fraser Source: GVRD Page:37 Greenway Inlet Centre, GVHC Source: GVRD Page:38 Playground, Heather Place (GVHC) Lynda King Division Manager Page:39 Inlet Centre, GVHC Source: GVRD Page:40 Local school, Heather Place Lynda King Division Manager Page:40 Inlet Centre Source: GVRD Page:40 Bus Source: TransLink Page:42 Skytrain Source: TransLink Page:42 Investing in Regional Transportation Source: TransLink Page:42 & 43 Bus Source: TransLink Page:44

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.75 Greater Vancouver Regional District 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8 Telephone: 604-432-6200 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 604-451-6614 Website: www.gvrd.bc.ca

The Greater Vancouver Regional District includes the municipalities of Anmore, Belcarra, Bowen Island, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Delta, Langley City, Langley Township, Lions Bay, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, North Vancouver City, North Vancouver District, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Richmond, Surrey, Vancouver, West Vancouver, White Rock, and Electoral Area A.

This report was reproduced digitally in a small quantity to conserve materials and energy. It is available online in PDF format.

150/06/06 1. YMCA We build strong kids, strong families, strong communities.

May 12, 2006

Ed Andrusiak Manager, Regional Parks, GVRD 505-4330 Kingsway Burnaby BC V5H 4G8

Dear Ed Andrusiak,

We are pleased to report that after carefully considering all options, on May 11, 2006 the YMCA of Greater Vancouver signed a fonnal agreement to sell its Camp How'dyproperty in Belcarra to the Evangelical Layman's Church (ELC). The sale will close after a process of due diligence by both parties. The ELC's plans for the site are strongly aligned with the YMCA's mission of service to children, families and communities as well as our organization's commitment to environmental stewardship and the public interest.

We are releasing to you and the public that the ELC offer is based on: . The continuation of YMCA camping programs at the site for the next two to three years, to allow for the expansion of YMCA Camp Elphinstone and the transition of current Camp Howdy programs to other sites on the Sunshine Coast, Lower Mainland and elsewhere in BC; . No zoning changes and no new road construction; and . The honouring of existing agreements with adjacent landowners. Also, we can advise at this time that after the transitional period with YMCA Camps, the ELC plans to offer non-denominational camping and outdoor education programs such as those they currently operate at Camp Highland in southern California (www.camphigrJand.net). We are very pleased that the camp in Belcarra will remain a place where children and youth can enjoy quality outdoor experiences in a pristine wilderness setting.

Looking to the future, the sale of the Camp Rowdy property, along with funds raised through our Strong Foundations Strong Communities capital campaign, will help the YMCA replace, improve and create facilities and services where they are most needed. As mentioned, we are working on a planned expansion of YMCA Camp Elphinstone. Our

2

YMCAAssociation Services, 200-1166 Alberni Street, Vancouver, BC V6E 3Z3 / www.vanymca.org Child Care, Tel: (604) 294-9622/ Fax: (604) 294-9414 Executive Offices, Tel: (604) 681-9622/ Fax: (604) 688-0220 Finance & Administration, Tel: (604) 682-8101 / Fax: (604) 681-8036

YMCA Mission: The YMCA is a charitable association dedicated to the development of people in spirit, mind and body as well as the improvement of local, national and international communities.

~~l~,~X other plans include a new Nanook YMCA Early Childhood and Family Centre to serve inner-city East Vancouver; a new Downtown YMCA that features a 69-space licensed child care and family development centre, improved amenities for women, space for community programs and services for seniors and people with disabilities; and a YMCA Children and Youth Endowment Fund to assist families in financial need throughout the GVRD.

We are proud to have served families and children from throughout the Lower Mainland over the past six decades at YMCA Camp Howdy, and look forward to continuing this tradition through YMCA camping, health and communityprograms and services for decades to come. We thank you for your support throughout this process.

Sincerely,

1tA-- c~ V}. "-_J Bill Stewart President and CEO YMCA of Greater Vancouver

I-

Park Committee Meeting Date: June 7, 2006 GVRD Board of Directors Meeting Date: June 30, 2006

TO: Board of Directors

FROM: Parks Committee

DATE: May 15, 2006

RE: Pacific Parklands Foundation – Funding and Support

Recommendations:

That the GVRD Board:

a) receive this report as information on activities of the Pacific Parkland Foundation, and;

b) request staff develop a proposed multi-year funding program of cash contribution and in-kind support for the Pacific Parklands Foundation as part of GVRD 2007 budget considerations, and that the proposed multi-year funding program be linked to the Pacific Parkland Foundations multi-year business plan. ______

1. PURPOSE

To report on the activities of the Pacific Parkland Foundation and need for multi-year funding support.

2. CONTEXT

Section 176 (1)(c) of the Local Government Act (LGA) states that the GVRD Board of Directors may: “provide assistance for the purpose of benefiting the community or any aspect of the community.” “Assistance” is defined under section 181(a) of the LGA as including “exemption from a tax, fee or charge”. GVRD Board has approved financial support to the Pacific Parkland Foundation (PPF) and exemption from charges for office space and equipment, a computer work station, stationary supplies and office support.

Pacific Parklands Foundation Background The PPF is a not-for-profit society registered in 2002 under the Societies Act of British Columbia. PPF has Revenue Canada charitable status and is empowered to issue tax receipts to donors. The society has a constitution, bylaws, Executive Director (part-time) and a 12-member board of directors.

In November 2003, the GVRD Board authorized the Parks Committee to allocate $75,000 in direct annual funding, for a three year period; the funding is used primarily to cover the salary of an Executive Director (four days per week). GVRD also committed to in-kind support valued at $15,500 for office space, technical support (computer and internet access), general office supplies, photocopying, printing and courier and staff support including a limited amount of administrative and graphic design support.

The PPF now operates as other successful education, health, research, social, religious and non-profit foundations by locating the Foundation in the facilities of the main organization it supports. In addition PPF has been targeting smaller, achievable projects within the funding abilities of smaller donors; and also working closely with the staff and community partners of the organization it supports. The Society presently operates out of an office provided by GVRD at 4330 Kingsway in Burnaby.

2005 Accomplishments In 2005, the Pacific Parklands Foundation provided $383,000 in direct financial contributions from donors in support of a number of GVRD Parks initiatives.

Regional Park Project / Initiative Funds Raised

Burnaby Lake Piper Spit Rotary Boardwalk $55,000 Capilano River Camp Capilano $15,000 Aldergrove Lake Aldergrove Bowl $75,000 Tynehead Raven’s Nest Group Camp $5,000 Pacific Spirit Camosun Bog Boardwalk $35,000 System-wide program Catching the Spirit Youth Initiative $98,000 System-wide program Donation Stations / IMPARK $100,000 Total: $383,000

Future Requirements

The PPF’s 2004/05 Annual Review was first submitted to GVRD Park Committee in October 2005 and presented in April 2006. In it, the PPF stated that a stronger financial commitment from the GVRD will be needed if the Foundation is to become sustainable and have greater success in raising non-tax funding for GVRD Parks. The PPF is requesting that GVRD continue to provide multi-year funding commencing in 2007, funding would be directed to annual operating costs and the establishment of an endowment fund.

3. ALTERNATIVES

Option 1: Do not provide support to PPF beyond 2006

Advantages: a) No additional cost to GVRD; b) Initial GVRD investment has been recovered in cash raised, in-kind donations and bequests of property (if ultimately realized); c) Funds would be redirected to other projects.

Disadvantages:

a) Will not provide GVRD Parks with a fundraising vehicle viewed favorably by many potential donors. Donors often prefer to give to a Foundation rather than government or government agency because they feel more confident that funds given to a foundation will support the specific project of interest to them; b) Will not provide GVRD Parks with access to a well connected business network with access to significant non-tax funds; c) Abandons the initial investment made in start-up costs for PPF at a time when the Foundation is showing significant breakthroughs in realizing significant non-tax revenues; d) Risk there will be loss of momentum with fundraising achieved in 2005 and carried through 2006; consequence of reduced potential net revenue to GVRD Parks; e) Risk that pending bequest of land arranged through the PPF may be jeopardized; f) Potential disenchantment and cynicism among volunteer members of the PPF Board of Directors, many of whom have invested significant time, energy and personal credibility to make the PPF successful.

Option 2: Provide the PPF with annual operating support

Advantages: a) Provides the best opportunity to maximize return on initial investment to start-up; can capitalize on momentum with the prospect of significant monetary donations and bequests of land to reach a target (year-five) of $750,000 (this is consistent with the time frame and funding support to develop other similar foundations; b) Maintains GVRD access to well-established business networks and enhanced potential for philanthropy supporting worthy projects and programs; c) Enhances the effectiveness of donor support by enabling 100% of donor contributions to go directly to the project(s) for which the money is provided. This is viewed as a substantial advantage in a very competitive fundraising environment; d) Increased confidence and effectiveness of Park volunteers and youth projects which benefit from PPF fundraising; e) Enhanced public relations that will help expand donation networks and contributions. The recognition of donors who have contributed to the Foundation is vitally important for fostering additional support; f) PPF will continue to attract well-established, well-connected members of the business community who can help guarantee future success of the PPF.

Disadvantages:

a) Risk of GVRD not realizing complete return on investment, as additional resources are channeled into the PPF, i.e. opportunity costs; b) Requires office space and in-kind support that will have some impact on staff and other GVRD Parks projects;

4. CONCLUSION

Staff recommend Option 2. A significant investment has been made in the Pacific Parklands Foundation. The Foundation is now demonstrating success that merits continued financial support. The PPF Board of Directors and Executive Director continue to demonstrate strong commitment and dedication to make the Foundation more effective. To enable PPF to operate most effectively and to maximize opportunities for philanthropy a proposal for a multi-year financial and in-kind contribution from GVRD should be included in the 2007 budget submission to the Board.

EA/dm

Greater Vancouver Regional District Board Meeting Date: June 28, 2006

To: Greater Vancouver Regional District Board

From: Agriculture Committee

Date: June 8, 2006

Subject: Agriculture Land Protection

Recommendation: WHEREAS the South Coast Panel will deal with a number of significant applications with regional implications; AND WHEREAS the Tsawwassen Treaty lands decision will be precedent setting for urban treaties; AND WHEREAS there will be newly appointed members of the South Coast Panel; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GVRD Board request the Minister of Agriculture to appoint a full panel of 7 members comprising 3 members of the South Coast Panel, 3 commissioners from other regions and the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission to deliberate proposals for exclusion.

At its June 8, 2006, regular meeting the Agriculture Committee heard a delegation from Ann Rowan, Sustainability Program Director, David Suzuki Foundation, regarding agricultural land protection and the Agricultural Land Commission. The Committee approved the above resolution.

004396002

Greater Vancouver Regional District Board Meeting Date: June 28, 2006

To: Greater Vancouver Regional District Board

From: Agriculture Committee

Date: June 8, 2006

Subject: BC Agriculture Plan

Recommendation: That the GVRD Board request staff to prepare, in consultation with the GVRD Agricultural Advisory Committee, a submission to the BC Agricultural Plan Committee for consideration by the Board.

At its June 8, 2006, regular meeting the Agriculture Committee considered the attached letter to stakeholders from the Provincial Government regarding a Provincial Agriculture Plan process.

The Committee recommended that staff prepare a brief that could be submitted by the GVRD Board to the Committee.

Attachment: Letter from MLA, Val Roddick (Delta), Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning to ‘Stakeholders’

004396872

Greater Vancouver Regional District Board Meeting Date: June 28, 2006

To: Greater Vancouver Regional District Board

From: Environment Committee

Date: June 13, 2006

Subject: Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program

Recommendation:

That the GVRD Board: 1. Thank the Vancouver Port Authority, Fraser River Port Authority, Chamber of Shipping of BC, North West CruiseShip Association, BC Ferries and Environment Canada for their participation in the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop and request their continued collaboration with the GVRD to: a. Establish cooperative agreements, including the identification of objectives and implementation plan, with the GVRD and other organizations to address air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations; b. Develop comprehensive port-wide emissions inventories and forecasts, consisting of marine vessels, cargo handling equipment, trucks and locomotives; c. Develop implementation mechanisms for existing and proven control technologies with the objective of accelerating emission reductions, with a particular priority on implementation of shore power; d. Conduct feasibility studies and demonstration projects for new and emerging technologies; e. Require any new port facilities to implement shore power systems; f. Pursue other sources of funding to facilitate or accelerate implementation of emission reduction measures and strategies for the marine and ports sector.

2. Strongly urge the federal government to: a. Expedite the ratification of the existing international standards (i.e., MARPOL Annex VI) through amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, and the designation of the West Coast area as a Sulphur Emission Control Area; and b. Pursue more stringent fuel quality requirements and emission standards for both new and existing marine vessels as part of the International Maritime Organization review of MARPOL Annex VI.

3. Direct staff to organize a public forum involving marine and port organizations to report on implementation of the best practices towards reducing emissions and impacts from marine vessels and port operations.

4. Request staff to forward the report dated May 30, 2006, titled “Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program” and any resolution passed regarding the issue to the federal Ministers of Environment and Transportation, the provincial Minister of Environment, and other appropriate stakeholders.

Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Page 2 of 2 Greater Vancouver Regional District Board Meeting Date: June 30, 2006

At its June 13, 2006 meeting, the Environment Committee reviewed the attached report dated May 30, 2006, titled “Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program” and amended the recommendation as above.

Attachment: Report dated May 30, 2006, titled “Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program”

004396091

Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

To: Environment Committee

From: Roger Quan, Senior Engineer Shelina Sidi, Project Engineer Policy and Planning Department

Date: May 30, 2006

Subject: Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program

Recommendations:

1. That the Board thank the Vancouver Port Authority, Fraser River Port Authority, Chamber of Shipping of BC, North West CruiseShip Association, BC Ferries and Environment Canada for their participation in the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop and request their continued collaboration with the GVRD to: a. Establish cooperative agreements, including the identification of objectives and development of implementation plans, with the GVRD and other organizations to address air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations; b. Develop comprehensive port-wide emissions inventories and forecasts, consisting of marine vessels, cargo handling equipment, trucks and locomotives; c. Develop implementation mechanisms for existing and proven control technologies with the objective of accelerating emission reductions; d. Conduct feasibility studies and demonstration projects for new and emerging technologies; and e. Pursue other sources of funding to facilitate or accelerate implementation of emission reduction measures and strategies for the marine and ports sector.

2. That the Board strongly urge the federal government to: a. Expedite the ratification of the existing international standards (i.e., MARPOL Annex VI) through amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, and the designation of the West Coast area as a Sulphur Oxides (SOx) Emission Control Area; and b. Pursue more stringent fuel quality requirements and emission standards for both new and existing marine vessels as part of the International Maritime Organization review of MARPOL Annex VI.

3. That the Board direct staff to organize a Board workshop involving marine and port organizations in one year’s time to report on progress towards reducing emissions and impacts from marine vessels and port operations.

Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Page 2 of 5 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

1. PURPOSE

To provide a summary of the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop held on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, and to propose recommendations for future actions to address the air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations.

2. CONTEXT

Background The workshop on Marine and Port Air Emissions (the workshop) was held on April 26, 2006, as a special meeting of the Environment Committee, in response to a request from the GVRD Board in 2005, and pursuant to actions outlined in the GVRD’s Air Quality Management Plan. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss: the air quality impacts of marine and port activities; the GVRD Air Quality Management Plan objectives and actions for this sector; the current emission reduction efforts underway by the federal government, port authorities, shipping industry and ferry operators; and identify areas of future collaboration to further reduce emissions from this sector.

The workshop was attended by a number of GVRD Board members in addition to the Environment Committee. Presentations were made by GVRD, Environment Canada (EC), Chamber of Shipping of BC (CSBC), North West CruiseShip Association (NWCA), Vancouver Port Authority (VPA), Fraser River Port Authority (FRPA) and BC Ferries (BCF). Summaries of the presentations are provided in Attachment 1. Other participants included representatives of Transport Canada (TC), BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) and Council of Marine Carriers (CMC).

Overview of Issues and Opportunities Identified During the Workshop Following the presentations, participants responded to questions from the Environment Committee and Board members. A number of key issues and opportunities for future work were identified, which are summarized below.

There was general agreement that collaborative efforts were important for addressing ship and port emissions. Collaboration to date includes the formation of the Georgia Basin Marine Vessel Air Quality Work Group, the West Coast Diesel Emissions Reductions Collaborative (Marine/Port Work Group), cooperative development of an updated emission inventory for ocean-going vessels, and discussion of potential partnership funding on other studies. However, it was emphasized that additional collaboration is necessary, and some concern was expressed that the existing collaboration is primarily between industry and government and should be expanded to include additional interest groups, such as the public and environmental organizations. The need for better transparency and sharing of information between industry and government was expressed, particularly with respect to emission reduction initiatives underway or planned by port authorities. The possibility of developing joint work plans or formal agreements between GVRD, port authorities and other interest groups was also explored.

A number of questions were raised regarding the regulatory jurisdiction for emissions from marine vessels and port activities, and mechanisms for enforcement of regulations. The federal government has jurisdiction over marine vessel engines and fuels, with responsibility shared between Transport Canada and Environment Canada. Standards for ocean-going vessels are established by a United Nations body, the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO MARPOL Annex VI contains modest nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission standards for engines manufactured after 1999 and fuel sulphur content limits (4.5%). Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Page 3 of 5 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

Annex VI also contains provisions to designate areas with sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution problems as a SOx emission control area (SECA), where fuel sulphur content would be restricted to 1.5%. While efforts are currently underway to designate the west coast or North America as a SECA, this may not become effective for several years. There is also a significant level of uncertainty with respect to the tightening of international emission standards for marine engines under Annex VI. In addition, given the longevity of marine vessel engines, programs are needed to address emissions from both existing and new ships. With respect to land-based activities at ports, such as non-road equipment used for cargo handling, as well as truck and rail transportation, the federal government has the primary regulatory authority. Port authorities are federal Crown corporations, and as such, their tenants or leaseholders operate on federal lands.

Emission reduction measures implemented in other jurisdictions were discussed at length. Industry representatives indicated that many of these technologies or practices are proven and could be implemented in the GVRD; several have been put in place, tested or considered. However, barriers were identified for some, such as funding issues and unfavourable economics for the use of shore power1. For newer technologies, there was general agreement that some form of technology verification program is needed to provide independent validation of emission performance claims.

Implementation mechanisms need to be developed for emission reduction measures for marine vessel and port sources in the GVRD. These mechanisms would likely involve multiple facets, such as continuing with collaborative approaches and voluntary measures, but combining these with incentive (or dis-incentive) programs and other means of expediting implementation. Committee members were interested in knowing what has prompted industry in other jurisdictions to be on the “leading edge” with environmental initiatives. Some committee members cautioned that it is necessary to monitor the success of voluntary programs and initiate more regulatory actions where needed.

Discussion also focused on pursuing funding from senior levels of government to assist with the implementation of emission reduction measures for this sector. Funding could be used to facilitate and accelerate the implementation of technological solutions which have been proven in other jurisdictions, promote research and evaluation of new technologies, and develop verification programs.

Strategy for Addressing Emissions from Marine Vessels and Ports In order to address the existing and future air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations, a multi-level strategy is proposed, consisting of collaborative efforts with other agencies and stakeholders, combined with actions led by the federal government and by GVRD. As discussed during the workshop, a number of these actions are already underway, while others need to be developed or expedited, as described below.

Collaborative Efforts (between GVRD, federal government agencies, port authorities, industry organizations, and other interest groups) Actions Underway • Develop an updated emission inventory for marine vessels for 2005. Quantification of the emissions from ocean-going vessels is already in progress through a cooperative effort with the Chamber of Shipping of BC, Environment Canada, and others.

1 Shore power, also known as “cold ironing” refers to shutting down auxiliary engines on ships while they are berthed in a port, and connecting to electrical power supplied at the dock. Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Page 4 of 5 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

• A GVRD diesel emission reduction program was approved by the Board in April 2006 to provide incentives for implementation of diesel emission reduction projects. This program could be used as a building block towards the development of a national diesel emission reduction program by establishing a working group with marine industry stakeholders and other agencies. • Work with BC Ferries to update emission inventory estimates and evaluate the feasibility of emission reduction strategies. Actions to be Developed or Initiated • Develop a port-wide inventory and forecast, including emissions from marine vessels as well as land-based sources such as cargo handling equipment, trucks and rail transportation associated with ports. While the marine vessel component is under development, the portion dealing with land-based sources has yet to be initiated. • Develop implementation mechanisms for emission reduction technologies and strategies for marine vessels and other port sources through voluntary, incentive- based or mandatory programs, particularly for measures that have been successfully applied in other ports. • Conduct feasibility studies, demonstration projects and technology verification programs for new and emerging technologies. • Pursue other sources of funding to facilitate or accelerate implementation of emission reduction measures for the marine and ports sector. • Work with the rail industry to improve understanding of current and future emission levels and identity opportunities for emission reductions. A working group could be established in this regard.

Actions Led by Federal Government Actions Underway • Ratify the existing international standards (i.e., MARPOL Annex VI) through amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. Actions to be Developed or Initiated • Expedite the designation of North American coasts or the West Coast area as a SECA (SOx Emission Control Area). • Pursue more stringent fuel quality requirements and emission standards for new and existing marine vessels as part of the International Maritime Organization review of MARPOL Annex VI.

Actions Led by GVRD Actions Underway • Initiate a local air quality study for the Burrard Inlet area, in consultation with other government air quality and health agencies, the marine industry, Vancouver Port Authority, environmental organizations and public interest groups, to provide more information on air quality and health impacts associated with port and other activities in the study area. Actions to be Developed or Initiated • Establish cooperative agreements and joint work plans between GVRD and port authorities, shipping industry, and BC Ferries to address air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations in partnership with the federal government and other interest groups. • Monitor progress in addressing emissions and impacts from marine vessels and port operations, and adapt the strategy as necessary.

Although a number of actions are already underway, the Environment Committee and Board could provide assistance by urging that some be expedited or enhanced (for example, in Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Page 5 of 5 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006 terms of stringency). For actions which have yet to be developed or initiated, the Environment Committee and Board could write to key stakeholder organizations to encourage their participation in additional efforts to address emissions and impacts.

3. ALTERNATIVES

The Board may: a) Direct staff to proceed with the proposed strategy for addressing emissions from marine vessels and ports, and provide assistance by writing to key stakeholder organizations to expedite or enhance actions underway, or to initiate new actions or initiatives. This would be consistent with actions approved in the Air Quality Management Plan, which calls for the GVRD to increase its influence with respect to marine vessels and port operations, through agreements with port authorities, investigation of local air quality impacts, and partnership initiatives to identify and implement emission reduction measures. b) Direct staff to proceed with an alternate list of actions. c) Take no action at this time. This direction would mean that the GVRD would continue with its participation in existing collaborative efforts which are already underway but would not pursue an expanded role in addressing emissions from marine vessels or port activities through actions which have not yet been developed or initiated.

4. CONCLUSION

Marine vessels and port operations represent a significant and growing source of emissions in the region. Diesel particulate emissions from marine vessels and other diesel-powered port sources such as cargo handling equipment, trucks and locomotives are of particular concern because of their potential health impacts. The GVRD’s new Air Quality Management Plan recognized the adverse impacts of diesel emissions in the region and adopted a set of priority actions to reduce emissions from diesel sources such as marine vessels, trucks, buses, locomotives, and non-road engines.

The lack of stringent international regulations for marine engines and the fact that current federal standards apply only to newly manufactured engines for other diesel categories, coupled with the longevity of diesel engines, warrant the development of complementary regional programs to accelerate emission reductions. Such programs could be in the form of voluntary, incentive or mandatory instruments, or combinations thereof. Reducing emissions from marine vessels and ports would support the AQMP’s goals of achieving air quality improvements in the region, minimizing risk to public health and improving visibility.

Attachment: 1. Summary of Presentations Made at the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop

4396075 Attachment 1

Summary of Presentations Made at the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop

GVRD - Zorik Pirveysian, Division Manager, Air Quality Policy and Management

There are concerns with existing and future air quality levels and associated health impacts in the region. Significant health impacts are linked to exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) from sources such as ocean-going vessels, trucks, locomotives and non-road engines. These sources contribute to a significant amount of emissions in the region, and their emissions are forecast to increase as a result of growth in population, transportation, international trade and shipping activity. Local air quality impacts are also of particular concern for communities adjacent to areas where there is a concentration of diesel emission sources, such as ports, rail yards and transportation corridors. To address these impacts, the AQMP has identified a number of priority actions for major sources, including marine and port operations. Due to the GVRD’s limited regulatory authority on port operations and the lack of stringency and uncertain timing of federal regulations and standards for marine vessel emissions, there is a need for additional collaborative efforts between GVRD, other regulatory agencies and the marine industry to develop and implement emission reduction programs for marine vessels and port operations. Despite existing collaborative efforts, implementation of emission reduction measures is lagging behind other ports (for example, in Seattle, Los Angeles and Long Beach). Additional efforts are needed to develop and implement comprehensive programs encompassing regulatory requirements, guidelines, voluntary programs, and incentive-based programs (or disincentives). There is also a need to secure sources of funding to expedite these programs. GVRD is proposing to expand the existing level of collaborative efforts to address the air quality impacts of ports and marine vessels.

Environment Canada (EC) - Andrew Green, Senior Air Program Engineer

An overview of federal regulations for new on-road diesel vehicles, non-road engines and fuel quality was provided. Ocean-going vessels are regulated by an international United Nations body, the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO MARPOL Annex VI has established modest NOx emission standards and fuel sulphur content limits. In Canada, new regulations are under development to implement the requirements of Annex VI via the Canada Shipping Act. The Annex allows for the establishment of SECAs (SOx emission control areas) which would require the use of fuel with sulphur content below 1.5% by weight, or the use of equivalent emission control equipment. The average sulphur content of fuel burned by marine vessels in Greater Vancouver is 2.6%. It is estimated that SECA would result in regional reductions of 44% and 18% for sulphur oxides (SOx) and PM2.5 respectively. Environment Canada and the US Environmental Protection Agency are conducting a study to determine the feasibility of a North American or West Coast SECA designation. The most optimistic timeframe for establishment of a SECA would be 2012 – 2015. A sub-committee of the IMO is also looking at tightening the Annex VI requirements, with more stringent NOx emission standards, NOx standards for older ships (pre-2000), particulate matter emission standards and lower fuel sulphur content restrictions. Canada participates in this sub- committee and supports the tightening of existing standards. Recommendations from this sub-committee are not expected until 2007, meaning that the scope of requirements and timing for implementation is uncertain.

Summary of Presentations Made at the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop Page 2 of 3 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

Chamber of Shipping of BC (CSBC) – Rick Bryant, President

The Chamber provided an overview of the shipping industry including the types of vessels that visit BC ports, the engines operating in these vessels, the modes of operation (underway, maneuvering, hoteling), and the types and quality of fuel burned. It was emphasized that there is a need for international regulations due to the global nature of the industry. Information was provided on the collaborative emission inventory effort (between the CSBC, EC, GVRD and Transport Canada) which began on April 1, 2005 with the launch of a one year survey program of ocean-going vessels visiting ports in BC, which will culminate in a new emission inventory for ocean-going vessels in BC and the GVRD.

NorthWest CruiseShip Association (NWCA) – John Hansen, President

An overview of the cruise ship industry in BC was provided, including the types and characteristics of vessels (e.g. the average age is six years), and the quality of fuel burned. All vessels that homeport in Vancouver (17) also bunker here, i.e., purchase fuel locally, with a sulphur content from 1.6% to 1.8% by weight. Cruise ships are required to report sulphur contents and fuel quantities to Environment Canada for any fuel used while operating in waters under Canadian jurisdiction. Infrastructure for shore power has been installed in ports in Seattle and Alaska, and is utilized by two cruise lines.

Fraser River Port Authority (FRPA) – Nures Kara, Manager, Environmental Services

A summary was provided of business activities, population and types of equipment at each of FRPA’s three properties in Surrey, Richmond and Annacis. Some of FRPA’s constraints to implementation of emission reduction measures are the cost of dredging to keep the shipping channels operational, payments in lieu of taxes (PILTS) paid to the federal government and municipalities and double pilotage fees due to additional navigation in the Fraser River. The presentation included voluntary actions that could be taken, such as implementation of best management practices and working with port tenants to upgrade equipment and use low sulphur fuel when it becomes cost effective. Short sea shipping was identified as a means to reduce the number of truck and rail trips in the region.

Vancouver Port Authority (VPA) - Jim Cox, Vice President, Infrastructure Development - Alicia Blancarte, Director, Environmental Programs

VPA stated that they share the concern regarding air quality issues and that collaboration is the key to success. VPA has begun working on many of the emission strategies noted in GVRD’s presentation. VPA outlined the need to shift the focus of priority emission reductions to area and mobile sources (non-road engines, rail, diesel trucks and marine vessels), since the improvements to date can be credited to industrial and on-road mobile sources, and on reducing particulate matter and DPM emissions. However, VPA recommended that the GVRD focus its efforts on area sources, truck and rail emissions, and indoor air quality, since marine vessels and other port related Summary of Presentations Made at the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop Page 3 of 3 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

sources were more appropriately dealt with by federal and international agencies and because GVRD does not have the regulatory authority in this area. VPA has set a port- wide emission reduction target of 10%; however, detailed plans on how this target will be achieved have not been provided. VPA has demonstrated the use of a fuel additive in both terminal equipment and vessel engines, but indicated that the observed performance improvements in terms of emissions and fuel efficiency have not been subject to any form of technology verification program.

BC Ferries – Alicja Rudzki, Environmental Manager

BC Ferries provided an overview of their vessel fleet, routes and their contribution to emissions in the region. They are investigating the feasibility of operational (e.g. speed and fuel quality) and technical (continuous water injection technology, engine improvements) approaches for reducing emissions from their fleet. They have expressed an interest in principle to work collaboratively with the GVRD to develop emission reduction strategies and conduct ship emissions measurements.

004384684

Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006

To: Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Finance Committee

From: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Gordon Ruth, Chief Financial Officer Tracey Husoy, Purchasing and Risk Division Manager

Date: May 29, 2006

Subject: Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy

Recommendation: That the GVRD Board adopt the framework for a new Sustainable Procurement Policy for Commissioner/CAO implementation.

1. PURPOSE

To have the Board adopt a new framework for a sustainable procurement policy as part of the corporate implementation of the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI).

Following adoption, staff will incorporate this framework into policies, procedures and practices as applicable.

2. CONTEXT

The GVRD is one of a number of organizations, including federal, provincial and municipal governments that are currently reviewing or moving to full implementation of policy related to sustainable procurement. While the implementation of such policy varies by organization, the underlying principles behind the rationale for the policy remain the same - a desire to ensure that social and environmental criteria are addressed in addition to the economic/financial criteria and that long term implications are given their due weight.

While some organizations have chosen to be very specific and define a “Supplier Code of Conduct” or similar structure which outlines specific employment and environmental standards, this often requires resources and expertise to inspect and audit for compliance. Other organizations instead have chosen to outline “Statements in Principle” and leave implementation and application up to employees to apply on a project or product basis. The framework proposed here lies somewhere in between.

The intention is to use this framework to amend our policies and procedures, as applicable, related to contracting and competitive bidding.

Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006 Page 2 of 6

The proposed policy framework for GVRD contains three main considerations:

• ‘Financial/Economic’ – the financial dimension ensures value for funding remains a key criterion in any procurement decision process as well as any possible application of corporate fiscal policies; the economic dimension introduces consideration of impacts on the economy, both local and external;

• ‘Environmental’ - this ensures that environmental factors, both local and global, are included in any contracting decision;

• ‘Social’ - this is largely a matter of compliance to safety/labour standards and the conduct of business activities in a socially responsible manner.

These considerations will be applied to all purchases. Exceptions may be warranted in extenuating circumstances.

Proposed Framework

Financial/Economic Considerations:

The purpose of this consideration is to ensure long term value for funding remains a key criterion in any procurement decision while avoiding any extraordinary negative economic impacts.

Not all of these considerations may be easily quantifiable today, but as these become more ‘mainstream’ and the information more readily available, they will then form part of the evaluation process.

Policy Statement: Purchasing decisions will take into account the following financial and economic factors: 1. price comparison for equivalent quality of materials or services; 2. total life cycle financial cost of the goods or services to be purchased; 3. where appropriate, any extraordinary impacts on the local economy; 4. where appropriate, any extraordinary impacts on other economies.

Application: • Purchasing documents will require a clear statement of price for the goods and services to be purchased; • Bidders may be required to declare whether they have any knowledge of extraordinary economic impacts of the proposed contract; • Where appropriate, bidders may be required to give an account of the estimated lifecycle financial costs of the goods or services to be purchased.

Environmental Considerations:

The purpose of this consideration is to ensure procurements have the most positive long term impact on the environment. It includes requiring legal compliance with environmental standards and encouraging environmentally responsible behaviour.

a) The contractor’s/supplier’s need to meet any legal requirements related to environmental laws and regulations, and the District’s standards, which in some cases may exceed any minimums outlined in the laws and regulations.

Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006 Page 3 of 6

b) The encouragement of the use of environmentally benign products or processes, the elimination, reduction or mitigation of the use of harmful substances, the use of more renewable and recycled materials and the reduction of the use of non-renewable resources, and generally the more efficient use of energy and other resources.

Policy Statement: Purchasing decisions will: 1. require Contractors and Suppliers to meet environmental standards, laws and regulations in their operations and in their product offerings; 2. where appropriate, require Contractors and Suppliers to give prior notice of any potential extraordinary environmental risk on the local ecosystem or ecosystems elsewhere and assess the acceptability of such impacts; 3. take into account the total life cycle environmental cost of the goods or services to be purchased, to the extent that can be estimated; 4. where considered appropriate, give preference to contractors and suppliers who demonstrate the use of environmentally benign products or processes, the minimization of the use or generation of harmful substances; the minimization of the use of non- renewable resources and the substitution therefore of renewable resources or recycled content and post consumer waste; the maximization of energy and materials efficiency, and minimization of waste and emissions.

Application: • Purchasing documents will require bidders to declare they comply with all environmental laws and regulations. These are considered minimum standards and bidders may be required to exceed these standards as determined by the District. Bidders may be required to declare the same of their suppliers. • Bidders will be required to declare if they have been found by a recognized regulatory or adjudication body to be non-compliant or in violation of these standards, laws and regulations within the past three years. • Bidders may be required to declare whether they have any knowledge of any potentially extraordinary environmental risk of the proposed goods or services to be purchased; • Where appropriate, bidders may be required to give an account of the estimated lifecycle environmental costs of the goods or services to be purchased.

Social Considerations:

The purpose of this consideration is to ensure procurements do not have a negative impact to social development. The three main considerations are:

a) Contractors and Suppliers need to meet any legal requirements related to workplace/worker’s safety laws and regulations as well as the District’s standards, which may exceed any minimums set out in the laws and regulations.

b) Contractors and Suppliers must comply with the employment and human rights laws relating to the work under the contract and at a minimum must meet the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) fundamental conventions that have been ratified by Canada (see Appendix “A”) which set minimum standards of basic labour rights. Bidders may be required to declare the same of their own suppliers. In addition, Contractors and Suppliers may be required to declare all convictions of themselves and principal officers under the above laws and Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Officials Act.

c) Contractor’s and Supplier’s contribution to social development and the development of social capital (including for example: Social Purchasing Portals, Fast Track to

Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006 Page 4 of 6

Employment Programs, etc.) will be considered where this is deemed practical and appropriate.

Policy Statement: Purchasing decisions will:

1) require Contractors and Suppliers be held to relevant safety, employment and human rights laws, regulations and conventions. These conventions include prohibitions against the worst form of child labour; abolition of forced labour; freedom of association and protection of the right to organize; prohibitions against discrimination; equality of opportunity, treatment, and remuneration; adherence to laws of the lands in which they conduct business; and prohibitions of the payment of bribes and unwarranted commissions; 2) where appropriate, require Contractors and Suppliers to give prior notice of any potential extraordinary social impacts/risks and assess the acceptability of such impacts; 3) where considered appropriate, give preference to Contractors and Suppliers who demonstrate the proposed contract will involve actions which contribute positively to community social development and assist in the conservation or development of social capital.

Application:

• Purchasing documents will require bidders to: declare they adhere to Safety, Employment and Human Rights laws of the country relating to the work under the contract and at a minimum must meet the ILO fundamental conventions ratified by Canada and may be required to declare the same of their sub-contractors and suppliers. • Bidders will be required to declare if they have been found by a recognized regulatory or adjudication body non-compliant or in violation of these standards, laws and regulations within the past three years. • Bidders may be required to declare whether they have any knowledge of any potentially extraordinary social impact/risk of the proposed goods or services to be purchased; • Purchasing documents may invite bidders to declare how the carrying out of the proposed contract will involve actions which contribute to social development or assists in the conservation or development of social capital either in this community or elsewhere.

Overall Impact:

The practical emphasis in this framework is on voluntary declarations and statements. The consequences of providing a false declaration are clear and effective and include remedies up to termination of the contract and may influence future award considerations. Moreover, the business market in which we deal is quite competitive and cognizant of contracts awarded publicly. Public review of this information is frequent, and it is likely that any non-compliance would be brought to our attention from other interested parties and may be acted upon, by the District, if those claims are substantiated by a recognized regulatory or adjudication body.

As most corporations who do business with the GVRD are likely to already abide with regulations, it is likely that the requirement to meet environmental and other regulations will have little immediate impact. However, raised awareness may begin greater consideration of these factors further back in the supply chain.

Greater impact may result from the other components of the policy. Requirements that bidders declare any knowledge of significant economic, environmental or social impacts may reinforce the embryonic market signals that are arguably pointing towards sustainability as a future

Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006 Page 5 of 6 market imperative. The further discretionary components that potentially reward positive environmental and social behaviour, even though only applied when appropriate and at the margins, will further reinforce these signals in a potentially practical manner.

In short, what is being proposed is not an elaborate and costly system of regulations and policing of those regulations. Rather the proposed sustainable procurement policy framework is a system designed to lever both voluntary self policing of compliance with standards, backed by an alert competitive market, and encouragement of a new dimension of competition – to demonstrate superiority in commitment to sustainability among potential suppliers of goods and services.

Cost Implications:

There should be few additional transactional costs to our existing procurement process, though, as with any new process, there may be some ancillary costs around education to bidders, but these should be minor. Where statements by bidders respecting economic, environmental and social impacts are called for, the evaluation of these may add to staff evaluation time, but the intent here is that the bulk of the responsibility will rest with the bidder to make readily assessable statements.

Currently, contracts are awarded based on a number of criteria, but price and value for money are always significant. As social and environmental factors become more significant, this may lead to ‘the triple bottom line’ evaluation resulting in increased financial costs. This will be carefully monitored and it is expected that market forces will ultimately mitigate this.

3. ALTERNATIVES

1. The Board may wish to include in the declaration from the Contractor/Supplier a component verifying that all sub-contractors/manufacturers comply with the applicable laws and regulations and have done so for at least three years (i.e. no convictions in that time period) as well as adherence with ILO conventions.

2. The Board may wish to delete all but compliance with established regulations.

3. The Board may adopt the framework as proposed.

4. CONCLUSION

With respect to option one, staff believe that in many cases this would be too onerous and difficult for the contractor to verify. The framework as proposed does allow for this in certain circumstances, for example, the purchase of clothing from outside Canada and the United States.

With respect to option two, staff believe that such a framework would have little impact on what is being already achieved. Progress towards sustainability, and maintaining our reputation as a leading example of progressive urban policy, requires us to push the envelope more than this.

The proposed policy framework on Sustainable Procurement is intended to support the Sustainable Region Initiative by addressing issues around procurement and taking action now to ensure this becomes how we and those we work with do business today and in the future. This can be accomplished by some simple and fundamental changes to our procurement policy.

The policy promotes an awareness of sustainability issues and with its application will allow us to leverage our annual spending to support sustainability principles.

Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006 Page 6 of 6

Further development is expected over the short to mid term as we examine developing issues related to these policies and fine tune the application of these standards within our contracts. Guidelines and templates will be developed to assist in development both at the level of our purchasing ‘buyers’ and at the level of other staff who require contract work to complete projects. Also key will be reporting back to the Board on how we are doing, and what remains to be done.

Appendix A: International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions

Appendix “A” International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions

Since 1919, the International Labour Organization has maintained and developed a system of international labour standards aimed at promoting opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and production work, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and dignity.*

Canada ratified thirty ILO convention of which five are classified as fundamental conventions covering such issues as: the worst form of child labour, abolition of forced labour, freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, discrimination and equality of opportunity and treatment, and equal remuneration (C182, C105, C87, C111, C100).

A brief statement regarding each of these fundamental conventions is listed below for general information purposes. These statements are not an official or legal interpretation of the convention. A complete listing and copy of each convention can be obtained at: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/newratframeE.htm

Worst Form of Child Labour (182) The worst forms of child labour, including work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children, need to be prohibited and eliminated

Abolition of Forced Labour (105) Compulsory or forced labour is not tolerated, wages shall be paid regularly and not withheld to deprive a worker from terminating employment.

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (87) Workers, without distinction, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity (111) All workers irrespective or race, creed or sex have an equal opportunity and treatment with regards to employment and occupation.

Equal Remuneration (100) All workers shall be paid on the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value.

*Source: International Labour Organization web-site

Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006

TO: Finance Committee

FROM: Phil Trotzuk, Financial Planning & Operations Manager

DATE: June 7, 2006

SUBJECT: 2005 Schedules of Financial Information

Recommendation: That the GVRD Board approve the 2005 Schedules of Financial Information for Remuneration & Expenses and for Payments to Suppliers for Goods and Services.

1. PURPOSE

To present the 2005 Schedules of Financial Information as part of the reporting requirements of the Financial Information Act.

2. CONTEXT

The Financial Information Act is provincial legislation that requires local government to prepare the following statements and schedules of financial information annually:

(1) statement of assets and liabilities; (2) an operational statement; (3) a schedule of debts; (4) a schedule of guarantee and indemnity agreements; (5) a schedule showing remuneration and expenses paid to or on behalf of each employee that exceeds $75,000; (6) a schedule showing the payments for each supplier of goods or services that exceeds $25,000.

The requirements of the Information Filing Act are addressed in two stages.

The first four requirements were met by the annual audited financial statements which were adopted by the Board in April, while the remaining two requirements must be met by June 30 and are covered by the schedules included as attachments to this report.

Finance Committee – June 15, 2006 Page 2 2005 Schedules of Financial Information

The requirements under (5) are met by Schedules 1 to 4 which include remuneration and expenses paid to or on behalf of directors, committee members, employees and any severance payments as well as a reconciliation of these amounts to the financial statements. Expenses included are those incurred while conducting GVRD business.

The requirements under (6) are met by Schedules 5 to 7 which include payments made to suppliers in both Canadian and US dollars as well as a reconciliation of the payments to the financial statements.

3. CONCLUSION

The 2005 Audited Financial Statements were approved by the Board in April 2006. The attached supplementary information was included in the context of the audit, but provides additional detailed information that is required for public disclosure. Approval concludes the legislated requirements.

Once approved, the Financial Information Act filing information is then available for viewing by the public and anyone can acquire a hard copy of the information from the Finance and Administration Department for a fee of $5.001.

PT/eb Attach.

1 The fee is prescribed by provincial regulation.

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICTS

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ACT FILING

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005

THIS STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION INCLUDES THE ACCOUNTS OF:

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT GREATER VANCOUVER WATER DISTRICT GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT GREATER VANCOUVER HOUSING CORPORATION

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION For the Year Ended December 31, 2005

INDEX

1) Statement of Assets and Liabilities ...... See Financial Statements

2) Operational Statements ...... See Financial Statements

3) Schedule of Debts...... See Financial Statements

4) Schedule of Guarantee and Indemnity Agreements ...... None

5) Schedule of Remuneration and Expenses

Members of the Board of Directors And Elected Officials ...... Schedule 1

Employees...... Schedule 2

Reconciliation of Remuneration and Expenses To Financial Statements...... Schedule 3

Statement of Severance Agreements...... Schedule 4

6) Schedule of Payments to Suppliers for Goods and Services

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn) ...... Schedule 5

Payments to U.S. Suppliers ($US) ...... Schedule 6

Reconciliation of Payments for Goods and Services to Financial Statement ...... Schedule 7

Schedule 1 Page 1 of 4

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES For the year ended December 31, 2005 Members of the Board of Directors and Elected Officials

Name Position Remuneration Expenses

Alberts, Kurt Board, Member $ 11,353 $ 67 Anderson, Heather Committee, Member 416 Anderson, Mary-Wade Committee, Member 2,497 Annable, Cliff Committee, Member 208 Anton,Suzanne Board Member 2006 208 Appleton, John Board Member (Alternate) 208 Arnold, Jack Committee, Member 208 Ball, Elizabeth Board Member 2006 208 Barnes, Linda Committee, Member 208 Barrett, Lisa Committee, Member 416 Bass, Fred Board, Member 6,663 Becker, Kent Committee, Member 832 Bose, Robert Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Bowen, Mike Board, Member (Alternate) 416 Boyd, Neil Board, Member 5,202 Brodie, Malcolm Board, Member 9,156 358 Cadman, David Board, Member 9,994 8,358 Calendino, Peter Committee, Member 208 Campbell, Larry Board, Member 4,779 Campbell, Robert Committee, Member 208 Capri, Kim Board Member 2006 208 Clark, Roderick Committee, Member 208 Cook, William Casey Committee, Member 208 Cooke, Randall Committee, Member 416 Corrigan, Derek Board, Member 10,721 Cotter, Terry Board, Member (Alternate) 2,492 Crist, Ernie Committee, Member 208 Crowe, Arlene Committee, Member 208 Cuthbert, James Committee, Member 208 Day, Charles Committee, Member 1,456 Daykin, Ernest Committee, Member 624 Dhaliwal, Salvinder Committee, Member 416 Dobrovolny, Jerry Committee, Member 624 Donnelly, Finbar Board Member 2006 416 Donnelly, M. Calvin Board, Member (Alternate) 3,746 Drake, Bruce Board, Member (Alternate) 3,122 Drew, Ralph Board, Member 12,179 72 Dueck, Judy Board, Member (Alternate) 416 Dunn, Ronald Committee, Member 416 Durman, Victor Board, Member 8,433 Eisel, Debra Committee, Member 416 Elkerton, Janis Board, Member (Alternate) 3,744 Evans, Doug Board, Member (Alternate) 6,243 Schedule 1 Page 2 of 4

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES For the year ended December 31, 2005 Members of the Board of Directors and Elected Officials

Name Position Remuneration Expenses

Fassbender, Peter Committee, Member 208 Fearnley, Bob Committee, Member 208 Ferguson, Elizabeth Committee, Member 208 Ferguson, George Board Member 2006 208 Ferguson, Stephen Committee, Member 416 Forrest, Michael Committee, Member 208 Forster, Judy Board, Member 8,532 99 Frinton, Peter Committee, Member 208 Gentner, Guy Board, Member (Alternate) 1,040 Gibson, Gary Board, Member 17,660 822 Gill, Moe Board, Member 7,490 Gilmore, Donna Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Glover, Jennifer Committee, Member 416 Goldsmith-Jones, Pamela Board Member 2006 1,456 Gordon, Candace Committee, Member 416 Green, James Board, Member (Alternate) 832 Grinnell, Marlene Committee, Member 1,873 Hamilton, William Scott Committee, Member 416 Harris, Janice Board, Member 7,282 Harris, Jon Committee, Member 416 Hepner, Linda Board Member 2006 208 Heywood, Robert Committee, Member 208 Higginbotham, Judy Board, Member 15,092 2,583 Hollington, Louella Board, Member 6,034 60 Howard, Rob Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Hunt, Marvin Board, Member 40,094 5,007 Huntington, Victoria Committee, Member 208 Isaac, Faye Committee, Member 2,288 Jackson, Lois Board, Member 10,952 669 Johnston, Dan Board, Member (Alternate) 416 Jordan, Colleen Board Member 2006 416 Jordan, Elizabeth A. Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Juvik, Ken Committee, Member 416 Kingsbury, Jon Board, Member 12,390 4,453 Kirkpatrick, Penny Committee, Member 1,456 Kositsky, Mel Board, Member (Alternate) 3,953 63 Kumagai, Kiichi Board, Member 20,251 72 Ladner, Peter Board, Member 2,466 Lee, Bar-Che Board Member 2006 208 Liles, Sandy Committee, Member 208 Long, Bob Committee, Member 624 Louie, Raymond Board, Member 12,282 942 Louis, Tim Board, Member 2,909 Schedule 1 Page 3 of 4

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES For the year ended December 31, 2005 Members of the Board of Directors and Elected Officials

Name Position Remuneration Expenses

Lynch, Barrie Board, Member (Alternate) 2,288 MacLean, Donald Board, Member 9,987 43 Martin, Gayle Board, Member 8,531 42 Mauger, Sharla-Dawn Committee, Member 2,080 McCallum, Doug Board, Member 2,284 McKeon Holmes, Maureen Board, Member (Alternate) 1,872 McLean, Douglas Board, Member (Alternate) 416 McNulty, Bill Board, Member (Alternate) 2,704 Miller, Douglas Board, Member 11,859 95 Morse, Alison Committee, Member 208 Morse, Kathy Board, Member 9,986 77 Musatto, Darrell Board Member 2006 624 Nixon, Alan Committee, Member 2,080 Nuttal, Gerry Board, Member (Alternate) 1,667 56 Osterman, Bob Committee, Member 208 Page, Christopher Committee, Member 208 Peddemors, Stewart Committee, Member 4,480 Penner, Darrell Committee, Member 2,080 Perrault, Barbara Board, Member (Alternate) 1,248 Priddy, Lynn-Ann Committee, Member 208 Rankin, Lee Committee, Member 416 Redman, Celeste Board, Member 5,825 Reeves, Mary Board, Member 3,327 Richardson, Colin Committee, Member 208 Richter, Kimberly Committee, Member 1,664 Roberts, Anne J. Board, Member 9,988 Robson, Gord Board Member 2006 208 Rockwell, Karen Committee, Member 208 Ronsley, Joanne Committee, Member 416 Schaffer, Ted Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Sharp, Barbara Board, Member 21,725 1,568 Smith, Terrence Committee, Member 1,664 Speirs, Craig Committee, Member 416 Steele, Barbara Board, Member 2006 3,950 Stevenson, Tim Board, Member 2006 416 Steves, Harold Board, Member 2006 208 Sullivan, Sam Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Thorne, Diane Board, Member (Alternate) 624 Todd, Matthew Committee, Member 416 Trasolini, Joe Board, Member 4,156 Turpin, Lisa Committee, Member 416 Tymoschuk, Gary Board, Member (Alternate) 624 Van Ginkel, Cynthia Committee, Member 2,080 Schedule 1 Page 4 of 4

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES For the year ended December 31, 2005 Members of the Board of Directors and Elected Officials

Name Position Remuneration Expenses

Villeneuve, Judy Board, Member (Alternate) 1,664 Vishloff, Terry Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Walton, Richard Board, Member 2006 1,456 Ward, John Grant Committee, Member 208 Watts, Diane Board, Member 2,080 Weinberg, Hal Board, Member 8,532 2,206 Williams, Lorrie Committee, Member 1,248 Wilson, Maxine Board, Member 2006 416 Wood, Ron Board, Member (Alternate) 1,664 Woodsworth, Ellen Board, Member (Alternate) 1,037 Wright, Michael Committee, Member 1,873 Wright, Wayne Board, Member 8,530 108 Wyman, Max Committee, Member 208 Young, Scott Board, Member 10,401 107

TOTAL $ 457,834 $ 27,927 Schedule 2 Page 1 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Alexander, Murray $ 76,446 $ - $ 76,446 Ali, Amzad 99,107 8,932 108,039 Allan, Chris 77,655 1,361 79,016 Allas, Toivo 147,159 5,892 153,051 Amos, William 74,186 3,176 77,362 Andrews, Robert 86,085 828 86,912 Andrusiak, Edward 135,560 2,902 138,462 Archibald, Paul 111,704 4,068 115,772 Arkell, Keith 88,977 623 89,600 Arrell, Garry 81,150 - 81,150 Austrom, Gordon 71,199 4,782 75,981 Babensee, Chantal 91,757 1,929 93,685 Banman, Michael 74,035 1,314 75,349 Baskalovic, Dragan 82,403 1,100 83,502 Bator, Bradley 86,097 3,882 89,979 Bean, Roger DA 87,695 3,403 91,098 Beere, Chris 85,617 713 86,330 Bell, Thomas 92,995 275 93,270 Bellwood, Ross 71,609 4,015 75,624 Benson, Christopher 94,472 104 94,576 Bertold, Stanley 86,489 2,017 88,506 Bertolone, Nick 111,156 445 111,601 Blakeney, Robert 74,701 1,513 76,214 Block, Randal 79,555 2,696 82,251 Blue, Bonnie 77,757 2,300 80,057 Bonin, Derek 91,836 3,973 95,809 Boss, Michael 95,488 5,684 101,172 Brace, Andrea 130,347 4,143 134,491 Braman, Jonn 96,639 8,336 104,975 Brown, Debbie 77,133 128 77,261 Brown, Donna 93,780 5,615 99,395 Burton, Brent 82,445 2,888 85,333 Byers, Roy 75,253 84 75,337 Caird, David 88,797 9,759 98,556 Calder, Janet 76,632 7,629 84,261 Campeau, Bruce 76,557 104 76,661 Carline, Johnny 249,064 10,132 259,196 Carrusca, Ken 98,576 3,001 101,577 Cavill, Robert 120,363 4,631 124,994 Chan, Jeffrey 95,483 2,827 98,311 Chan, Kenneth 78,166 1,180 79,346 Chan, Richard 85,913 5,960 91,873 Chapple, Clive 84,095 1,762 85,856

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. Schedule 2 Page 2 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Cheng, Shan 86,233 4,585 90,818 Cheong, Tony 80,949 4,259 85,207 Chilton, Alison 75,667 5,208 80,875 Chiu, Vincent 86,004 961 86,965 Choy, Harvey 78,036 2,932 80,968 Chu, Alfred KY 96,845 3,241 100,087 Colnett, Dianna 79,922 1,744 81,667 Copping, John 79,956 - 79,956 Coutinho, Ed 99,964 4,509 104,472 Coutts, Robert 75,452 1,489 76,941 Coutu, Kevin 80,655 491 81,146 Crosby, Jennifer 71,285 5,069 76,354 Crowle, John 85,331 1,820 87,151 Cumbridge, Grant 81,824 5,257 87,081 Currie, Graham 76,711 2,869 79,580 Dadalt, Wendy 101,303 5,452 106,755 Daines, Gerald 80,964 - 80,964 D'Angelo, Robert 95,275 4,243 (3) 99,518 Davidson, Ian 79,802 1,222 81,024 DeCosse, Bradley 93,034 635 93,669 Delany, A 75,233 1,322 76,555 Del-Linz, Giacomino 77,414 218 77,632 DeMarco, Christina 94,272 8,601 102,873 Der, Kelly 85,331 1,977 87,308 Dineen, Kevin 101,913 1,614 103,526 Donnelly, Daniel 109,552 - 109,552 Donnelly, Stephen 94,159 1,789 95,948 Driedger, Donald 89,188 1,778 90,966 Dunkley, David 85,986 4,967 90,954 Dunn, John 81,540 407 81,947 Durran, Rick 84,351 5,344 89,695 Duthie, David 111,533 2,276 113,809 Ergudenler, Ali 91,753 4,290 96,043 Ferguson, A MD 95,701 1,871 97,572 Ferguson, Michael 86,215 1,232 87,446 Forsyth, Scott 96,157 6,050 102,207 Fought, Rob 101,317 911 102,228 Fretz, Laurie 82,285 1,355 83,640 Froess, Douglas 85,224 3,271 88,495 Galazka, Kazimierz 99,828 4,964 104,792 Gale, Tony 76,596 960 77,556 Galick, Brent 80,163 3,991 84,154 Gallilee, Rick 85,978 3,917 89,895

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. (3) A portion reimbursed by outside agencies. Schedule 2 Page 3 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Gant, Murray 85,835 1,493 87,327 Garvock, Michelle 98,844 1,634 100,478 Gasparro, George 78,121 715 78,836 Gibson, K 81,792 3,903 85,695 Giesbrecht, Paul 95,426 5,857 101,283 Gilbride, David 99,288 3,484 102,771 Glasgow, John 74,534 1,763 76,297 Goodine, Larry 79,557 1,003 80,559 Graham, Malcolm 132,845 3,867 136,712 Green, Matthew 73,390 1,992 75,382 Gregonia, Theresa 83,901 3,173 87,074 Grieve, Beverly 82,714 2,014 84,728 Griggs, Marie 97,379 2,130 99,509 Gulamhussein, Nazmudin 63,954 9,166 73,120 Gulamhussein, Shiraz 75,459 104 75,563 Haid, Susan 86,747 1,932 88,679 Hajdukovic, Dan 95,832 912 96,743 Hall, Brent 65,160 20,008 85,168 Hamza, Danny 77,954 1,748 79,702 Hanada, Vincent 85,864 898 86,762 Hansford, George 88,011 3,130 91,141 Hardie, Johnstone 101,366 1,316 102,681 Hartley, Elizabeth 75,612 921 76,533 Haw, Kevin 78,716 1,115 79,831 Hayton, Scott 74,119 1,087 75,206 Heath, Howard 155,031 3,017 158,048 Henderson, Paul 86,144 3,183 89,327 Hengen, Thomas 90,374 40 90,414 Heyman, William 75,683 425 76,108 Hicks, Robert 91,274 1,349 92,623 Hicks, Terrance WP 81,760 72 81,832 Ho, Alfred 80,119 379 80,498 Hoffman, David 86,586 861 87,447 Hoffman, Donald SV 98,171 340 98,511 Hope, David 96,126 612 96,738 Huber, Frank 110,217 4,064 114,281 Hui, Terry FY 85,979 707 86,686 Humphris, Doug 101,192 4,058 105,250 Hunt, Andrew 81,336 1,213 82,548 Hystad, Brian 85,993 9,010 95,003 Isbister, Graham 79,916 1,569 81,485 Jacob, Cristina 95,497 3,944 99,441 Jacques, Joseph 89,532 1,844 91,376

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. Schedule 2 Page 4 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Jennejohn, Derek 76,139 3,452 79,591 Jensen, Gudrun 82,167 1,874 84,040 Jervis, Tim 156,873 3,467 160,339 Jessa, Noordin 69,667 9,139 78,806 Johnson, Owen 80,829 4,361 85,189 Jones, Robert 117,982 5,515 123,497 Juvik, Kenneth 112,556 1,766 114,322 Kadota, Paul 101,186 2,365 103,552 Kay, Monica 86,110 507 86,617 Keenan, Terrence 79,361 693 80,054 Kelder, Mike 81,235 529 81,764 Kellas, Hugh 147,663 7,003 154,666 Kemp, Bradley 85,488 2,921 88,409 Kendall, Randy 121,419 6,430 127,849 Kennett, Michael 79,509 4,950 84,459 Kim, Marian 76,630 653 77,283 Kimble, Willard 63,033 12,665 75,698 Kinney, Linda 76,415 162 76,577 Kleiberg, Julie 80,674 2,625 83,299 Knight, Nancy 78,242 5,116 83,359 Kohl, Paul 85,979 4,675 90,654 Kuiper, Geert 78,327 19,389 97,716 Kuzyk, Randy 98,128 470 98,598 Laglagaron, Delia 202,560 1,648 204,208 Lam, Yiu WP 100,365 6,346 106,711 Lambert, Richard 71,444 3,706 75,150 Land, Thomas 95,002 1,288 96,290 Lee, Kenneth 85,979 1,188 87,167 Legge, Robert 101,916 675 102,590 Lenning, Daniel 77,421 80 77,501 Lewis, Andrew 85,306 6,555 91,861 Lewis, Steven 94,608 604 95,213 Lindenbach, Kenneth 73,071 2,161 75,233 Littleford, Donald 139,865 1,051 140,916 Liu, George CH 77,404 4,711 82,116 Luccock, Edward 85,372 1,287 86,659 Lui, Gordon 95,706 11,103 106,810 Luongo, Ralph 80,925 941 81,867 Maag, David 85,979 1,151 87,130 MacFarlane, John 76,456 591 77,047 MacKenzie, Sandra 72,866 2,167 75,033 MacQuarrie, Douglas 96,536 6,264 102,800 Makarowski, Christine 92,760 2,818 95,578

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. Schedule 2 Page 5 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Manning, Ian 81,522 3,636 85,158 Marchand, Richard 115,635 3,445 119,080 Marchioni, John 71,844 3,260 75,104 Marcus, Gerhard 84,903 500 85,403 Margolick, Michael 90,452 3,251 93,703 Marr, Andrew 98,999 4,784 103,783 Marsh, Geoffrey 93,267 572 93,839 Maurer, Donald 80,965 4,967 85,933 Mayers, Michael 84,071 3,190 87,261 McComb, Tom 79,696 776 80,473 McCurrach, Raymond 105,533 11,424 116,958 McElroy, John 82,946 4,073 87,019 McGowan, Cameron 76,866 500 77,366 McLean, Robin 66,726 19,792 86,518 McQuarrie, James 93,042 4,436 97,478 McQuillan, Dan 80,509 2,426 82,935 Meldrum, Colin 82,121 4,905 87,027 Mennell, Morris 103,893 (4) 500 (4) 104,393 Merry, Callan 95,483 509 95,992 Metcalfe, Robert 121,618 1,992 123,609 Miller, Christopher 78,950 1,489 80,439 Miller, Douglas 77,050 2,221 79,271 Milnes, Katherine 86,024 2,696 88,720 Moore, Jennie 84,078 3,563 87,641 Morrell, William 99,271 223 99,493 Morris, Duane 124,460 2,605 127,065 Morrison, Thomas 84,451 4,980 89,431 Morton, Gary 87,148 1,096 88,244 Mullock, Leonard 91,623 828 92,451 Nakano, Terry 78,736 802 79,539 Neale, Michael 81,449 2,957 84,406 Neden, Douglas 111,342 6,143 117,485 Nees, Roy 75,133 1,420 76,553 Nenninger, Fred 104,078 6,332 110,410 Nesci, Christopher 77,461 1,261 78,722 Ng, Bun 83,029 3,163 86,192 Nicholls, Robert 110,686 8,837 119,523 Nichols, George 77,821 320 78,141 Nichols, Kristian DH 78,638 3,546 82,184 Nicol, Gord 88,449 1,048 89,497 Ninow, Michelle 75,558 71 75,629 Nishimura, Ronald 85,331 2,231 87,562 O'Brien, Lynn 75,643 - 75,643

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. (4) Reimbursed by outside agency. Schedule 2 Page 6 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Oliver, Frederick 72,691 2,517 75,208 Oljaca, Goran 95,584 3,348 98,932 Olson, Judy 85,875 412 86,287 Palsenbarg, Rudolf 136,004 12,577 148,581 Paone, Antonio 82,664 500 83,163 Pawluk, Lorne 87,802 6,055 93,857 Pellow, Scott 95,692 1,366 97,058 Peters, Gregory 97,991 521 98,511 Peters, Sharon 84,410 1,781 86,192 Piombini, Marino 86,685 1,430 88,115 Plagnol, Christopher 85,923 3,270 89,193 Plavsic, Michael 86,140 500 86,640 Plouffe, Patrick 85,391 698 86,089 Plummer, Derek 95,595 2,311 97,906 Ponzini, Colleen 76,690 3,493 80,183 Ptak, Leslaw 78,036 894 78,930 Ragan, Melanie 82,847 3,918 86,765 Ranahan, Dennis 90,886 644 91,529 Randt, Ralph 91,091 5,536 96,627 Reil, Dean 95,671 13,860 109,531 Remillard, Paul 112,723 5,777 118,500 Rich, Justin 86,039 1,138 87,177 Riches, James 83,140 2,184 85,323 Ritchot, Denis 81,060 848 81,908 Roberts, Guy 86,090 997 87,087 Romo, Ignacio 74,539 1,349 75,889 Ross, Lyn 81,565 4,312 85,877 Rourke, Nina 74,363 1,366 75,730 Ruth, Gordon 153,532 1,244 154,776 Sabatini, Linda 89,877 1,919 91,796 Samis, David 76,747 834 77,582 Santorelli, Gino 80,820 1,027 81,846 Schade, Frieda 99,866 1,895 101,761 Scott, David 77,954 - 77,954 Scott, Richard 108,085 5,471 (3) 113,556 Searle, Michael 86,136 5,235 91,370 Sellars, Iain 89,781 955 90,736 Semotuk, Verna 83,521 1,453 84,974 Sherwood, Herbert 74,890 4,360 79,250 Shibata, Kelly 75,671 5,263 80,934 Shore, Linda 141,636 6,143 147,779 Sidi, Shelina 71,217 4,475 75,692 Simon, Giuseppe 82,607 84 82,691

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. (3) A portion reimbursed by outside agencies. Schedule 2 Page 7 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Sinclair, Mark 86,042 3,212 89,254 Singh, Inderjit 85,979 7,532 93,510 Siu, David 95,483 2,703 98,187 Skydt, Paul 101,360 3,850 105,210 Smardon, Douglas 79,969 2,358 82,327 Smerychynski, Anthony 64,395 20,406 84,801 Smith, Gregory 154,211 1,900 156,111 Smyth, Sean 86,060 4,385 90,445 So, Simon 111,591 6,459 118,051 Sokalski, Mitchell 123,206 115 123,321 Solon, Gary 104,270 3,538 107,808 Soo, Gary 77,393 1,585 78,978 Squire, Chris 84,138 2,108 86,246 Stephens, Kenneth 85,222 7,494 92,716 Strangway, Paul 81,627 1,033 82,660 Stringer, Michael 95,339 2,361 97,700 Stuart, Scott 72,571 3,251 75,822 Stubbs, Kenneth 93,041 4,398 97,439 Suddes, Stephen 86,073 2,493 88,566 Sukumar, Alady 95,708 4,481 100,189 Sullivan, Barry 77,886 2,333 80,218 Sywulych, Steve 85,979 4,758 90,737 Tailford, John 92,976 2,271 95,246 Tancon, Daniel 84,683 2,712 87,394 Taw, Richard 89,778 2,522 92,300 Ternent, Stewart 86,410 122 86,532 Thien, Shaw 88,806 4,365 93,172 Thompson, David 73,001 3,255 76,256 Thompson, James 77,107 2,821 79,928 Tomsic, Heather 77,386 4,502 81,888 Towill, Marilyn 85,983 3,748 89,732 Trotzuk, Philip 108,242 1,289 109,531 Tsang, Tony 86,140 4,287 90,427 Turner, Karen 85,859 2,198 88,057 Van Oord, Ronald 107,365 995 108,360 Van Roodselaar, Albert 101,015 4,731 105,746 Vas, Erno 84,050 8,606 92,656 Vaughan, Bernard 86,090 1,023 87,113 Veenstra, Ted 74,872 5,778 80,650 Verbeke, Trevor 87,450 608 88,058 Vetleson, Paulette 108,465 187 108,652 von Euw, Edward 98,579 5,289 103,867 Vosilla, Robert 95,357 669 96,025

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. Schedule 2 Page 8 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Wallis, Richard 78,008 491 78,499 Walsh, Heidi 76,391 2,224 78,615 Walsh, James 79,481 555 80,036 Walter, Nela 76,618 3,555 80,173 Wardlaw, Alistair 85,979 5,798 91,776 Wdowiak, Iwona 77,388 784 78,172 Webster, Andrew 74,396 2,307 76,702 Wilke, Brad 68,624 9,472 78,096 Williams, Brian 85,259 725 85,984 Wilting, P 95,532 1,514 97,047 Wishart, Peter 80,895 5,301 86,195 Wong, Ben 79,167 3,811 82,979 Wong, Gary 85,774 5,303 91,076 Wong, Jeanie 82,894 3,231 86,125 Wong, Michael 80,353 - 80,353 Wong, Siu KF 81,930 1,515 83,445 Wong, Thomas 86,223 2,833 89,055 Wood, Ronald 82,187 273 82,460 Woods, Stanley 98,421 4,475 102,896 Worthen, John 71,856 4,333 76,189 Wu, Thomas 76,781 3,304 80,085 Yang, Wilbert 85,994 2,844 88,838 Yee, Larry 102,356 3,982 106,338 Yee, Vernon 81,998 1,985 83,983 Yeomans, M 87,092 1,758 88,850 Yuen, Francis 77,675 2,688 80,363 Zimmer, Rob 69,662 5,573 75,235 $ 29,397,648 $ 1,020,398 $ 30,418,046

Consolidated Total of other employees with remunerations and expenses of $75,000 or less 48,388,537 1,086,139 49,474,676

Total $ 77,786,185 $ 2,106,537 $ 79,892,722

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. Schedule 3 Page 1 of 1

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Reconciliation of Remuneration to Financial Statements

Total Remuneration - Schedule of Remuneration and Expenses:

Employees (Schedule 2) $77,786,185

Members of the Board of Directors and Elected Officials (Schedule 1) 457,834

$78,244,019

Total Salaries and Benefits per Financial Statements (Consolidated Financial Activities by Object) $88,235,751 Salaries and benefits included in allocated programs 2,425,501 90,661,252

Less Employer share of non-taxable payroll remittances (10,030,434)

Other ** (2,386,799)

$78,244,019

Difference -

** For financial statement purposes, accrued employee benefits (i.e. banked overtime) are included in the financial statements, but are not reflected in remuneration paid to employees. Schedule 4 Page 1 of 1

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Statement of Severance Agreements

There were 3 severance agreements under which payments were commenced between the Greater Vancouver Regional District and its non-unionized employees during fiscal year 2005.

These agreements represent between 3 to 16 months of compensation. Schedule 5 Page 1 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

521474 BC LTD. $ 88,414 A & A ANDERSON TANK SERVICE LTD 145,886 A.B.E. LOGGING LTD 122,876 A.R. HYTECH ENGINEERING LTD. 306,599 A.R.THOMSON GROUP 153,320 AAA AUTO COLLISON 30,038 ABB INC. 271,829 ABBOTSFORD MECHANICAL & METALS 62,348 ABBOTSFORD, CITY OF 75,267 ABS PUMPS CORPORATION 91,258 A-C SYSTEMS INC 30,362 ACKLANDS - GRAINGER INC 384,236 ACRES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 83,083 ACTION GLASS LTD. 60,667 AIR LIQUIDE CANADA INC 61,793 AIR-TEC CONSULTING LTD 39,633 AJILON FINANCE 51,178 ALCATEL CANADA INC. 99,260 ALEXANDER CONSTRUCTION LTD. 813,521 ALFA LAVAL INC 102,569 ALLAN, J. D. 204,093 ALLEGIS GROUP CANADA 40,502 ALLSTREAM INC. 30,378 ALMA PLUMBING & HEATING LTD. 339,935 ALPINE BUILDING MAINTENANCE INC. 82,850 ALPINE SPRINKLER SYSTEM LTD 27,499 ALSTOM CANADA INC 76,279 A-MILLENIA CONSTRUCTION LTD 450,815 AMRE SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED 112,339 ANDREW SHERET LTD 25,888 ANDRITZ BIRD INC 26,466 ANGUS & ASSOCIATES 218,925 ANIXTER CANADA INC. 33,173 ANNACIS WASTE DISPOSAL CORP. 79,696 APLIN & MARTIN CONSULTANTS LTD. 52,404 APPLEWOOD KIA 59,177 APPLIANCE CANADA WEST LIMITED 85,818 ARLINGTON GROUP PLANNING & ARCHITECTURE 53,843 ARMTEC LIMITED 172,809 ARROW TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS INC. 2,109,285 ARTCRAFT DISPLAY GRAPHICS INC. 85,881 ARTECH ELECTRIC LTD 46,199 ARTHON CONSTRUCTION LTD. 1,290,609 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 679,924 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (B.C.) LIMITED 386,350 ASSOCIATED LOCKSMITHS 40,852 Schedule 5 Page 2 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS CANADA 32,314 ATLAS PAINTING & RESTORATIONS LTD. 36,793 AURORA ENTERPRISES 590,188 AUTODESK INC. 28,744 AVENSYS 134,196 AVENUE MACHINERY CORP. 94,072 AWESOME OPOSSUM WILDLIFE CONTROL 36,060 AWWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION 28,816 AXTON INCORPORATED 35,245 AXYS ANALYTICAL SERVICES LTD 178,595 AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING LTD. 28,310 AYLA CANOES RENTAL & SALES 50,360 A-Z LOCKMASTERS (1992) LTD 43,998 B G CONTROLS LTD. 171,892 B. CHANDRA AND ASSOCIATES LTD. 47,873 B. CUSANO CONTRACTING INC. 579,747 B.A. BLACKTOP LTD 39,966 B.A. BLACKWELL & ASSOCIATES 101,329 B.C. LUNG ASSOCIATION 45,000 B.C. RECORDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. 50,311 B.C. RENTALS 36,967 B.G.E. SERVICE & SUPPLY LTD 32,738 BABCO ELECTRIC GROUP INC. 150,460 BANK OF MONTREAL 493,495 BARNES WHEATON 29,505 BC BEARING ENGINEERS LIMITED 163,742 BC CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 25,000 BC HOUSING 46,350 BC HYDRO 9,028,943 BC RAIL 172,249 BEAVER ELECTRICAL MACHINERY LTD. 90,218 BELCARRA ,VILLAGE OF 52,877 BELL WEST INC. 81,406 BENCHLANDS ENTERPRISES 75,216 BENEFIT FLOORS LTD 312,743 BENJAMIN, JANET 44,940 BENWELL ATKINS LTD 28,707 BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS 56,363 BETA MACHINERY ANALYSIS LTD 50,163 BILFINGER BERGER/FRU-CON JOINT VENTURE 12,487,989 BIO-AG TECHNOLOGIES INC. 607,315 BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 65,025 BLACK & MCDONALD LTD 222,146 BLACK PRESS GROUP LTD 52,511 BOC CANADA 383,912 BOC EDWARDS HIBON 301,612 Schedule 5 Page 3 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

BOERSMA, GERALD AND KAREN 40,000 BORDER TO BORDER 142,759 BRENNTAG CANADA INC. 1,749,597 BRITCO 139,851 BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSMISSION CORP. 34,775 BROADWAY ROOFING CO. LTD. 149,391 BULL HOUSSER & TUPPER 108,073 BURNABY, CITY OF 1,200,420 BUSBY PERKINS & WILL ARCHITECTS CO 26,582 C & M ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. 36,252 C & S ELECTRIC LTD 25,776 C.A.P. VENTURES LTD. 437,986 C.D. NOVA LTD. 189,370 C.G. INDUSTRIAL SPECIALTIES LTD 55,180 CACHE CREEK, VILLAGE OF 710,843 CAMPBELL SCIENTIFIC CANADA CORP 34,204 CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY 23,039,294 CANADA MORTGAGE & HOUSING CORPORATION 13,554,642 CANADIAN DEWATERING LTD. 346,398 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY 31,537 CANADIAN TIRE STORE 37,915 CANEM WEST OPERATIONS INC 143,826 CANSEL SURVEY EQUIPMENT 68,035 CANSPEC GROUP INC 79,859 CANSTAR CONSTRUCTION LTD 232,624 CANTEST LTD. 31,612 CARTER CHEVROLET OLDSMOBILE 43,914 CARTER GM 236,585 CATHERINE BERRIS ASSOCIATES INC. 37,962 CEL-COM SYSTEMS LTD 25,775 CESCO ELECTRICAL SUPPLY LTD. 26,193 CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT 242,376 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 330,629 CHAMPION WINDOW & PRESSURE CLEANING 38,911 CHEN ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS INC. 43,074 CHEVRON CANADA LIMITED 69,767 CHROMA COMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC. 27,601 CIBA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS CANADA 639,747 CINTAS THE UNIFORM PEOPLE 25,116 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION CO LTD 468,156 CLEARTECH INDUSTRIES INC. 475,399 CLOUDBURST TRANSPORT LTD 42,024 CNC GLOBAL SEARCH 252,065 COAST MARINE CONTRACTING LTD 59,552 COASTAL FORD SALES LTD 57,687 COCHRAN, ANNE 27,044 Schedule 5 Page 4 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

COLLINGWOOD & ASSOCIATES 60,961 COLUMBIA BITULITHIC LTD. 65,718 COLUMBIA VALVE & FITTING LTD. 30,684 COMMANDER WAREHOUSE EQUIPMENT LTD. 53,983 CONCORD EXCAVATING & CONTRACTING LTD. 243,527 CONETEC INVESTIGATIONS LTD. 37,328 CONSOLIDATED DATACOM INC 26,719 CONTEXT RESEARCH LTD 277,607 COQUITLAM, CITY OF 737,714 CORNERSTONE PLANNING GROUP 51,233 CORPORATE COURIERS LTD 167,532 CRANE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 36,139 CROSSIN CORISTINE WOODALL 207,522 CROSSTOWN METAL INDUSTRIES LTD 466,505 CTH SYSTEMS INC. 34,874 C-TRON SYSTEMS CORP 45,458 CULEX ENVIRONMENTAL LTD 105,883 CURTIS BRADLEY CLEANING 234,483 CUSTOM TRUCK PRODUCTS 25,208 D.H. DAVIDSON & ASSOCIATES LTD. 32,507 DADSONS ELECTRIC CO. LTD. 193,952 DALE MCCLANAGHAN CONSULTING LTD 51,146 DAVIDSON BROS MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS LTD 35,620 DAYTON & KNIGHT LTD. 135,146 DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION 1,064,503 DELTA AIRPARK OPERATING COMMITTEE 48,265 DELTA CLEANING 189,057 DELTA, CORPORATION OF 1,373,211 DENNISON CHEVROLET LTD. 139,331 DESIGN GROUP STAFFING SERVICES INC., THE 87,771 DETROIT DIESEL-ALLISON BRITICH COLUMBIA 91,130 DIAMOND HEAD CONSULTING LTD 54,061 DILLON CONSULTING LTD 103,024 DIONEX CANADA LTD 34,937 DIRECT ENERGY BUSINESS SERVICES INC 313,390 DOBNEY FOUNDRY LTD. 81,380 DOCUMENTUM, A DIVISION OF EMC 31,989 DOMINION BLUE REPROGRAPHICS 51,539 DONALD LOCKWOOD NOTARIAL 80,056 DONALDSON COMPANY INC. 75,864 DORR-OLIVER EIMCO 116,504 DOUGLAS ANTHONY SERVICES LIMITED 31,833 DOUGLAS LAKE CATTLE COMPANY 27,037 DOUGLAS LAKE EQUIPMENT 45,389 DOVETAIL CONSULTING 28,580 DTM SYSTEMS CORP. 33,755 Schedule 5 Page 5 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

DUECK CHEVROLET, OLDSMOBILE,CADILLAC LTD 77,325 DYNAMIC ENGINEERING INC 27,416 E.B. HORSMAN & SON LTD. 29,371 EAGLE WEST TRUCK & CRANE INC 140,309 EARTH TECH (CANADA) INC. 306,583 EBA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD 349,644 EBCO INDUSTRIES LTD 66,343 EBSCO CANADA LTD 77,441 ECI MANUFACTURING INC 130,738 ECL ENVIROWEST CONSULTANTS LIMITED 63,624 E-COMM 2,151,598 ECOSTAT RESEARCH LTD 50,242 EECOL ELECTRIC (SASK) INC. 172,128 EIC SOLUTIONS LTD. 689,629 ELEVEN STARS ENT INC 120,696 ELGAR ELECTRIC LTD 164,188 EMA CANADA, INC 231,497 EMCO CORPORATION 311,527 EMERGEX PLANNING INC 35,112 ENKON ENVIRONMENTAL LTD 110,078 ENVISION SUSTAINABILITY TOOLS 80,250 EPCOR WATER SERVICES INC. 103,033 ERNST & YOUNG LLP 87,217 ESRI CANADA LIMITED 87,875 ESSE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 83,837 EUREST DINING SERVICES 143,173 EVERYDAY ALLSTAR CLEANING SERVICES LTD. 30,491 EVS ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANTS 53,387 EXACT METALS LTD. 99,758 EXCEL DRAPERY 62,905 F & M INSTALLATIONS LTD 43,442 FAN, BENEDICT H., P. ENG. 45,868 FARRIS, VAUGHAN, WILLS & MURPHY IN TRUST 295,272 FARRIS,VAUGHAN,WILLS & MURPHY 365,225 FIBERWRAP INSTALLATIONS 56,995 FILENET CANADA INC. 56,347 FINNING INTERNATIONAL INC. 356,721 FIRST AID & SURVIVAL TECHNOLOGIES 45,457 FISHER SCIENTIFIC CO. LIMITED 75,120 FLEETWOOD DISPOSAL 44,365 FLOWMETRIX TECHNICAL SERVICES INC. 95,216 FLOWSERVE PUMP DIVISION 1,388,180 FLYNN CANADA LTD 42,482 FOSTERS CONSTRUCTION LTD. 204,086 FOUNDEX EXPLORATIONS LTD. 137,953 FRANSEN ENGINEERING LTD. 332,765 Schedule 5 Page 6 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

FRASER RICHMOND SOIL & FIBRE LTD. 1,198,852 FRASER RIVER PORT AUTHORITY 44,042 FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT 59,275 FRASER VALLEY THERMAL SERVICES LTD. 27,100 FRIESEN EQUIPMENT LTD. 64,237 FYFE DEVELOPEMENT LTD. 108,723 GARTNER LEE 101,545 GCL CONTRACTING & ENGINEERING INC 1,038,217 GENERAL SWITCHGEAR & CONTROLS LTD 91,028 GEORGE THIRD & SON 50,360 GEOWARE INC. 45,650 GGEM CONSULTANTS LTD. 68,669 GLEN THOMPSON INDUSTRIES LTD 113,477 GLENTEL INC 271,483 GMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES 63,875 GNH ENGINEERING LTD 31,463 GOLDEN ALPINE ENTERPRISES CORP 36,227 GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD 994,805 GORDON CRANE & HOIST INC. 30,321 GRAHAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LTD. 22,903,208 GRAND & TOY LIMITED 473,653 GRANT, DANNY & MACFARLANE, SHARON 37,750 GREAT PEOPLE PERSONNEL LTD. 65,102 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY 1,470,846 GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION 471,735,642 GREENBRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 32,941 GREENTECH DESIGN LTD 73,365 GREENWAY EQUIPMENT LTD. 307,933 GREYELL MACPHAIL LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT 52,041 GUILDFORD REFRIGERATION & APPLIANCE SERVICE LTD 168,540 GUILLEVIN/FLECK BROTHERS 140,497 GVRDEU 325,502 GYGAX ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES LTD 73,846 H. FONTAINE LTD 49,484 HAMPTON POWER SYSTEMS LTD. 90,953 HANLEY AGENCIES LTD. 46,995 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD TRANSPORTATION & TUNNELS LTD 1,574,472 HAYWARD GORDAN LTD 58,623 HAZCO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. 166,135 HEMMERA ENVIROCHEM INC. 28,085 HIGHWOOD PINCHER CREEK 118,125 HILTI (CANADA) LIMITED 92,697 HODGSON KING AND MARBLE LTD 305,403 HOLACO CONSTRUCTION (1997) LTD 363,375 HOLLAND BARRS PLANNING GROUP 26,162 HOME DEPOT 163,013 Schedule 5 Page 7 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

HONEYWELL LIMITED 177,550 HOWE, JIM 50,814 HYDRA MARINE SERVICES INC 50,452 HYSECO FLUID SYSTEMS LTD. 48,179 IBM CANADA LIMITED 35,142 IDEAL WELDERS LIMITED 680,523 IMRIE ENGINEERING INC 67,089 INDUSTRIAL ENGINES LIMITED 28,476 INFINITY SQUARED SERVICES INC. 43,264 INFORM NETWORK FOR MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 29,275 INFOSAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC 49,496 INGLIS, GORDON 37,828 INKSTER, THELMA 37,217 INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 601,471 INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BC 576,755 INTERCON SECURITY LIMITED 961,997 INTERCONTINENTAL TRUCK BODY 33,972 INTERLOCK EMPLOYEE & FAMILY ASSISTANCE 49,512 IOTA CONSTRUCTION LTD 189,638 IPEX INC 219,616 IRC INTEGRATED RESOURCES CONSULTING INC. 90,494 IREDALE PARTNERSHIP 28,555 ITG INDUSTRIAL TRADES GROUP LTD. 102,711 ITT FLYGT 138,518 J C ANDELLE INC 44,300 J J REFRIGERATION LTD 45,947 J. DEWITT ENTERPRISES LTD. 44,719 J.A. ELECTRIC 349,007 J.S. FERGUSON CONSTRUCTION INC 204,793 JACQUES WHITFORD 97,447 JAS CONSULTING LTD. 137,163 JELCON EQUIPMENT LTD 130,318 JERRY ANTON & ASSOCIATES 33,175 JIFFY JOHN RENTALS LTD 29,942 JJM CONSTRUCTION LTD. 5,256,745 JOHN CRANE CANADA INC. 54,842 JOHN MEUNIER INC. 85,500 JOHNSON CONTROLS LTD 108,529 JOPO SYSTEMS LTD 54,875 JPSH ENTERPRISE INC 151,917 JRS ENGINEERING LTD 55,416 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 25,983 KAMLOOPS COMMUNICATIONS INC 27,710 KANAKA EDUCATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIP SOCIETY 48,900 KEEN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. 37,864 KELLY SERVICES (CANADA) LTD 42,699 Schedule 5 Page 8 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

KENDRICK EQUIPMENT (2003) LTD 26,355 KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES 295,407 KEYSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL LTD 27,324 KING KUBOTA SERVICES LTD 43,793 KINGSTON CONSTRUCTION LTD 14,646,817 KLOHN-CRIPPEN 1,792,973 KNIGHT PIESOLD CONSULTING 256,674 KOMATSU RENTS 34,516 KRAFT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES LTD 34,312 L.B. MACHINE COMPANY LIMITED 67,947 LA CHANCE, CHARLES 43,023 LABWARE INC 75,460 LAFARGE CANADA INC. 103,705 LANARC CONSULTANTS LTD 81,260 LAND AND WATER BRITISH COLUMBIA INC 686,550 LANDS WEST PROPERTY SERVICES INC 32,127 LANDTEC GROUND EXPERT LTD 34,508 LANGLEY CONCRETE & TILE LTD 2,524,563 LANGLEY, TOWNSHIP OF 85,727 LEHIGH NORTHWEST MATERIALS LTD. 97,167 LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD. 198,182 LEVELTON ENGINEERING LTD 29,312 LGL LIMITED 55,217 LIONS BAY, VILLAGE OF 112,005 LITZ CRANE SERVICE LTD. 51,258 LIVINGSTON INTERNATIONAL INC. 50,685 LOWE-LUM DEVELOPMENTS LTD 46,070 LRF CONSULTANTS LTD. 69,276 M R SMITH LIMITED 39,800 MAIL-O-MATIC SERVICES LTD. 40,584 MAINLAND PLUMBING & HEATING LTD 79,454 MAINLAND SAND & GRAVEL LTD. 188,331 MANDEL SCIENTIFIC COMPANY LTD 47,982 MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 612,204 MAPLE RIDGE TANK CLEANING SERVICE LTD. 46,803 MAPLE RIDGE, CORP. OF THE DISTRICT 559,456 MARINE ROOFING & SHEET METAL LTD. 87,589 MAXXAM ANALYTICS INC 73,151 MCELHANNEY CONSULTING SERVICES LTD. 34,233 MCGINN ENGINEERING & PRESERVATION LTD. 53,490 MCKENZIE INTEGRATED SYSTEMS CORP 27,720 MCRAE'S ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. 217,253 MCRAE'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE (VAN) LTD 199,435 MEQUIPCO SALES LTD. 40,937 MERAN INDUSTRIES LTD. 30,526 MERCER HUMAN RESOURCE CONSULTING LIMITED 60,187 Schedule 5 Page 9 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

MERIDIAN SPECIALTIES INC. 25,972 MERLETTI CONSTRUCTION LTD 2,029,554 METRICA SERVICES INC. 41,537 METRO BLASTING INC 26,187 METRO MOTORS LTD 112,004 METRO TESTING LABORATORIES LTD 35,224 METROTOWN CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE CO. LTD 83,511 MGM CONSTRUCTION LTD 510,454 MICHELIN NORTH AMERICAN (CANADA) INC 57,314 MICROSOFT CANADA CO. 590,378 MIDLYN HR COMMUNICATIONS 240,741 MILANI DRAINAGE PLUMBING & HARDWARE 34,854 MINISTER OF FINANCE & CORP RELATIONS 2,766,714 MINI-TANKERS CANADA LTD 67,316 MISSION CONTRACTORS 152,395 MITCHELL PRESS LTD. 46,099 MITEL NETWORKS CORP 230,978 MONTENAY INC. 8,426,397 MORROW BIOSCIENCE LTD 151,180 MOTT ELECTRIC LTD. 121,923 MOUNTAIN MANUFACTURING (2002) LTD 48,887 MPT LAND SURVEYING CO (SURREY) LTD 27,240 MUELLER FLOW CONTROL 81,790 MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY OF BC 233,062,945 MUNICIPAL PENSION PLAN 9,430,252 MURRAY-LATTA MACHINE CO (1988) LTD 89,574 N & D CONSULTING LTD. 37,121 N.W. ENGINEERING LTD. 107,278 NAC CONSTRUCTORS LTD 36,587,255 NATIONAL PROCESS EQUIPMENT 32,960 NEW DIMENSIONS CANADA INC 72,439 NEW WESTMINSTER, CORP. OF THE CITY 1,148,658 NEW-LINE PRODUCTS LTD. 66,485 NEXUS LEARNING GROUP INC 56,503 NICHELE, FRANCESCA 25,790 NOBLE TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT LTD 155,148 NORPAC CONTROLS LTD. 68,378 NORTH SHORE RESCUE TEAM 32,906 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY OF 1,007,144 NORTH VANCOUVER,THE DISTRICT OF 871,502 NORTH WEST OFFICE FURNITURE LTD 47,599 NORTHERN BUILDING SUPPLY LTD. 111,304 NORTHERN TRAILER LTD 43,331 NORTHVIEW CONSULTING 36,985 NORTHWEST BOARDING KENNELS 49,917 NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS LTD. 57,895 Schedule 5 Page 10 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

NORTHWEST PIPE COMPANY 5,567,133 NOVATEC CONSULTANTS INC 35,466 NOW NEWSPAPERS LTD. 46,240 NWRI-RECEIVER GENERAL FOR CANADA 71,690 OAKRIDGE GENERAL CONTRACTORS 383,880 OCE CANADA INC. 29,127 OCEAN CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES LIMITED 33,897 ODRA CERAMIC TILE 41,212 OLYMPIC INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES LTD. 361,257 ONSIDE RESTORATIONS SERVICES LTD 50,437 ONYX INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LTD. 417,213 ORACLE CORPORATION 174,844 OTIS CANADA INC 33,859 PACIFIC BLASTING & DEMOLITION LTD. 27,178 PACIFIC BLUE CROSS 81,990 PACIFIC BLUE CROSS DENTAL CARE PLAN 1,078,685 PACIFIC BLUE CROSS EXTENDED HEALTH 862,708 PACIFIC COASTCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC 79,882 PACIFIC LIAICON AND ASSOCIATES INC 2,681,288 PACIFIC NEWSPAPER GROUP INC. 46,471 PACIFIC-SURREY CONSTRUCTION LTD. 84,399 PANARAMA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 46,832 PARTNER TECHNOLOGIES INC. 1,047,895 PARTNERS INSTRUMENTATION INC 30,585 PARTNERSHIPS BRITISH COLUMBIA INC 27,092 PAUL FORD AG SERVICES 300,159 PCO SERVICES INC. 57,252 PEDRE CONTRACTORS LTD. 3,771,909 PERSONA CONSTRUCTION LTD. 71,524 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, THE 115,261 PETER KIEWIT SONS CO. 12,776,527 PETRO CANADA 115,625 PHH VEHICLE MANAGEMENT SVCS 1,074,094 PHOENIX TRUCK & CRANE 84,383 PITNEY BOWES 78,860 PLANIT MANAGEMENT INC. 28,243 PLAS-TANKS INDUSTRIES, INC. 47,328 POLAR BATTERY VANCOUVER LTD 35,994 POLLUX CANADA 57,627 POLYCRETE RESTORATIONS LTD 456,566 POLYGON CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LTD 64,366 PONTE BROS. CONTRACTING LTD 861,009 PORT COQUITLAM, THE CITY OF 328,221 PORT MOODY, CITY OF 5,116,261 POSTAGE BY PHONE SYSTEM 51,360 PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS 38,511 Schedule 5 Page 11 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

PRINTERWORKS 31,266 PRK SERVICES 25,402 PROACTIVE RESOLUTION INC. 33,438 PROGRESSIVE MOWERS 71,283 PYX FINANCIAL GROUP INC. 56,849 QUADRA CHEMICALS LTD. 379,038 QUALICHEM INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LTD 46,623 QUAY STRATEGIES INC 26,474 R. WALES & SON INDUSTRIAL 25,202 R.A. OAKLEY LTD. 195,965 R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD. 257,771 RAESIDE EQUIPMENT LTD. 29,121 RAMCO'S CARPET WAREHOUSE LTD. 731,174 RANSOM AGENCIES LIMITED 56,318 RAYBERN ERECTORS LTD. 45,509 RAYDON RENTALS LTD 40,087 RECEIVER GENERAL OF CANADA 154,559 RECYCLING COUNCIL OF BC 45,275 REGE CONSULTING CORPORATION 42,303 REHTLANE CONSULTING 64,645 REMDAL PAINTING & RESTORATION INC 25,418 RESMOR TRUST COMPANY 246,466 REVENUE SERVICES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1,015,650 REVERE, INC. 67,105 REVY 74,658 RICHMOND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE LTD. 60,178 RICHMOND, CITY OF 1,093,686 RISSLING CONTRACTORS LTD. 141,056 RITCHIE, TAMRA JAYE 58,888 RIVERA DESIGN GROUP LTD. 41,512 RIVERSIDE EQUIPMENT (1994) INC 26,769 ROBERTS FILTER INTERNATIONAL INC. 1,366,350 ROBICON CANADA LTD 61,182 ROBINS FLOTECH LTD 78,859 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION CANADA INC 622,907 ROCO CORPORATION 43,357 ROCO RESCUE OF CANADA INC. 83,003 ROLLINS MACHINERY LIMITED 209,298 ROSS MORRISON ELECTRICAL LTD. 310,151 ROSS SUPPLY LTD. 61,983 S. GLENN SIGURDSON INC 25,423 S.S.G. HOLDINGS LTD 1,099,192 SAFWAY SCAFFOLD SERVICES INC 83,831 SALMON'S RENTALS LTD. 29,592 SANDWELL ENGINEERING 547,418 SASAMAT VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOC 25,866 Schedule 5 Page 12 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

SCHALIN, DAVID AND CARLYN 41,000 SCK HOLDINGS LTD 48,200 SEAWARD ENGINEERING & RESEARCH LTD 63,155 SEMIAHMOO BULLDOZING & TRUCKING LTD 40,018 SERVICEMASTER 31,744 SHARP'S AUDIO-VISUAL LTD. 29,877 SHAW CABLE 57,983 SHELTAIR GROUP RESOURCE CONSULTANTS INC. 83,703 SI SYSTEMS 996,624 SIDHU, S. TRUCKING 29,104 SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES-FIRESAFETY 32,981 SIMARK CONTROLS LTD 40,004 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY 72,594 SMITH CAMERON PUMP SOLUTIONS 116,889 SNF CANADA LTD. 114,517 SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION 75,188 SOUKUP LAND SURVEYING INC. 88,422 SOUTHERN CROSS HOLDINGS LTD. 93,102 SPEEDY GLASS 33,031 SPHERION 25,052 SPX PROCESS EQUIPMENT 492,549 SQUAMISH NATION 719,716 SSBV CONSULTANTS INC 3,211,225 STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. 37,055 STAPLES 50,394 STAPLES MCDANNOLD STEWART 32,900 STAPLES MCDANNOLD STEWART "IN TRUST" 292,431 STASUK TESTING & INSPECTION LTD 71,568 STEALTH VALVE 2,464,442 STEEL GUYS FABRICATING LTD 25,670 STEELGUARD FENCING 30,846 STERLING FLEET OUTFITTERS 26,873 STRATEGIC ACTION GROUP 61,633 STROMA SERVICE CONSULTING INC. 70,936 SUBOCEANIC SCIENCES CANADA LTD 29,932 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL CANADA 392,189 SUPER SAVE DISPOSAL INC. 148,487 SUPERIOR ASPHALT PAVING 32,101 SUPERIOR HANDYMAN SERVICES 317,736 SUPERIOR PROPANE LIMITED 66,911 SURFWOOD SUPPLY (1964) LTD. 37,959 SURREY CEDAR LTD 27,080 SURREY FIRE & SAFETY LTD. 29,476 SURREY, CITY OF 1,221,395 SUSTAINABLE CITIES FOUNDATION 174,500 SYLVIS ENVIRONMENTAL 189,570 Schedule 5 Page 13 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

SYNOVATE LTD. 52,894 TALON HELICOPTERS LIMITED 253,055 TD BANK FINANCIAL GROUP 509,170 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION #31 382,344 TEBO MILL INSTALLATIONS LTD. 58,615 TECK COMINCO METALS LTD. 87,308 TEK SYSTEMS 294,595 TELUS 249,658 TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC 901,942 TELUS ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS PARTNERSHIP 338,800 TELUS MOBILITY 510,330 TERASEN GAS INC. 609,488 TERASEN WATERWORKS (SUPPLY) INC 58,386 TERRITE CONTRACTING 89,663 TEXCAN,DIVISION OF SONEPAR INC. 90,709 THE 500 STAFFING SERVICES 131,616 THOMAS G. ANDERSON LAW CORPORATION 120,375 THOMPSON FOUNDRY LTD. 42,875 THOS. W. MACKAY & SON LTD. 149,636 TIKAL CONSTRUCTION LTD 85,811 TLD COMPUTERS INC 233,601 TOSHIBA OF CANADA LIMITED 283,471 TP SYSTEMS LTD. 275,611 TRANSLINK 151,823 TREE ISLAND INDUSTRIES 89,223 TREEN GLOVES & SAFETY PRODUCTS LTD 51,500 TREVOR JARVIS CONTRACTING LTD. 367,439 TRI-ARROW INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY INC 546,620 TRIMAR TIRE LIMITED 45,575 TRI-R SYSTEMS INC. 26,002 TRISTAR INDUSTRIES LTD 108,282 TRITECH INDUSTRIES LTD. 624,507 TRITON TRANSPORT LTD 82,941 TROW ASSOCIATES INC. 44,926 TRYDOR INDUSTRIES (CANADA) LTD 192,333 UAP INC (D.B.A. NAPA AUTO PARTS) 117,558 ULTRA-TECH CLEANING SYSTEMS LTD 80,841 UNIFEED LTD 28,857 UNISOURCE CANADA INC. 48,428 UNITED RENTALS OF CANADA 139,910 UNITED WAY OF THE LOWER MAINLAND 153,042 UNIVERSAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT COMPANY 32,903 UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 315,310 UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA 38,925 UPPER VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION LTD. 106,571 US FILTER/ASDOR LIMITED 39,780 Schedule 5 Page 14 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

US FILTER/WALLACE & TIERNAN 46,867 VALLEY TRAFFIC SYSTEMS INC. 171,012 VALON KONE BRUNETTE LTD 141,063 VAN TEL/SAFEWAY CREDIT UNION 114,571 VANCOUVER OFFICESPACE LTD. 54,399 VANCOUVER PARKS BOARD 38,649 VANCOUVER PORT AUTHORITY 209,872 VANCOUVER- WHISTLER PAINTING INC 47,572 VANCOUVER, CITY OF 1,232,832 VAN-NET CLASSIFIEDS 29,448 VARIAN CANADA INC. 193,592 VERITAS SOFTWARE CANADA INC 43,467 VIKANES CONSULTING INC. 33,136 VIKING CHAIN INC 121,051 VWR CANLAB 43,258 VWR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS 74,011 WAINBEE LIMITED 109,420 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CANADA CORPORATION 342,301 WASTECH SERVICES LIMITED 31,785,539 WASTE-TECH INC 161,466 WATER MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 61,148 WATEROUS DETROIT DIESEL ALLISON 252,463 WATEROUS POWER SYSTEMS 42,148 WATSON GLOVES 26,286 WATSON, LYDIA 32,000 WDA CONSULTING INC. 29,854 WEIR CANADA INC. 141,279 WESCAN SYSTEMS LIMITED 38,985 WESCO DISTRIBUTION CANADA INC 224,149 WESCO INDUSTRIES LTD. 49,187 WEST COAST CORROSION 57,675 WEST COAST FALCONRY INC 45,191 WEST COAST SAFETY CONSULTANTS 36,380 WEST COAST VULCANIZING SHOP LTD. 46,883 WEST VANCOUVER, CORP OF THE DISTRICT 3,013,613 WESTBURNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY 583,573 WESTCAN ENGINEERING AND MACHINE 166,609 WESTCORP PROPERTIES INC 85,500 WESTECH ENGINEERING INC. 63,414 WESTERN FENCE & GATE LTD. 39,795 WESTERN MEDICAL ASSESSMENTS 26,033 WESTERN OIL SERVICES LTD 72,677 WESTERN VERSATILE CONSTRUCTION CORP 5,030,093 WESTMAR CONSULTANTS INC. 53,456 WESTOWER COMMUNICATIONS LTD 292,138 WESTPRO CONSTRUCTORS GROUP LTD. 1,350,966 Schedule 5 Page 15 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY LIMITED 154,832 WHITE PINE ENVIROMENTAL RESOURCES INC. 209,021 WHITELAW TWINING 37,797 WILDFIRE FIRE EQUIPMENT INC 51,227 WILLIS CANADA INC. 2,566,985 WINVAN PAVING LTD. 70,280 WOLSELEY CANADA INC. 428,788 WOOD WYANT 27,593 WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD OF B.C. 893,838 XEROX OF CANADA LIMITED 102,481 XY SOFTWARE LTD. 56,287 YEOMEN PROPERTY MAINTENANCE & RENO LTD 31,542 YOHO PROJECTS LTD. 515,124 ZEEMAC VEHICLE LEASE LTD 83,183 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF CANADA 35,023

Payments to suppliers of goods and services who received aggregate payments exceeding $25,000 $ 1,062,722,779

Consolidated total paid to suppliers who received aggregate payments of $25,000 or less 11,151,524

Total payments made to Canadian suppliers $ 1,073,874,303

Payments made in 2005 for Grants/Contributions

BIEAP-FREMP $ 50,000 FRASER BASIN COUNCIL 232,500 PACIFIC PARKLANDS FOUNDATION 75,000 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 66,500 VANCOUVER SYMPHONY SOCIETY 38,000

Payments for Grants/Contributions exceeding $25,000 $ 462,000

BC PHOTOGRAPHY & MEDIA ARTS SOCIETY 5,000 COASTAL JAZZ & BLUES SOCIETY 5,000 GREEN THUMB PLAYERS SOCIETY 4,000 PACIFIC BALLET BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIETY 9,500 PACIFIC CINEMATHEQUE PACIFIQUE SOCIETY 3,500 PLAYHOUSE THEATRE CENTRE OF BC 7,000 PUBLIC DREAMS SOCIETY 2,000 RICHMOND GATEWAY THEATRE SOCIETY 2,000 THE ARTS CLUB OF VANCOUVER THEATRE 8,000 UNITED WAY OF THE LOWER MAINLAND 15,000 VANCOUVER ART GALLERY 8,500 VANCOUVER INTL. CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL 2,000 Schedule 5 Page 16 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

VANCOUVER OPERA ASSOCIATION 20,000 VANCOUVER THEATRE SPORTS LEAGUE 2,500

Payments for Grants/Contributions of $25,000 or less $ 94,000

$ 556,000

Total Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn) $ 1,074,430,303 Schedule 6 Page 1 of 1

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Payments to U.S. Suppliers ($US)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

OZONIA NORTH AMERICA, INC. $ 32,062 SCHRADER, ERNEST K. 33,668 KOLLGAARD, ERIC B. 37,722 GARTNER INC 44,428 QUINCY NEW HOLLAND, INC 45,500 WHEELABRATOR TECHNOLOGIES INC 48,781 MWH AMERICAS, INC. 51,759 U.S. MARKETING AND DECISIONS GROUP INC. 53,995 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 55,060 JENBACHER ENERGIESYSTEME INC 56,903 PARKSON CORPORATION 56,958 I. M. IDRISS 79,500 WATER ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH FOUNDATION 105,900 WATEROUS POWER SYSTEMS 204,586 OSI SOFTWARE CANADA ULC 485,758

Payments to US suppliers of goods and services who received aggregate payments exceeding $25,000 1,392,581

Consolidated total of all payments to US suppliers who received $25,000 or less 258,350

Total payments made to US suppliers ($US) $ 1,650,931

Total payments made to US suppliers converted to Canadian $ $ 1,924,820 Schedule 7 Page 1 of 1

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Reconciliation of Payments for Goods and Services to Financial Statements

Total payments to Canadian Suppliers (Schedule 5) $1,074,430,303

Total payments to US Suppliers - in Canadian dollars (Schedule 6) 1,924,820

$1,076,355,123

Total expenditures per Financial Statements (Exhibit B - Consolidated Statement $489,286,328 of Financial Activities)

Items included in Financial Statements but not in Schedules 5 and 6: Salaries and benefits per Schedule 3 (90,661,252) Employee's and director's expenses per Schedules 1 and 2 (2,135,009) 2005 Accounts Payable and accrued liabilities (108,255,753) Non-cash adjustments 126,037 Items in Schedules 5 and 6 but not included in expenditures in the Financial Statements: 2004 Accounts Payable and accrued liabilities 86,789,601 Payroll and other remittances 26,327,497 Municipal GST rebate, ITCs and remittances relating to revenues collected 20,153,380 PST remittances relating to revenues collected 507,604 Payments relating to debt financing and debt reserve funds: Payments to members 8,811,995 Payments to GVTA 471,735,642 Payments to Municipal Finance Authority 233,062,945 Payments for GVHC Mortgages 15,916,488 Interest on long-term debt (75,310,380)

$1,076,355,123

Difference - GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held at 1:33 p.m. on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia to participate in a panel interview with the TransLink Governance Review Panel.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director B.C. Lee, Vancouver Vice Chair, Director Peter Ladner, Vancouver (arrived at 1:42 p.m.) Director Suzanne Anton, Vancouver Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Elizabeth Ball, Vancouver (departed at 3:26 p.m.) Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Kim Capri, Vancouver (departed at 3:39 p.m.) (departed at 3:14 p.m.) Alternate Director Bill McNulty, Richmond Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby for Harold Steves (departed at 3:13 p.m.) Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Darrell Mussatto, (arrived at 1:48 p.m.) North Vancouver City (arrived at 2:14 p.m.) Alternate Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge Director Barbara Steele, Surrey for Gordon Robson Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director George Ferguson, Abbotsford∗ (departed at 3:39 p.m.) Director Judy Forster, White Rock Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody (arrived at 1:35 p.m.) (departed at 2:39 p.m.) Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A Director Richard Walton, Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford* North Vancouver District Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore West Vancouver (arrived at 1:41 p.m.) (departed at 3:21 p.m.) Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Maxine Wilson, Coquitlam (departed at 3:37 p.m.) (arrived at 1:35 p.m., departed at 3:07 p.m.) Director Judith Higginbotham, Surrey Director Max Wyman, Lions Bay Director David Hocking, Bowen Island (departed at 3:28 p.m.) (arrived at 1:39 p.m.) Director Scott Young, Port Coquitlam Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey (departed at 2:58 p.m.) Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Alternate Director Mel Kositsky, Langley Township, for Kurt Alberts

MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Fin Donnelly, Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster

STAFF PRESENT: Johnny Carline, Chief Administrative Officer Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department

∗ For Parks purposes. Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 Page 1 of 4 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

1.1 May 24, 2006 Special Meeting Agenda The Board proceeded on the basis of the circulated agenda.

2. CORRESPONDENCE The following correspondence had been previously circulated to members.

2.1 TransLink Governance Review Panel 2.2 TransLink Governance Review Panel: Terms of Reference

Discussion Chair Jackson introduced members of the TransLink Governance Review Panel, comprising Marlene Grinnell, Dan Doyle, and Wayne Duzita.

1:35 p.m. Directors Forster and Wilson arrived at the meeting.

Marlene Grinnell, Chair, TransLink Governance Review Panel informed members of the Panel’s purpose including a meeting of the GVRD and TransLink Boards for input on matters referred to the panel, in preparation of its report to be submitted to the Minister of Transportation in the fall. Written submissions will also be received. The review is being conducted due to outstanding issues from the Auditor General’s report and the GVRD Board’s request to the Province to change the number of seats on the TransLink Board.

1:39 p.m. Director Hocking arrived at the meeting. 1:41 p.m. Director Goldsmith-Jones arrived at the meeting. 1:42 p.m. Director Lee arrived at the meeting.

As an approach to the workshop the Chief Administrative Officer suggested members consider the following as separate topics for discussion: • How the GVRD, TransLink and the Province relate; • Who should do what; • What structure should the TransLink Board be; and • Funding and revenue measures.

1:48 p.m. Director Drew arrived at the meeting.

Members considered the topics and individually made the following points:

Funding • Need for sustainable funding for TransLink; • Revenues generated through transportation activities such as fuel taxes, fare and bridge revenues should be reinvested in transportation;

Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 Page 2 of 4 • Reinforcement of provincial commitment to co-fund major transportation capital projects; and • Sustainable, stable, long term funding may be achieved only with provincial and federal support.

Governance structure • Retention of control over transportation at local government level; • Increase number of TransLink Board to 17 directors, comprising larger municipalities, with small communities being represented by larger neighbouring municipalities or choosing which municipality will represent them; • Majority vote versus weighted vote based on population or number of public transit users; • Extension of TransLink Director appointment eligibility to councillors; • Establishment of alternate director position; • Lack of continuity caused by one-year Board appointment and rotation of members in some sectors; • Smaller board more efficient; • Consideration of Crown Corporation or Vancouver Airport Authority model; • Inclusion of major stakeholders (such as Airport and Port authorities) in decision making and incorporation of business community expertise; • Long term link with senior levels of government is essential; all three levels of government need to share responsibility in transportation planning and funding, provincial and federal needs and concerns have to be taken into consideration; ways of representation of the senior levels of government at TransLink Board have to be determined; • Establishment of a transportation committee comprising local government representatives that would govern day-to-day operations and a board comprising local government, provincial and federal representatives to consider planning and funding issues, or establishment of a transportation committee that would report to the GVRD Board; • Annual or biannual meetings of all three levels of government to deal with transportation issues in the Lower Mainland; and • Expansion of the TransLink Board to include municipalities from outside the region (such as Hope, Abbotsford, or Mission).

The following issues were also considered: • Ability to share information discussed at closed TransLink meetings with municipal council; • Perception that issues are already decided by the Province; • Coordination of land use and transportation planning; • Confirmation that the GVRD and TransLink are working towards the goals of the Livable Region Strategic Plan; and • Economic development and good movements.

2:14 p.m. Director Mussatto arrived at the meeting. 2:39 p.m. Director Trasolini departed the meeting.

Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 Page 3 of 4 2:58 p.m. Director Young departed the meeting. 3:04 p.m. Director Drew departed the meeting. 3:07 p.m. Director Wilson departed the meeting. 3:13 p.m. Director McNulty departed the meeting. 3:14 p.m. Director Capri departed the meeting. 3:21 p.m. Director Weinberg departed the meeting. 3:26 p.m. Director MacLean departed the meeting. 3:28 p.m. Director Wyman departed the meeting. 3:37 p.m. Director Hepner departed the meeting. 3:39 p.m. Directors Martin and Stevenson departed the meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting concluded at 3:50 p.m.

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary Lois E. Jackson, Chair

Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 Page 4 of 4 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held at 10:56 a.m. on Friday, May 26, 2006 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair, Director Peter Ladner, Vancouver Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Director Kurt Alberts, Langley Township Director B.C. Lee, Vancouver (departed at 2:20 p.m.) Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Suzanne Anton, Vancouver (departed at 1:38 p.m.) Director Elizabeth Ball, Vancouver Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver Director Kim Capri, Vancouver City (departed at 1:25 p.m.) Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Barbara Steele, Surrey Director Fin Donnelly, Coquitlam Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Harold Steves, Richmond (departed at 11:14 a.m.) Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Alternate Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge (departed at 2:21 p.m.) for Gordon Robson Director Richard Walton, Director George Ferguson, Abbotsford∗ North Vancouver District Director Judy Forster, White Rock Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A Director Maxine Wilson, Coquitlam Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford* (departed at 2:20 p.m.) Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster West Vancouver (departed at 12:03 p.m.) Director Max Wyman, Lions Bay Director Linda Hepner, Surrey (departed at 11:10 a.m.) Director Judith Higginbotham, Surrey Director Scott Young, Port Coquitlam Director David Hocking, Bowen Island (departed at 11.54 a.m.) Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey

MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta

STAFF PRESENT: Johnny Carline, Chief Administrative Officer Marjorie Whalen, Assistant to Regional Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department

∗ For Parks purposes. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 1 of 11 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 May 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) amend the agenda for the GVRD Board regular meeting scheduled for May 26, 2006 by adding: i.) Item 14.1 Regional Cultural Task Force Membership Appointments; ii.) Item 14.2 World Urban Forum Update – Presentation; and b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 April 21, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board adopt the minutes for the GVRD Board regular meeting held April 21, 2006 as circulated. CARRIED

2.2 April 28, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board adopt the minutes for the GVRD Board regular meeting held April 28, 2006 as circulated. CARRIED

3. DELEGATIONS

3.1 Terry Sumner, Vice President Administration and Finance, UBC, and John Metras, Director of Plant Operations, UBC Terry Sumner, Vice President Administration and Finance, UBC, and John Metras, Director of Plant Operations, UBC, made a formal apology for the tree-cutting incident in Pacific Spirit Regional Park; advised of the conditions surrounding the action and of remediation action taken to repair the damage. UBC will pay for full restoration of the area to its original state.

11:10 a.m. Director Wyman departed the meeting.

3.2 Heather Deal, GVRD Environment Committee/Vancouver City Council Councillor Heather Deal, GVRD Environment Committee/Vancouver City Councillor, expressed support for the GVRD’s recommendation for the continuance of AirCare Program (2006 – 2011) and to decrease the exemption from 7 to 5 years.

11:14 a.m. Director Drew departed the meeting. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 2 of 11 3.3 Nicholas Heap, David Suzuki Foundation Nicholas Heap, David Suzuki Foundation, expressed the David Suzuki Foundation’s support for the GVRD’s recommendation for the continuance of AirCare Program (2006 – 2011) and the GVRD Environment Committee’s objections to the AirCare program extension of new vehicle exemption from 5 to 7 years.

3.4 Peter A. Mahony, Mahony & Sons Public House Peter A. Mahony, Mahony & Sons Public House, was present to discuss his Liquor Primary Application on University Boulevard at UBC. Members were advised the Mahony family has been in pub business for more than 30 years and detailed the timelines associated with their application to build an Irish pub at UBC. Members were advised of the pub’s seating arrangements and that Mahony & Sons have followed the guidelines and procedures and are willing to sign a good neighbour agreement. Mahony & Sons Public House do not believe they will present competition to the UBC Pit Pub.

11:54 a.m. Director Young departed the meeting.

3.5 Jeff Friedrich, UBC Alma Mater Society (AMS) Jeff Friedrich, UBC Alma Mater Society, requested deferral of the Mahony & Sons Public House Liquor Primary Application until further consultation had been completed. Members were advised that the AMS is not concerned with the competition aspect of the Mahony & Sons Public House but the impact of another licensed establishment on campus. The AMS expressed concern that this had been the first opportunity for students to provide feedback on the proposal. Issues of safety, security, parking, and how development happens on campus need to be addressed.

12:03 p.m. Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones departed the meeting.

Recess The GVRD Board recessed at 12:20 p.m. and reconvened at 12:45 p.m. with the following members being in attendance:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 3 of 11 MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair, Director Peter Ladner, Vancouver Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Kurt Alberts, Langley Township Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Director Suzanne Anton, Vancouver Director B.C. Lee, Vancouver Director Elizabeth Ball, Vancouver Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Kim Capri, Vancouver Director Darrell Mussatto, Director Fin Donnelly, Coquitlam North Vancouver City Alternate Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge Director Barbara Steele, Surrey for Gordon Robson Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director George Ferguson, Abbotsford∗ Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Judy Forster, White Rock Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A Director Richard Walton, Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford* North Vancouver District Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore Director Judith Higginbotham, Surrey Director Maxine Wilson, Coquitlam Director David Hocking, Bowen Island Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster

MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby West Vancouver Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Scott Young, Port Coquitlam Director Max Wyman, Lions Bay

4. PARKS REPORTS No items presented.

5. AGRICULTURE REPORTS No items presented.

6. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION REPORTS

6.1 Application for Liquor-Primary Licence Mahony & Sons Public House – 5990 University Boulevard, UBC Report dated May 10, 2006 from the Land Use and Transportation Committee, together with report dated April 13, 2006 from Kris Nichols, Planner, Policy and Planning Department, responding to a request from the Liquor control and Licensing Branch to consider and provide a resolution on an application for a liquor-Primary Licence for Mahony & Sons Public House at 5990 University Boulevard.

Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) Recommend to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch the issuance of the Liquor-Primary Licence for Mahony & Sons Public House, 5990 University Boulevard, with the following changes:

∗ For Parks purposes. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 4 of 11 1. that the hours of use for the outdoor patio area be from 10:00 am to no later than 11:00 pm and that music be piped to the patio at a level not to disturb surrounding uses; 2. that the hours of operation for the interior be between 10:00 am and 12:00 am Monday to Wednesday, 10:00 am to 1:00 am Thursday to Saturday and 10:00 am to 11:00 pm on Sunday; and 3. that the maximum capacity for exterior be 150 seats and the interior be 200 seats. b) Recommend to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch that the owner sign a Good Neighbour Agreement that will remain with the licence at this location addressing the concerns of the community; c) Forward the report titled, “Application for Liquor-Primary Licence Mahony & Sons Public House – 5990 University Boulevard, UBC”, dated April 13, 2006, to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch as the GVRD’s comment on the Liquor-Primary License Application for Mahony & Sons Public House, 5990 University Boulevard; and d) Direct staff to include in the review of the GVRD-UBC Memorandum of Understanding the consultation process for applications for liquor licences.

Deferral Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board defer consideration of the staff recommendation on the application for a Liquor Primary License for Mahony & Sons Public House, 5990 University Boulevard, UBC, until it has evidence of a completed public consultation process by the developers and University Properties Trust with the student body, faculty and staff, residents of the University Endowment Lands, residents of University Town, Campus Security, and the RCMP UBC detachment. DEFEATED

Question on the Main Motion Question was then called on the Main Motion and it was CARRIED

1:25 p.m. Director Mussatto departed the meeting.

6.2 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues – The End of Industry? Report dated April 25, 2006 from Johnny Carline, Chief Administrative Officer, providing information on the April 24, 2006 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogue – The End of Industry?.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) Forward the report dated April 25, 2006, titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues – The End of Industry?” to member municipalities for their information and comment and to the GVRD’s SRI Task Force for its consideration in developing a ‘sustainability based vision’ for the future of the region; and Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 5 of 11 b) Direct staff to consider the output of the Industry dialogue in the development of an industrial strategy as a component of the upcoming new regional growth strategy. CARRIED Directors Martin and Stevenson absent at the vote.

7. ENVIRONMENT REPORTS

7.1 Green Power Purchase Report dated April 24, 2006 from Greg Smith, Manager, Corporate Services Department, providing information on the use of Green Power Certificate purchases at 4330 Kingsway and seeking further direction.

Request of Staff Staff was requested to provide a list of private industries with Green Power Certificates.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board direct staff to plan for and implement Green Power Certificates at other key GVRD locations to a maximum additional annual commitment of $50,000. CARRIED Directors Lee and Wilson absent at the vote.

Conflict of Interest 1:35 p.m. Director Hocking declared a conflict of interest with respect to Item 7.2 Continuance of AirCare Program (2006-2011) as he is the Acting Secretary/Director of the David Suzuki Foundation, and left the meeting.

7.2 Continuance of AirCare Program (2006-2011) Report dated May 16, 2006 from the Environment Committee, seeking reconsideration of the board’s February 17, 2006 decision regarding the continuance of AirCare.

1:38 p.m. Director MacLean departed the meeting.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS: 1) On February 7, 2006 the GVRD Environment Committee voted to recommend the continuance of the AirCare Program to the GVRD Board as forwarded by the GVTA, which included moving to a four- year and a five-year exemption for new vehicles, exempting hybrid vehicles, implementing On-Board Diagnostic testing for all 1998 and newer vehicles, reducing the term of the next inspection contract from seven years to five years, and reducing the inspection fee by roughly ten per cent;

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 6 of 11 2) These same recommendations were also approved by the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Board and the Fraser Valley Regional District Board; 3) The Provincial Government unilaterally decided, after the regional boards had approved the above plan and without any subsequent consultation with the GVRD, FVRD, or GVTA, to expand the new vehicle exemption to seven years; AND WHEREAS under the BC Environmental Management Act the GVRD has the responsibility to provide the service of air pollution control and air quality management, under the GVTA Act the GVTA has the responsibility for developing and administering the AirCare program, and the Province’s role is intended to be one of enacting appropriate legislation to enable the regional authorities to operate and enforce the AirCare Program in the Lower Mainland. AND WHEREAS: 1) The GVTA estimates that a 7 model year exemption will result in a two to three per cent reduction in the effectiveness of AirCare; 2) It is the citizens of the GVRD and FVRD that suffer the adverse health and quality of life effects of air pollution; 3) The economic costs to the individual taxpayer of providing health care to those affected by declining air quality far exceeds the costs of AirCare testing for owners of vehicles 5-7. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the GVRD Board rescind the following resolution adopted at its February 17, 2006 Board Meeting: “That the GVRD Board: a) Advise the GVTA Board, the Province, and the Fraser Valley Regional District Board that it supports the continuance of the AirCare Program in a revised form including: • moving to a seven-year exemption of new model year vehicles; • exempting all hybrid vehicles; • implementing biennial On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) testing for all 1998 and newer model year vehicles which are not exempt; • reducing the term of the next inspection contract from seven years to five years (2006-2011). b) Request the Province make necessary amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations to allow the revised program to be phased-in and effectively implemented; and c) Request the GVTA to conduct a mid-term review of the program.” 2. That the GVRD Board: a) Advise the GVTA Board, the Province, and the Fraser Valley Regional District Board that it supports the continuance of the AirCare Program, including the following proposals: • Moving to a four-year and a five-year exemption of new model year vehicles effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007, respectively. • Exempting all hybrid vehicles; • Implementing biennial On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) testing for all 1998 and newer model year vehicles which are not exempt; Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 7 of 11 • Reducing the term of the next inspection contract from seven years to five years (2006-2011); • Reducing inspection fees by roughly 10%; b) Request the Province make necessary amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations to allow the revised program to be phased-in and effectively implemented; and c) Request the GVTA to conduct a mid-term review of the program. 3. That the GVRD Board express its concerns with the decision of the Provincial Government to change the AirCare Program without consultation with the GVRD, FVRD, and GVTA, and objects to the expansion of the new vehicle exemption to seven years because it will result in a 2-3% decline in the effectiveness of AirCare to improve air quality and threaten the viability of the AirCare Program. 4. That the GVRD Board authorize the Chair of the GVRD to write to the BC Solicitor General and the Minister of Environment in order to: a) Express this concern; b) Request that the new vehicle exemption be for a maximum of 5 years effective January 1, 2007 and the 10% fee reduction be maintained, as recommended in the GVTA staff report; c) Request that the Minister of Environment clarify the Province’s intentions with regards to the GVRD’s jurisdiction over air quality control, monitoring, and enforcement, and whether or not the Province intends to respond to the lobby of the Business Council of BC to have the Province take over responsibility for regulating air quality in the region. 5. That the GVRD Board direct staff to distribute the correspondence from the David Suzuki Foundation to the member Municipalities.

Distinct Propositions Members agreed to separate the motion into distinct propositions, considering 1 and 2 together, and 3, 4 and 5 separately.

A recorded vote was taken.

Director Number of Votes Against For Kurt Alberts 5 Suzanne Anton 5 Elizabeth Ball 4 Malcolm Brodie 5 Kim Capri 5 Fin Donnelly 3 Judy Forster 1 Gary Gibson 1 Linda Hepner 4 Judith Higginbotham 5 Marvin Hunt 5 Colleen Jordan 5 Peter Ladner 5 B.C. Lee 5 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 8 of 11 Director Number of Votes Against For Gayle Martin 2 Judy Dueck 4 Barbara Steele 4 Tim Stevenson 4 Harold Steves 4 Joe Trasolini 2 Richard Walton 5 Hal Weinberg 1 Maxine Wilson 3 Wayne Wright 3 Total Votes 50 40 DEFEATED

As the motion to rescind was defeated, distinct propositions 3, 4 and 5 were not considered.

7.3 GVRD and FVRD Liaison on Environmental Matters Report dated May 17, 2006 from the Environment Committee, seeking approval of joint meetings between the GVRD Environment Committee and the Fraser Valley Regional District Air Quality and Environment Committee to develop common policies and areas of mutual interest.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board approve joint meetings between the Greater Vancouver Regional District Environment Committee and Fraser Valley Regional District Air Quality and Environment Committee to develop common policies and areas of mutual interest. CARRIED

2:20 p.m. Director Alberts and Wilson departed the meeting

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board extend the May 26, 2006 meeting of the GVRD Board beyond four hours pursuant to the GVRD Procedure Bylaw 945. CARRIED

8. FINANCE REPORTS

8.1 Investment Policy Changes Report dated April 26, 2006 from Gord Nicol, Acting Treasury and Research Division Manager, Finance and Administration Department, proposing minor amendments to the GVRD’s investing policy to permit greater flexibility in investments producing higher returns.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 9 of 11 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board adopt the changes made to Investment Policy and Investment Limits as contained on Appendices A and B of the report titled “Investment Policy Changes” dated April 26, 2006. CARRIED

9. HOUSING REPORTS No items presented.

10. ABORIGINAL RELATIONS REPORTS No items presented.

11. COMMITTEE OF GVRD MAYORS REPORTS No items presented.

12. INFORMATION REPORTS No items presented.

13. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented.

14. OTHER BUSINESS

14.1 Regional Cultural Task Force Membership Appointments Members were advised of the following Regional Cultural Task Force membership appointments: Mayor Max Wyman; Village of Lions Bay Councillor Elizabeth Ball; City of Vancouver Mayor Pamela Goldsmith-Jones; District of West Vancouver Nancy Duxbury, Centre of Expertise on Culture and Communities, Simon Fraser University; and Duncan Low, Director, East Vancouver Cultural Centre.

14.2 World Urban Forum Update – Presentation Members were provided a copy of the World Urban Forum presentation material.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board receive for information the copy of the presentation material on the World Urban Forum dated May 25, 2006. CARRIED 2:21 p.m. Director Trasolini departed the meeting.

14.3 Development at UBC

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD/UBC Joint Committee be requested to investigate student concerns regarding development on UBC campus. CARRIED Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 10 of 11

15. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the regular meeting of the GVRD Board scheduled for May 26, 2006 be closed pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (2) (b) as follows: “90 (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.” CARRIED

16. ADJOURNMENT

It was MOVED and SECONDED That this meeting now conclude. CARRIED (Time: 2:23 p.m.)

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary Peter Ladner, Vice Chair

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, May 26, 2006 Page 11 of 11

Park Committee Meeting Date: June 7, 2006 GVRD Board of Directors Meeting Date: June 30, 2006

TO: Board of Directors

FROM: Parks Committee

DATE: May 15, 2006

RE: Pacific Parklands Foundation – Funding and Support

Recommendations:

That the GVRD Board:

a) receive this report as information on activities of the Pacific Parkland Foundation, and;

b) request staff develop a proposed multi-year funding program of cash contribution and in-kind support for the Pacific Parklands Foundation as part of GVRD 2007 budget considerations, and that the proposed multi-year funding program be linked to the Pacific Parkland Foundations multi-year business plan. ______

1. PURPOSE

To report on the activities of the Pacific Parkland Foundation and need for multi-year funding support.

2. CONTEXT

Section 176 (1)(c) of the Local Government Act (LGA) states that the GVRD Board of Directors may: “provide assistance for the purpose of benefiting the community or any aspect of the community.” “Assistance” is defined under section 181(a) of the LGA as including “exemption from a tax, fee or charge”. GVRD Board has approved financial support to the Pacific Parkland Foundation (PPF) and exemption from charges for office space and equipment, a computer work station, stationary supplies and office support.

Pacific Parklands Foundation Background The PPF is a not-for-profit society registered in 2002 under the Societies Act of British Columbia. PPF has Revenue Canada charitable status and is empowered to issue tax receipts to donors. The society has a constitution, bylaws, Executive Director (part-time) and a 12-member board of directors.

In November 2003, the GVRD Board authorized the Parks Committee to allocate $75,000 in direct annual funding, for a three year period; the funding is used primarily to cover the salary of an Executive Director (four days per week). GVRD also committed to in-kind support valued at $15,500 for office space, technical support (computer and internet access), general office supplies, photocopying, printing and courier and staff support including a limited amount of administrative and graphic design support.

The PPF now operates as other successful education, health, research, social, religious and non-profit foundations by locating the Foundation in the facilities of the main organization it supports. In addition PPF has been targeting smaller, achievable projects within the funding abilities of smaller donors; and also working closely with the staff and community partners of the organization it supports. The Society presently operates out of an office provided by GVRD at 4330 Kingsway in Burnaby.

2005 Accomplishments In 2005, the Pacific Parklands Foundation provided $383,000 in direct financial contributions from donors in support of a number of GVRD Parks initiatives.

Regional Park Project / Initiative Funds Raised

Burnaby Lake Piper Spit Rotary Boardwalk $55,000 Capilano River Camp Capilano $15,000 Aldergrove Lake Aldergrove Bowl $75,000 Tynehead Raven’s Nest Group Camp $5,000 Pacific Spirit Camosun Bog Boardwalk $35,000 System-wide program Catching the Spirit Youth Initiative $98,000 System-wide program Donation Stations / IMPARK $100,000 Total: $383,000

Future Requirements

The PPF’s 2004/05 Annual Review was first submitted to GVRD Park Committee in October 2005 and presented in April 2006. In it, the PPF stated that a stronger financial commitment from the GVRD will be needed if the Foundation is to become sustainable and have greater success in raising non-tax funding for GVRD Parks. The PPF is requesting that GVRD continue to provide multi-year funding commencing in 2007, funding would be directed to annual operating costs and the establishment of an endowment fund.

3. ALTERNATIVES

Option 1: Do not provide support to PPF beyond 2006

Advantages: a) No additional cost to GVRD; b) Initial GVRD investment has been recovered in cash raised, in-kind donations and bequests of property (if ultimately realized); c) Funds would be redirected to other projects.

Disadvantages:

a) Will not provide GVRD Parks with a fundraising vehicle viewed favorably by many potential donors. Donors often prefer to give to a Foundation rather than government or government agency because they feel more confident that funds given to a foundation will support the specific project of interest to them; b) Will not provide GVRD Parks with access to a well connected business network with access to significant non-tax funds; c) Abandons the initial investment made in start-up costs for PPF at a time when the Foundation is showing significant breakthroughs in realizing significant non-tax revenues; d) Risk there will be loss of momentum with fundraising achieved in 2005 and carried through 2006; consequence of reduced potential net revenue to GVRD Parks; e) Risk that pending bequest of land arranged through the PPF may be jeopardized; f) Potential disenchantment and cynicism among volunteer members of the PPF Board of Directors, many of whom have invested significant time, energy and personal credibility to make the PPF successful.

Option 2: Provide the PPF with annual operating support

Advantages: a) Provides the best opportunity to maximize return on initial investment to start-up; can capitalize on momentum with the prospect of significant monetary donations and bequests of land to reach a target (year-five) of $750,000 (this is consistent with the time frame and funding support to develop other similar foundations; b) Maintains GVRD access to well-established business networks and enhanced potential for philanthropy supporting worthy projects and programs; c) Enhances the effectiveness of donor support by enabling 100% of donor contributions to go directly to the project(s) for which the money is provided. This is viewed as a substantial advantage in a very competitive fundraising environment; d) Increased confidence and effectiveness of Park volunteers and youth projects which benefit from PPF fundraising; e) Enhanced public relations that will help expand donation networks and contributions. The recognition of donors who have contributed to the Foundation is vitally important for fostering additional support; f) PPF will continue to attract well-established, well-connected members of the business community who can help guarantee future success of the PPF.

Disadvantages:

a) Risk of GVRD not realizing complete return on investment, as additional resources are channeled into the PPF, i.e. opportunity costs; b) Requires office space and in-kind support that will have some impact on staff and other GVRD Parks projects;

4. CONCLUSION

Staff recommend Option 2. A significant investment has been made in the Pacific Parklands Foundation. The Foundation is now demonstrating success that merits continued financial support. The PPF Board of Directors and Executive Director continue to demonstrate strong commitment and dedication to make the Foundation more effective. To enable PPF to operate most effectively and to maximize opportunities for philanthropy a proposal for a multi-year financial and in-kind contribution from GVRD should be included in the 2007 budget submission to the Board.

EA/dm

Greater Vancouver Regional District Board Meeting Date: June 28, 2006

To: Greater Vancouver Regional District Board

From: Agriculture Committee

Date: June 8, 2006

Subject: Agriculture Land Protection

Recommendation: WHEREAS the South Coast Panel will deal with a number of significant applications with regional implications; AND WHEREAS the Tsawwassen Treaty lands decision will be precedent setting for urban treaties; AND WHEREAS there will be newly appointed members of the South Coast Panel; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GVRD Board request the Minister of Agriculture to appoint a full panel of 7 members comprising 3 members of the South Coast Panel, 3 commissioners from other regions and the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission to deliberate proposals for exclusion.

At its June 8, 2006, regular meeting the Agriculture Committee heard a delegation from Ann Rowan, Sustainability Program Director, David Suzuki Foundation, regarding agricultural land protection and the Agricultural Land Commission. The Committee approved the above resolution.

004396002

Greater Vancouver Regional District Board Meeting Date: June 28, 2006

To: Greater Vancouver Regional District Board

From: Agriculture Committee

Date: June 8, 2006

Subject: BC Agriculture Plan

Recommendation: That the GVRD Board request staff to prepare, in consultation with the GVRD Agricultural Advisory Committee, a submission to the BC Agricultural Plan Committee for consideration by the Board.

At its June 8, 2006, regular meeting the Agriculture Committee considered the attached letter to stakeholders from the Provincial Government regarding a Provincial Agriculture Plan process.

The Committee recommended that staff prepare a brief that could be submitted by the GVRD Board to the Committee.

Attachment: Letter from MLA, Val Roddick (Delta), Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning to ‘Stakeholders’

004396872

Greater Vancouver Regional District Board Meeting Date: June 28, 2006

To: Greater Vancouver Regional District Board

From: Environment Committee

Date: June 13, 2006

Subject: Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program

Recommendation:

That the GVRD Board: 1. Thank the Vancouver Port Authority, Fraser River Port Authority, Chamber of Shipping of BC, North West CruiseShip Association, BC Ferries and Environment Canada for their participation in the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop and request their continued collaboration with the GVRD to: a. Establish cooperative agreements, including the identification of objectives and implementation plan, with the GVRD and other organizations to address air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations; b. Develop comprehensive port-wide emissions inventories and forecasts, consisting of marine vessels, cargo handling equipment, trucks and locomotives; c. Develop implementation mechanisms for existing and proven control technologies with the objective of accelerating emission reductions, with a particular priority on implementation of shore power; d. Conduct feasibility studies and demonstration projects for new and emerging technologies; e. Require any new port facilities to implement shore power systems; f. Pursue other sources of funding to facilitate or accelerate implementation of emission reduction measures and strategies for the marine and ports sector.

2. Strongly urge the federal government to: a. Expedite the ratification of the existing international standards (i.e., MARPOL Annex VI) through amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, and the designation of the West Coast area as a Sulphur Emission Control Area; and b. Pursue more stringent fuel quality requirements and emission standards for both new and existing marine vessels as part of the International Maritime Organization review of MARPOL Annex VI.

3. Direct staff to organize a public forum involving marine and port organizations to report on implementation of the best practices towards reducing emissions and impacts from marine vessels and port operations.

4. Request staff to forward the report dated May 30, 2006, titled “Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program” and any resolution passed regarding the issue to the federal Ministers of Environment and Transportation, the provincial Minister of Environment, and other appropriate stakeholders.

Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Page 2 of 2 Greater Vancouver Regional District Board Meeting Date: June 30, 2006

At its June 13, 2006 meeting, the Environment Committee reviewed the attached report dated May 30, 2006, titled “Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program” and amended the recommendation as above.

Attachment: Report dated May 30, 2006, titled “Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program”

004396091

Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

To: Environment Committee

From: Roger Quan, Senior Engineer Shelina Sidi, Project Engineer Policy and Planning Department

Date: May 30, 2006

Subject: Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program

Recommendations:

1. That the Board thank the Vancouver Port Authority, Fraser River Port Authority, Chamber of Shipping of BC, North West CruiseShip Association, BC Ferries and Environment Canada for their participation in the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop and request their continued collaboration with the GVRD to: a. Establish cooperative agreements, including the identification of objectives and development of implementation plans, with the GVRD and other organizations to address air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations; b. Develop comprehensive port-wide emissions inventories and forecasts, consisting of marine vessels, cargo handling equipment, trucks and locomotives; c. Develop implementation mechanisms for existing and proven control technologies with the objective of accelerating emission reductions; d. Conduct feasibility studies and demonstration projects for new and emerging technologies; and e. Pursue other sources of funding to facilitate or accelerate implementation of emission reduction measures and strategies for the marine and ports sector.

2. That the Board strongly urge the federal government to: a. Expedite the ratification of the existing international standards (i.e., MARPOL Annex VI) through amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, and the designation of the West Coast area as a Sulphur Oxides (SOx) Emission Control Area; and b. Pursue more stringent fuel quality requirements and emission standards for both new and existing marine vessels as part of the International Maritime Organization review of MARPOL Annex VI.

3. That the Board direct staff to organize a Board workshop involving marine and port organizations in one year’s time to report on progress towards reducing emissions and impacts from marine vessels and port operations.

Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Page 2 of 5 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

1. PURPOSE

To provide a summary of the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop held on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, and to propose recommendations for future actions to address the air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations.

2. CONTEXT

Background The workshop on Marine and Port Air Emissions (the workshop) was held on April 26, 2006, as a special meeting of the Environment Committee, in response to a request from the GVRD Board in 2005, and pursuant to actions outlined in the GVRD’s Air Quality Management Plan. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss: the air quality impacts of marine and port activities; the GVRD Air Quality Management Plan objectives and actions for this sector; the current emission reduction efforts underway by the federal government, port authorities, shipping industry and ferry operators; and identify areas of future collaboration to further reduce emissions from this sector.

The workshop was attended by a number of GVRD Board members in addition to the Environment Committee. Presentations were made by GVRD, Environment Canada (EC), Chamber of Shipping of BC (CSBC), North West CruiseShip Association (NWCA), Vancouver Port Authority (VPA), Fraser River Port Authority (FRPA) and BC Ferries (BCF). Summaries of the presentations are provided in Attachment 1. Other participants included representatives of Transport Canada (TC), BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) and Council of Marine Carriers (CMC).

Overview of Issues and Opportunities Identified During the Workshop Following the presentations, participants responded to questions from the Environment Committee and Board members. A number of key issues and opportunities for future work were identified, which are summarized below.

There was general agreement that collaborative efforts were important for addressing ship and port emissions. Collaboration to date includes the formation of the Georgia Basin Marine Vessel Air Quality Work Group, the West Coast Diesel Emissions Reductions Collaborative (Marine/Port Work Group), cooperative development of an updated emission inventory for ocean-going vessels, and discussion of potential partnership funding on other studies. However, it was emphasized that additional collaboration is necessary, and some concern was expressed that the existing collaboration is primarily between industry and government and should be expanded to include additional interest groups, such as the public and environmental organizations. The need for better transparency and sharing of information between industry and government was expressed, particularly with respect to emission reduction initiatives underway or planned by port authorities. The possibility of developing joint work plans or formal agreements between GVRD, port authorities and other interest groups was also explored.

A number of questions were raised regarding the regulatory jurisdiction for emissions from marine vessels and port activities, and mechanisms for enforcement of regulations. The federal government has jurisdiction over marine vessel engines and fuels, with responsibility shared between Transport Canada and Environment Canada. Standards for ocean-going vessels are established by a United Nations body, the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO MARPOL Annex VI contains modest nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission standards for engines manufactured after 1999 and fuel sulphur content limits (4.5%). Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Page 3 of 5 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

Annex VI also contains provisions to designate areas with sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution problems as a SOx emission control area (SECA), where fuel sulphur content would be restricted to 1.5%. While efforts are currently underway to designate the west coast or North America as a SECA, this may not become effective for several years. There is also a significant level of uncertainty with respect to the tightening of international emission standards for marine engines under Annex VI. In addition, given the longevity of marine vessel engines, programs are needed to address emissions from both existing and new ships. With respect to land-based activities at ports, such as non-road equipment used for cargo handling, as well as truck and rail transportation, the federal government has the primary regulatory authority. Port authorities are federal Crown corporations, and as such, their tenants or leaseholders operate on federal lands.

Emission reduction measures implemented in other jurisdictions were discussed at length. Industry representatives indicated that many of these technologies or practices are proven and could be implemented in the GVRD; several have been put in place, tested or considered. However, barriers were identified for some, such as funding issues and unfavourable economics for the use of shore power1. For newer technologies, there was general agreement that some form of technology verification program is needed to provide independent validation of emission performance claims.

Implementation mechanisms need to be developed for emission reduction measures for marine vessel and port sources in the GVRD. These mechanisms would likely involve multiple facets, such as continuing with collaborative approaches and voluntary measures, but combining these with incentive (or dis-incentive) programs and other means of expediting implementation. Committee members were interested in knowing what has prompted industry in other jurisdictions to be on the “leading edge” with environmental initiatives. Some committee members cautioned that it is necessary to monitor the success of voluntary programs and initiate more regulatory actions where needed.

Discussion also focused on pursuing funding from senior levels of government to assist with the implementation of emission reduction measures for this sector. Funding could be used to facilitate and accelerate the implementation of technological solutions which have been proven in other jurisdictions, promote research and evaluation of new technologies, and develop verification programs.

Strategy for Addressing Emissions from Marine Vessels and Ports In order to address the existing and future air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations, a multi-level strategy is proposed, consisting of collaborative efforts with other agencies and stakeholders, combined with actions led by the federal government and by GVRD. As discussed during the workshop, a number of these actions are already underway, while others need to be developed or expedited, as described below.

Collaborative Efforts (between GVRD, federal government agencies, port authorities, industry organizations, and other interest groups) Actions Underway • Develop an updated emission inventory for marine vessels for 2005. Quantification of the emissions from ocean-going vessels is already in progress through a cooperative effort with the Chamber of Shipping of BC, Environment Canada, and others.

1 Shore power, also known as “cold ironing” refers to shutting down auxiliary engines on ships while they are berthed in a port, and connecting to electrical power supplied at the dock. Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Page 4 of 5 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

• A GVRD diesel emission reduction program was approved by the Board in April 2006 to provide incentives for implementation of diesel emission reduction projects. This program could be used as a building block towards the development of a national diesel emission reduction program by establishing a working group with marine industry stakeholders and other agencies. • Work with BC Ferries to update emission inventory estimates and evaluate the feasibility of emission reduction strategies. Actions to be Developed or Initiated • Develop a port-wide inventory and forecast, including emissions from marine vessels as well as land-based sources such as cargo handling equipment, trucks and rail transportation associated with ports. While the marine vessel component is under development, the portion dealing with land-based sources has yet to be initiated. • Develop implementation mechanisms for emission reduction technologies and strategies for marine vessels and other port sources through voluntary, incentive- based or mandatory programs, particularly for measures that have been successfully applied in other ports. • Conduct feasibility studies, demonstration projects and technology verification programs for new and emerging technologies. • Pursue other sources of funding to facilitate or accelerate implementation of emission reduction measures for the marine and ports sector. • Work with the rail industry to improve understanding of current and future emission levels and identity opportunities for emission reductions. A working group could be established in this regard.

Actions Led by Federal Government Actions Underway • Ratify the existing international standards (i.e., MARPOL Annex VI) through amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. Actions to be Developed or Initiated • Expedite the designation of North American coasts or the West Coast area as a SECA (SOx Emission Control Area). • Pursue more stringent fuel quality requirements and emission standards for new and existing marine vessels as part of the International Maritime Organization review of MARPOL Annex VI.

Actions Led by GVRD Actions Underway • Initiate a local air quality study for the Burrard Inlet area, in consultation with other government air quality and health agencies, the marine industry, Vancouver Port Authority, environmental organizations and public interest groups, to provide more information on air quality and health impacts associated with port and other activities in the study area. Actions to be Developed or Initiated • Establish cooperative agreements and joint work plans between GVRD and port authorities, shipping industry, and BC Ferries to address air quality impacts of marine vessels and port operations in partnership with the federal government and other interest groups. • Monitor progress in addressing emissions and impacts from marine vessels and port operations, and adapt the strategy as necessary.

Although a number of actions are already underway, the Environment Committee and Board could provide assistance by urging that some be expedited or enhanced (for example, in Marine and Port Air Emissions Action Program Page 5 of 5 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006 terms of stringency). For actions which have yet to be developed or initiated, the Environment Committee and Board could write to key stakeholder organizations to encourage their participation in additional efforts to address emissions and impacts.

3. ALTERNATIVES

The Board may: a) Direct staff to proceed with the proposed strategy for addressing emissions from marine vessels and ports, and provide assistance by writing to key stakeholder organizations to expedite or enhance actions underway, or to initiate new actions or initiatives. This would be consistent with actions approved in the Air Quality Management Plan, which calls for the GVRD to increase its influence with respect to marine vessels and port operations, through agreements with port authorities, investigation of local air quality impacts, and partnership initiatives to identify and implement emission reduction measures. b) Direct staff to proceed with an alternate list of actions. c) Take no action at this time. This direction would mean that the GVRD would continue with its participation in existing collaborative efforts which are already underway but would not pursue an expanded role in addressing emissions from marine vessels or port activities through actions which have not yet been developed or initiated.

4. CONCLUSION

Marine vessels and port operations represent a significant and growing source of emissions in the region. Diesel particulate emissions from marine vessels and other diesel-powered port sources such as cargo handling equipment, trucks and locomotives are of particular concern because of their potential health impacts. The GVRD’s new Air Quality Management Plan recognized the adverse impacts of diesel emissions in the region and adopted a set of priority actions to reduce emissions from diesel sources such as marine vessels, trucks, buses, locomotives, and non-road engines.

The lack of stringent international regulations for marine engines and the fact that current federal standards apply only to newly manufactured engines for other diesel categories, coupled with the longevity of diesel engines, warrant the development of complementary regional programs to accelerate emission reductions. Such programs could be in the form of voluntary, incentive or mandatory instruments, or combinations thereof. Reducing emissions from marine vessels and ports would support the AQMP’s goals of achieving air quality improvements in the region, minimizing risk to public health and improving visibility.

Attachment: 1. Summary of Presentations Made at the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop

4396075 Attachment 1

Summary of Presentations Made at the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop

GVRD - Zorik Pirveysian, Division Manager, Air Quality Policy and Management

There are concerns with existing and future air quality levels and associated health impacts in the region. Significant health impacts are linked to exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) from sources such as ocean-going vessels, trucks, locomotives and non-road engines. These sources contribute to a significant amount of emissions in the region, and their emissions are forecast to increase as a result of growth in population, transportation, international trade and shipping activity. Local air quality impacts are also of particular concern for communities adjacent to areas where there is a concentration of diesel emission sources, such as ports, rail yards and transportation corridors. To address these impacts, the AQMP has identified a number of priority actions for major sources, including marine and port operations. Due to the GVRD’s limited regulatory authority on port operations and the lack of stringency and uncertain timing of federal regulations and standards for marine vessel emissions, there is a need for additional collaborative efforts between GVRD, other regulatory agencies and the marine industry to develop and implement emission reduction programs for marine vessels and port operations. Despite existing collaborative efforts, implementation of emission reduction measures is lagging behind other ports (for example, in Seattle, Los Angeles and Long Beach). Additional efforts are needed to develop and implement comprehensive programs encompassing regulatory requirements, guidelines, voluntary programs, and incentive-based programs (or disincentives). There is also a need to secure sources of funding to expedite these programs. GVRD is proposing to expand the existing level of collaborative efforts to address the air quality impacts of ports and marine vessels.

Environment Canada (EC) - Andrew Green, Senior Air Program Engineer

An overview of federal regulations for new on-road diesel vehicles, non-road engines and fuel quality was provided. Ocean-going vessels are regulated by an international United Nations body, the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO MARPOL Annex VI has established modest NOx emission standards and fuel sulphur content limits. In Canada, new regulations are under development to implement the requirements of Annex VI via the Canada Shipping Act. The Annex allows for the establishment of SECAs (SOx emission control areas) which would require the use of fuel with sulphur content below 1.5% by weight, or the use of equivalent emission control equipment. The average sulphur content of fuel burned by marine vessels in Greater Vancouver is 2.6%. It is estimated that SECA would result in regional reductions of 44% and 18% for sulphur oxides (SOx) and PM2.5 respectively. Environment Canada and the US Environmental Protection Agency are conducting a study to determine the feasibility of a North American or West Coast SECA designation. The most optimistic timeframe for establishment of a SECA would be 2012 – 2015. A sub-committee of the IMO is also looking at tightening the Annex VI requirements, with more stringent NOx emission standards, NOx standards for older ships (pre-2000), particulate matter emission standards and lower fuel sulphur content restrictions. Canada participates in this sub- committee and supports the tightening of existing standards. Recommendations from this sub-committee are not expected until 2007, meaning that the scope of requirements and timing for implementation is uncertain.

Summary of Presentations Made at the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop Page 2 of 3 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

Chamber of Shipping of BC (CSBC) – Rick Bryant, President

The Chamber provided an overview of the shipping industry including the types of vessels that visit BC ports, the engines operating in these vessels, the modes of operation (underway, maneuvering, hoteling), and the types and quality of fuel burned. It was emphasized that there is a need for international regulations due to the global nature of the industry. Information was provided on the collaborative emission inventory effort (between the CSBC, EC, GVRD and Transport Canada) which began on April 1, 2005 with the launch of a one year survey program of ocean-going vessels visiting ports in BC, which will culminate in a new emission inventory for ocean-going vessels in BC and the GVRD.

NorthWest CruiseShip Association (NWCA) – John Hansen, President

An overview of the cruise ship industry in BC was provided, including the types and characteristics of vessels (e.g. the average age is six years), and the quality of fuel burned. All vessels that homeport in Vancouver (17) also bunker here, i.e., purchase fuel locally, with a sulphur content from 1.6% to 1.8% by weight. Cruise ships are required to report sulphur contents and fuel quantities to Environment Canada for any fuel used while operating in waters under Canadian jurisdiction. Infrastructure for shore power has been installed in ports in Seattle and Alaska, and is utilized by two cruise lines.

Fraser River Port Authority (FRPA) – Nures Kara, Manager, Environmental Services

A summary was provided of business activities, population and types of equipment at each of FRPA’s three properties in Surrey, Richmond and Annacis. Some of FRPA’s constraints to implementation of emission reduction measures are the cost of dredging to keep the shipping channels operational, payments in lieu of taxes (PILTS) paid to the federal government and municipalities and double pilotage fees due to additional navigation in the Fraser River. The presentation included voluntary actions that could be taken, such as implementation of best management practices and working with port tenants to upgrade equipment and use low sulphur fuel when it becomes cost effective. Short sea shipping was identified as a means to reduce the number of truck and rail trips in the region.

Vancouver Port Authority (VPA) - Jim Cox, Vice President, Infrastructure Development - Alicia Blancarte, Director, Environmental Programs

VPA stated that they share the concern regarding air quality issues and that collaboration is the key to success. VPA has begun working on many of the emission strategies noted in GVRD’s presentation. VPA outlined the need to shift the focus of priority emission reductions to area and mobile sources (non-road engines, rail, diesel trucks and marine vessels), since the improvements to date can be credited to industrial and on-road mobile sources, and on reducing particulate matter and DPM emissions. However, VPA recommended that the GVRD focus its efforts on area sources, truck and rail emissions, and indoor air quality, since marine vessels and other port related Summary of Presentations Made at the Marine and Port Air Emissions Workshop Page 3 of 3 Environment Committee Meeting Date: June 13, 2006

sources were more appropriately dealt with by federal and international agencies and because GVRD does not have the regulatory authority in this area. VPA has set a port- wide emission reduction target of 10%; however, detailed plans on how this target will be achieved have not been provided. VPA has demonstrated the use of a fuel additive in both terminal equipment and vessel engines, but indicated that the observed performance improvements in terms of emissions and fuel efficiency have not been subject to any form of technology verification program.

BC Ferries – Alicja Rudzki, Environmental Manager

BC Ferries provided an overview of their vessel fleet, routes and their contribution to emissions in the region. They are investigating the feasibility of operational (e.g. speed and fuel quality) and technical (continuous water injection technology, engine improvements) approaches for reducing emissions from their fleet. They have expressed an interest in principle to work collaboratively with the GVRD to develop emission reduction strategies and conduct ship emissions measurements.

004384684

Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006

To: Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Finance Committee

From: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Gordon Ruth, Chief Financial Officer Tracey Husoy, Purchasing and Risk Division Manager

Date: May 29, 2006

Subject: Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy

Recommendation: That the GVRD Board adopt the framework for a new Sustainable Procurement Policy for Commissioner/CAO implementation.

1. PURPOSE

To have the Board adopt a new framework for a sustainable procurement policy as part of the corporate implementation of the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI).

Following adoption, staff will incorporate this framework into policies, procedures and practices as applicable.

2. CONTEXT

The GVRD is one of a number of organizations, including federal, provincial and municipal governments that are currently reviewing or moving to full implementation of policy related to sustainable procurement. While the implementation of such policy varies by organization, the underlying principles behind the rationale for the policy remain the same - a desire to ensure that social and environmental criteria are addressed in addition to the economic/financial criteria and that long term implications are given their due weight.

While some organizations have chosen to be very specific and define a “Supplier Code of Conduct” or similar structure which outlines specific employment and environmental standards, this often requires resources and expertise to inspect and audit for compliance. Other organizations instead have chosen to outline “Statements in Principle” and leave implementation and application up to employees to apply on a project or product basis. The framework proposed here lies somewhere in between.

The intention is to use this framework to amend our policies and procedures, as applicable, related to contracting and competitive bidding.

Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006 Page 2 of 6

The proposed policy framework for GVRD contains three main considerations:

• ‘Financial/Economic’ – the financial dimension ensures value for funding remains a key criterion in any procurement decision process as well as any possible application of corporate fiscal policies; the economic dimension introduces consideration of impacts on the economy, both local and external;

• ‘Environmental’ - this ensures that environmental factors, both local and global, are included in any contracting decision;

• ‘Social’ - this is largely a matter of compliance to safety/labour standards and the conduct of business activities in a socially responsible manner.

These considerations will be applied to all purchases. Exceptions may be warranted in extenuating circumstances.

Proposed Framework

Financial/Economic Considerations:

The purpose of this consideration is to ensure long term value for funding remains a key criterion in any procurement decision while avoiding any extraordinary negative economic impacts.

Not all of these considerations may be easily quantifiable today, but as these become more ‘mainstream’ and the information more readily available, they will then form part of the evaluation process.

Policy Statement: Purchasing decisions will take into account the following financial and economic factors: 1. price comparison for equivalent quality of materials or services; 2. total life cycle financial cost of the goods or services to be purchased; 3. where appropriate, any extraordinary impacts on the local economy; 4. where appropriate, any extraordinary impacts on other economies.

Application: • Purchasing documents will require a clear statement of price for the goods and services to be purchased; • Bidders may be required to declare whether they have any knowledge of extraordinary economic impacts of the proposed contract; • Where appropriate, bidders may be required to give an account of the estimated lifecycle financial costs of the goods or services to be purchased.

Environmental Considerations:

The purpose of this consideration is to ensure procurements have the most positive long term impact on the environment. It includes requiring legal compliance with environmental standards and encouraging environmentally responsible behaviour.

a) The contractor’s/supplier’s need to meet any legal requirements related to environmental laws and regulations, and the District’s standards, which in some cases may exceed any minimums outlined in the laws and regulations.

Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006 Page 3 of 6

b) The encouragement of the use of environmentally benign products or processes, the elimination, reduction or mitigation of the use of harmful substances, the use of more renewable and recycled materials and the reduction of the use of non-renewable resources, and generally the more efficient use of energy and other resources.

Policy Statement: Purchasing decisions will: 1. require Contractors and Suppliers to meet environmental standards, laws and regulations in their operations and in their product offerings; 2. where appropriate, require Contractors and Suppliers to give prior notice of any potential extraordinary environmental risk on the local ecosystem or ecosystems elsewhere and assess the acceptability of such impacts; 3. take into account the total life cycle environmental cost of the goods or services to be purchased, to the extent that can be estimated; 4. where considered appropriate, give preference to contractors and suppliers who demonstrate the use of environmentally benign products or processes, the minimization of the use or generation of harmful substances; the minimization of the use of non- renewable resources and the substitution therefore of renewable resources or recycled content and post consumer waste; the maximization of energy and materials efficiency, and minimization of waste and emissions.

Application: • Purchasing documents will require bidders to declare they comply with all environmental laws and regulations. These are considered minimum standards and bidders may be required to exceed these standards as determined by the District. Bidders may be required to declare the same of their suppliers. • Bidders will be required to declare if they have been found by a recognized regulatory or adjudication body to be non-compliant or in violation of these standards, laws and regulations within the past three years. • Bidders may be required to declare whether they have any knowledge of any potentially extraordinary environmental risk of the proposed goods or services to be purchased; • Where appropriate, bidders may be required to give an account of the estimated lifecycle environmental costs of the goods or services to be purchased.

Social Considerations:

The purpose of this consideration is to ensure procurements do not have a negative impact to social development. The three main considerations are:

a) Contractors and Suppliers need to meet any legal requirements related to workplace/worker’s safety laws and regulations as well as the District’s standards, which may exceed any minimums set out in the laws and regulations.

b) Contractors and Suppliers must comply with the employment and human rights laws relating to the work under the contract and at a minimum must meet the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) fundamental conventions that have been ratified by Canada (see Appendix “A”) which set minimum standards of basic labour rights. Bidders may be required to declare the same of their own suppliers. In addition, Contractors and Suppliers may be required to declare all convictions of themselves and principal officers under the above laws and Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Officials Act.

c) Contractor’s and Supplier’s contribution to social development and the development of social capital (including for example: Social Purchasing Portals, Fast Track to

Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006 Page 4 of 6

Employment Programs, etc.) will be considered where this is deemed practical and appropriate.

Policy Statement: Purchasing decisions will:

1) require Contractors and Suppliers be held to relevant safety, employment and human rights laws, regulations and conventions. These conventions include prohibitions against the worst form of child labour; abolition of forced labour; freedom of association and protection of the right to organize; prohibitions against discrimination; equality of opportunity, treatment, and remuneration; adherence to laws of the lands in which they conduct business; and prohibitions of the payment of bribes and unwarranted commissions; 2) where appropriate, require Contractors and Suppliers to give prior notice of any potential extraordinary social impacts/risks and assess the acceptability of such impacts; 3) where considered appropriate, give preference to Contractors and Suppliers who demonstrate the proposed contract will involve actions which contribute positively to community social development and assist in the conservation or development of social capital.

Application:

• Purchasing documents will require bidders to: declare they adhere to Safety, Employment and Human Rights laws of the country relating to the work under the contract and at a minimum must meet the ILO fundamental conventions ratified by Canada and may be required to declare the same of their sub-contractors and suppliers. • Bidders will be required to declare if they have been found by a recognized regulatory or adjudication body non-compliant or in violation of these standards, laws and regulations within the past three years. • Bidders may be required to declare whether they have any knowledge of any potentially extraordinary social impact/risk of the proposed goods or services to be purchased; • Purchasing documents may invite bidders to declare how the carrying out of the proposed contract will involve actions which contribute to social development or assists in the conservation or development of social capital either in this community or elsewhere.

Overall Impact:

The practical emphasis in this framework is on voluntary declarations and statements. The consequences of providing a false declaration are clear and effective and include remedies up to termination of the contract and may influence future award considerations. Moreover, the business market in which we deal is quite competitive and cognizant of contracts awarded publicly. Public review of this information is frequent, and it is likely that any non-compliance would be brought to our attention from other interested parties and may be acted upon, by the District, if those claims are substantiated by a recognized regulatory or adjudication body.

As most corporations who do business with the GVRD are likely to already abide with regulations, it is likely that the requirement to meet environmental and other regulations will have little immediate impact. However, raised awareness may begin greater consideration of these factors further back in the supply chain.

Greater impact may result from the other components of the policy. Requirements that bidders declare any knowledge of significant economic, environmental or social impacts may reinforce the embryonic market signals that are arguably pointing towards sustainability as a future

Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006 Page 5 of 6 market imperative. The further discretionary components that potentially reward positive environmental and social behaviour, even though only applied when appropriate and at the margins, will further reinforce these signals in a potentially practical manner.

In short, what is being proposed is not an elaborate and costly system of regulations and policing of those regulations. Rather the proposed sustainable procurement policy framework is a system designed to lever both voluntary self policing of compliance with standards, backed by an alert competitive market, and encouragement of a new dimension of competition – to demonstrate superiority in commitment to sustainability among potential suppliers of goods and services.

Cost Implications:

There should be few additional transactional costs to our existing procurement process, though, as with any new process, there may be some ancillary costs around education to bidders, but these should be minor. Where statements by bidders respecting economic, environmental and social impacts are called for, the evaluation of these may add to staff evaluation time, but the intent here is that the bulk of the responsibility will rest with the bidder to make readily assessable statements.

Currently, contracts are awarded based on a number of criteria, but price and value for money are always significant. As social and environmental factors become more significant, this may lead to ‘the triple bottom line’ evaluation resulting in increased financial costs. This will be carefully monitored and it is expected that market forces will ultimately mitigate this.

3. ALTERNATIVES

1. The Board may wish to include in the declaration from the Contractor/Supplier a component verifying that all sub-contractors/manufacturers comply with the applicable laws and regulations and have done so for at least three years (i.e. no convictions in that time period) as well as adherence with ILO conventions.

2. The Board may wish to delete all but compliance with established regulations.

3. The Board may adopt the framework as proposed.

4. CONCLUSION

With respect to option one, staff believe that in many cases this would be too onerous and difficult for the contractor to verify. The framework as proposed does allow for this in certain circumstances, for example, the purchase of clothing from outside Canada and the United States.

With respect to option two, staff believe that such a framework would have little impact on what is being already achieved. Progress towards sustainability, and maintaining our reputation as a leading example of progressive urban policy, requires us to push the envelope more than this.

The proposed policy framework on Sustainable Procurement is intended to support the Sustainable Region Initiative by addressing issues around procurement and taking action now to ensure this becomes how we and those we work with do business today and in the future. This can be accomplished by some simple and fundamental changes to our procurement policy.

The policy promotes an awareness of sustainability issues and with its application will allow us to leverage our annual spending to support sustainability principles.

Framework for Sustainable Procurement Policy Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006 Page 6 of 6

Further development is expected over the short to mid term as we examine developing issues related to these policies and fine tune the application of these standards within our contracts. Guidelines and templates will be developed to assist in development both at the level of our purchasing ‘buyers’ and at the level of other staff who require contract work to complete projects. Also key will be reporting back to the Board on how we are doing, and what remains to be done.

Appendix A: International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions

Appendix “A” International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions

Since 1919, the International Labour Organization has maintained and developed a system of international labour standards aimed at promoting opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and production work, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and dignity.*

Canada ratified thirty ILO convention of which five are classified as fundamental conventions covering such issues as: the worst form of child labour, abolition of forced labour, freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, discrimination and equality of opportunity and treatment, and equal remuneration (C182, C105, C87, C111, C100).

A brief statement regarding each of these fundamental conventions is listed below for general information purposes. These statements are not an official or legal interpretation of the convention. A complete listing and copy of each convention can be obtained at: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/newratframeE.htm

Worst Form of Child Labour (182) The worst forms of child labour, including work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children, need to be prohibited and eliminated

Abolition of Forced Labour (105) Compulsory or forced labour is not tolerated, wages shall be paid regularly and not withheld to deprive a worker from terminating employment.

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (87) Workers, without distinction, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity (111) All workers irrespective or race, creed or sex have an equal opportunity and treatment with regards to employment and occupation.

Equal Remuneration (100) All workers shall be paid on the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value.

*Source: International Labour Organization web-site

Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 15, 2006

TO: Finance Committee

FROM: Phil Trotzuk, Financial Planning & Operations Manager

DATE: June 7, 2006

SUBJECT: 2005 Schedules of Financial Information

Recommendation: That the GVRD Board approve the 2005 Schedules of Financial Information for Remuneration & Expenses and for Payments to Suppliers for Goods and Services.

1. PURPOSE

To present the 2005 Schedules of Financial Information as part of the reporting requirements of the Financial Information Act.

2. CONTEXT

The Financial Information Act is provincial legislation that requires local government to prepare the following statements and schedules of financial information annually:

(1) statement of assets and liabilities; (2) an operational statement; (3) a schedule of debts; (4) a schedule of guarantee and indemnity agreements; (5) a schedule showing remuneration and expenses paid to or on behalf of each employee that exceeds $75,000; (6) a schedule showing the payments for each supplier of goods or services that exceeds $25,000.

The requirements of the Information Filing Act are addressed in two stages.

The first four requirements were met by the annual audited financial statements which were adopted by the Board in April, while the remaining two requirements must be met by June 30 and are covered by the schedules included as attachments to this report.

Finance Committee – June 15, 2006 Page 2 2005 Schedules of Financial Information

The requirements under (5) are met by Schedules 1 to 4 which include remuneration and expenses paid to or on behalf of directors, committee members, employees and any severance payments as well as a reconciliation of these amounts to the financial statements. Expenses included are those incurred while conducting GVRD business.

The requirements under (6) are met by Schedules 5 to 7 which include payments made to suppliers in both Canadian and US dollars as well as a reconciliation of the payments to the financial statements.

3. CONCLUSION

The 2005 Audited Financial Statements were approved by the Board in April 2006. The attached supplementary information was included in the context of the audit, but provides additional detailed information that is required for public disclosure. Approval concludes the legislated requirements.

Once approved, the Financial Information Act filing information is then available for viewing by the public and anyone can acquire a hard copy of the information from the Finance and Administration Department for a fee of $5.001.

PT/eb Attach.

1 The fee is prescribed by provincial regulation.

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICTS

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ACT FILING

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005

THIS STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION INCLUDES THE ACCOUNTS OF:

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT GREATER VANCOUVER WATER DISTRICT GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT GREATER VANCOUVER HOUSING CORPORATION

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION For the Year Ended December 31, 2005

INDEX

1) Statement of Assets and Liabilities ...... See Financial Statements

2) Operational Statements ...... See Financial Statements

3) Schedule of Debts...... See Financial Statements

4) Schedule of Guarantee and Indemnity Agreements ...... None

5) Schedule of Remuneration and Expenses

Members of the Board of Directors And Elected Officials ...... Schedule 1

Employees...... Schedule 2

Reconciliation of Remuneration and Expenses To Financial Statements...... Schedule 3

Statement of Severance Agreements...... Schedule 4

6) Schedule of Payments to Suppliers for Goods and Services

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn) ...... Schedule 5

Payments to U.S. Suppliers ($US) ...... Schedule 6

Reconciliation of Payments for Goods and Services to Financial Statement ...... Schedule 7

Schedule 1 Page 1 of 4

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES For the year ended December 31, 2005 Members of the Board of Directors and Elected Officials

Name Position Remuneration Expenses

Alberts, Kurt Board, Member $ 11,353 $ 67 Anderson, Heather Committee, Member 416 Anderson, Mary-Wade Committee, Member 2,497 Annable, Cliff Committee, Member 208 Anton,Suzanne Board Member 2006 208 Appleton, John Board Member (Alternate) 208 Arnold, Jack Committee, Member 208 Ball, Elizabeth Board Member 2006 208 Barnes, Linda Committee, Member 208 Barrett, Lisa Committee, Member 416 Bass, Fred Board, Member 6,663 Becker, Kent Committee, Member 832 Bose, Robert Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Bowen, Mike Board, Member (Alternate) 416 Boyd, Neil Board, Member 5,202 Brodie, Malcolm Board, Member 9,156 358 Cadman, David Board, Member 9,994 8,358 Calendino, Peter Committee, Member 208 Campbell, Larry Board, Member 4,779 Campbell, Robert Committee, Member 208 Capri, Kim Board Member 2006 208 Clark, Roderick Committee, Member 208 Cook, William Casey Committee, Member 208 Cooke, Randall Committee, Member 416 Corrigan, Derek Board, Member 10,721 Cotter, Terry Board, Member (Alternate) 2,492 Crist, Ernie Committee, Member 208 Crowe, Arlene Committee, Member 208 Cuthbert, James Committee, Member 208 Day, Charles Committee, Member 1,456 Daykin, Ernest Committee, Member 624 Dhaliwal, Salvinder Committee, Member 416 Dobrovolny, Jerry Committee, Member 624 Donnelly, Finbar Board Member 2006 416 Donnelly, M. Calvin Board, Member (Alternate) 3,746 Drake, Bruce Board, Member (Alternate) 3,122 Drew, Ralph Board, Member 12,179 72 Dueck, Judy Board, Member (Alternate) 416 Dunn, Ronald Committee, Member 416 Durman, Victor Board, Member 8,433 Eisel, Debra Committee, Member 416 Elkerton, Janis Board, Member (Alternate) 3,744 Evans, Doug Board, Member (Alternate) 6,243 Schedule 1 Page 2 of 4

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES For the year ended December 31, 2005 Members of the Board of Directors and Elected Officials

Name Position Remuneration Expenses

Fassbender, Peter Committee, Member 208 Fearnley, Bob Committee, Member 208 Ferguson, Elizabeth Committee, Member 208 Ferguson, George Board Member 2006 208 Ferguson, Stephen Committee, Member 416 Forrest, Michael Committee, Member 208 Forster, Judy Board, Member 8,532 99 Frinton, Peter Committee, Member 208 Gentner, Guy Board, Member (Alternate) 1,040 Gibson, Gary Board, Member 17,660 822 Gill, Moe Board, Member 7,490 Gilmore, Donna Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Glover, Jennifer Committee, Member 416 Goldsmith-Jones, Pamela Board Member 2006 1,456 Gordon, Candace Committee, Member 416 Green, James Board, Member (Alternate) 832 Grinnell, Marlene Committee, Member 1,873 Hamilton, William Scott Committee, Member 416 Harris, Janice Board, Member 7,282 Harris, Jon Committee, Member 416 Hepner, Linda Board Member 2006 208 Heywood, Robert Committee, Member 208 Higginbotham, Judy Board, Member 15,092 2,583 Hollington, Louella Board, Member 6,034 60 Howard, Rob Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Hunt, Marvin Board, Member 40,094 5,007 Huntington, Victoria Committee, Member 208 Isaac, Faye Committee, Member 2,288 Jackson, Lois Board, Member 10,952 669 Johnston, Dan Board, Member (Alternate) 416 Jordan, Colleen Board Member 2006 416 Jordan, Elizabeth A. Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Juvik, Ken Committee, Member 416 Kingsbury, Jon Board, Member 12,390 4,453 Kirkpatrick, Penny Committee, Member 1,456 Kositsky, Mel Board, Member (Alternate) 3,953 63 Kumagai, Kiichi Board, Member 20,251 72 Ladner, Peter Board, Member 2,466 Lee, Bar-Che Board Member 2006 208 Liles, Sandy Committee, Member 208 Long, Bob Committee, Member 624 Louie, Raymond Board, Member 12,282 942 Louis, Tim Board, Member 2,909 Schedule 1 Page 3 of 4

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES For the year ended December 31, 2005 Members of the Board of Directors and Elected Officials

Name Position Remuneration Expenses

Lynch, Barrie Board, Member (Alternate) 2,288 MacLean, Donald Board, Member 9,987 43 Martin, Gayle Board, Member 8,531 42 Mauger, Sharla-Dawn Committee, Member 2,080 McCallum, Doug Board, Member 2,284 McKeon Holmes, Maureen Board, Member (Alternate) 1,872 McLean, Douglas Board, Member (Alternate) 416 McNulty, Bill Board, Member (Alternate) 2,704 Miller, Douglas Board, Member 11,859 95 Morse, Alison Committee, Member 208 Morse, Kathy Board, Member 9,986 77 Musatto, Darrell Board Member 2006 624 Nixon, Alan Committee, Member 2,080 Nuttal, Gerry Board, Member (Alternate) 1,667 56 Osterman, Bob Committee, Member 208 Page, Christopher Committee, Member 208 Peddemors, Stewart Committee, Member 4,480 Penner, Darrell Committee, Member 2,080 Perrault, Barbara Board, Member (Alternate) 1,248 Priddy, Lynn-Ann Committee, Member 208 Rankin, Lee Committee, Member 416 Redman, Celeste Board, Member 5,825 Reeves, Mary Board, Member 3,327 Richardson, Colin Committee, Member 208 Richter, Kimberly Committee, Member 1,664 Roberts, Anne J. Board, Member 9,988 Robson, Gord Board Member 2006 208 Rockwell, Karen Committee, Member 208 Ronsley, Joanne Committee, Member 416 Schaffer, Ted Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Sharp, Barbara Board, Member 21,725 1,568 Smith, Terrence Committee, Member 1,664 Speirs, Craig Committee, Member 416 Steele, Barbara Board, Member 2006 3,950 Stevenson, Tim Board, Member 2006 416 Steves, Harold Board, Member 2006 208 Sullivan, Sam Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Thorne, Diane Board, Member (Alternate) 624 Todd, Matthew Committee, Member 416 Trasolini, Joe Board, Member 4,156 Turpin, Lisa Committee, Member 416 Tymoschuk, Gary Board, Member (Alternate) 624 Van Ginkel, Cynthia Committee, Member 2,080 Schedule 1 Page 4 of 4

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES For the year ended December 31, 2005 Members of the Board of Directors and Elected Officials

Name Position Remuneration Expenses

Villeneuve, Judy Board, Member (Alternate) 1,664 Vishloff, Terry Board, Member (Alternate) 208 Walton, Richard Board, Member 2006 1,456 Ward, John Grant Committee, Member 208 Watts, Diane Board, Member 2,080 Weinberg, Hal Board, Member 8,532 2,206 Williams, Lorrie Committee, Member 1,248 Wilson, Maxine Board, Member 2006 416 Wood, Ron Board, Member (Alternate) 1,664 Woodsworth, Ellen Board, Member (Alternate) 1,037 Wright, Michael Committee, Member 1,873 Wright, Wayne Board, Member 8,530 108 Wyman, Max Committee, Member 208 Young, Scott Board, Member 10,401 107

TOTAL $ 457,834 $ 27,927 Schedule 2 Page 1 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Alexander, Murray $ 76,446 $ - $ 76,446 Ali, Amzad 99,107 8,932 108,039 Allan, Chris 77,655 1,361 79,016 Allas, Toivo 147,159 5,892 153,051 Amos, William 74,186 3,176 77,362 Andrews, Robert 86,085 828 86,912 Andrusiak, Edward 135,560 2,902 138,462 Archibald, Paul 111,704 4,068 115,772 Arkell, Keith 88,977 623 89,600 Arrell, Garry 81,150 - 81,150 Austrom, Gordon 71,199 4,782 75,981 Babensee, Chantal 91,757 1,929 93,685 Banman, Michael 74,035 1,314 75,349 Baskalovic, Dragan 82,403 1,100 83,502 Bator, Bradley 86,097 3,882 89,979 Bean, Roger DA 87,695 3,403 91,098 Beere, Chris 85,617 713 86,330 Bell, Thomas 92,995 275 93,270 Bellwood, Ross 71,609 4,015 75,624 Benson, Christopher 94,472 104 94,576 Bertold, Stanley 86,489 2,017 88,506 Bertolone, Nick 111,156 445 111,601 Blakeney, Robert 74,701 1,513 76,214 Block, Randal 79,555 2,696 82,251 Blue, Bonnie 77,757 2,300 80,057 Bonin, Derek 91,836 3,973 95,809 Boss, Michael 95,488 5,684 101,172 Brace, Andrea 130,347 4,143 134,491 Braman, Jonn 96,639 8,336 104,975 Brown, Debbie 77,133 128 77,261 Brown, Donna 93,780 5,615 99,395 Burton, Brent 82,445 2,888 85,333 Byers, Roy 75,253 84 75,337 Caird, David 88,797 9,759 98,556 Calder, Janet 76,632 7,629 84,261 Campeau, Bruce 76,557 104 76,661 Carline, Johnny 249,064 10,132 259,196 Carrusca, Ken 98,576 3,001 101,577 Cavill, Robert 120,363 4,631 124,994 Chan, Jeffrey 95,483 2,827 98,311 Chan, Kenneth 78,166 1,180 79,346 Chan, Richard 85,913 5,960 91,873 Chapple, Clive 84,095 1,762 85,856

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. Schedule 2 Page 2 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Cheng, Shan 86,233 4,585 90,818 Cheong, Tony 80,949 4,259 85,207 Chilton, Alison 75,667 5,208 80,875 Chiu, Vincent 86,004 961 86,965 Choy, Harvey 78,036 2,932 80,968 Chu, Alfred KY 96,845 3,241 100,087 Colnett, Dianna 79,922 1,744 81,667 Copping, John 79,956 - 79,956 Coutinho, Ed 99,964 4,509 104,472 Coutts, Robert 75,452 1,489 76,941 Coutu, Kevin 80,655 491 81,146 Crosby, Jennifer 71,285 5,069 76,354 Crowle, John 85,331 1,820 87,151 Cumbridge, Grant 81,824 5,257 87,081 Currie, Graham 76,711 2,869 79,580 Dadalt, Wendy 101,303 5,452 106,755 Daines, Gerald 80,964 - 80,964 D'Angelo, Robert 95,275 4,243 (3) 99,518 Davidson, Ian 79,802 1,222 81,024 DeCosse, Bradley 93,034 635 93,669 Delany, A 75,233 1,322 76,555 Del-Linz, Giacomino 77,414 218 77,632 DeMarco, Christina 94,272 8,601 102,873 Der, Kelly 85,331 1,977 87,308 Dineen, Kevin 101,913 1,614 103,526 Donnelly, Daniel 109,552 - 109,552 Donnelly, Stephen 94,159 1,789 95,948 Driedger, Donald 89,188 1,778 90,966 Dunkley, David 85,986 4,967 90,954 Dunn, John 81,540 407 81,947 Durran, Rick 84,351 5,344 89,695 Duthie, David 111,533 2,276 113,809 Ergudenler, Ali 91,753 4,290 96,043 Ferguson, A MD 95,701 1,871 97,572 Ferguson, Michael 86,215 1,232 87,446 Forsyth, Scott 96,157 6,050 102,207 Fought, Rob 101,317 911 102,228 Fretz, Laurie 82,285 1,355 83,640 Froess, Douglas 85,224 3,271 88,495 Galazka, Kazimierz 99,828 4,964 104,792 Gale, Tony 76,596 960 77,556 Galick, Brent 80,163 3,991 84,154 Gallilee, Rick 85,978 3,917 89,895

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. (3) A portion reimbursed by outside agencies. Schedule 2 Page 3 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Gant, Murray 85,835 1,493 87,327 Garvock, Michelle 98,844 1,634 100,478 Gasparro, George 78,121 715 78,836 Gibson, K 81,792 3,903 85,695 Giesbrecht, Paul 95,426 5,857 101,283 Gilbride, David 99,288 3,484 102,771 Glasgow, John 74,534 1,763 76,297 Goodine, Larry 79,557 1,003 80,559 Graham, Malcolm 132,845 3,867 136,712 Green, Matthew 73,390 1,992 75,382 Gregonia, Theresa 83,901 3,173 87,074 Grieve, Beverly 82,714 2,014 84,728 Griggs, Marie 97,379 2,130 99,509 Gulamhussein, Nazmudin 63,954 9,166 73,120 Gulamhussein, Shiraz 75,459 104 75,563 Haid, Susan 86,747 1,932 88,679 Hajdukovic, Dan 95,832 912 96,743 Hall, Brent 65,160 20,008 85,168 Hamza, Danny 77,954 1,748 79,702 Hanada, Vincent 85,864 898 86,762 Hansford, George 88,011 3,130 91,141 Hardie, Johnstone 101,366 1,316 102,681 Hartley, Elizabeth 75,612 921 76,533 Haw, Kevin 78,716 1,115 79,831 Hayton, Scott 74,119 1,087 75,206 Heath, Howard 155,031 3,017 158,048 Henderson, Paul 86,144 3,183 89,327 Hengen, Thomas 90,374 40 90,414 Heyman, William 75,683 425 76,108 Hicks, Robert 91,274 1,349 92,623 Hicks, Terrance WP 81,760 72 81,832 Ho, Alfred 80,119 379 80,498 Hoffman, David 86,586 861 87,447 Hoffman, Donald SV 98,171 340 98,511 Hope, David 96,126 612 96,738 Huber, Frank 110,217 4,064 114,281 Hui, Terry FY 85,979 707 86,686 Humphris, Doug 101,192 4,058 105,250 Hunt, Andrew 81,336 1,213 82,548 Hystad, Brian 85,993 9,010 95,003 Isbister, Graham 79,916 1,569 81,485 Jacob, Cristina 95,497 3,944 99,441 Jacques, Joseph 89,532 1,844 91,376

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. Schedule 2 Page 4 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Jennejohn, Derek 76,139 3,452 79,591 Jensen, Gudrun 82,167 1,874 84,040 Jervis, Tim 156,873 3,467 160,339 Jessa, Noordin 69,667 9,139 78,806 Johnson, Owen 80,829 4,361 85,189 Jones, Robert 117,982 5,515 123,497 Juvik, Kenneth 112,556 1,766 114,322 Kadota, Paul 101,186 2,365 103,552 Kay, Monica 86,110 507 86,617 Keenan, Terrence 79,361 693 80,054 Kelder, Mike 81,235 529 81,764 Kellas, Hugh 147,663 7,003 154,666 Kemp, Bradley 85,488 2,921 88,409 Kendall, Randy 121,419 6,430 127,849 Kennett, Michael 79,509 4,950 84,459 Kim, Marian 76,630 653 77,283 Kimble, Willard 63,033 12,665 75,698 Kinney, Linda 76,415 162 76,577 Kleiberg, Julie 80,674 2,625 83,299 Knight, Nancy 78,242 5,116 83,359 Kohl, Paul 85,979 4,675 90,654 Kuiper, Geert 78,327 19,389 97,716 Kuzyk, Randy 98,128 470 98,598 Laglagaron, Delia 202,560 1,648 204,208 Lam, Yiu WP 100,365 6,346 106,711 Lambert, Richard 71,444 3,706 75,150 Land, Thomas 95,002 1,288 96,290 Lee, Kenneth 85,979 1,188 87,167 Legge, Robert 101,916 675 102,590 Lenning, Daniel 77,421 80 77,501 Lewis, Andrew 85,306 6,555 91,861 Lewis, Steven 94,608 604 95,213 Lindenbach, Kenneth 73,071 2,161 75,233 Littleford, Donald 139,865 1,051 140,916 Liu, George CH 77,404 4,711 82,116 Luccock, Edward 85,372 1,287 86,659 Lui, Gordon 95,706 11,103 106,810 Luongo, Ralph 80,925 941 81,867 Maag, David 85,979 1,151 87,130 MacFarlane, John 76,456 591 77,047 MacKenzie, Sandra 72,866 2,167 75,033 MacQuarrie, Douglas 96,536 6,264 102,800 Makarowski, Christine 92,760 2,818 95,578

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. Schedule 2 Page 5 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Manning, Ian 81,522 3,636 85,158 Marchand, Richard 115,635 3,445 119,080 Marchioni, John 71,844 3,260 75,104 Marcus, Gerhard 84,903 500 85,403 Margolick, Michael 90,452 3,251 93,703 Marr, Andrew 98,999 4,784 103,783 Marsh, Geoffrey 93,267 572 93,839 Maurer, Donald 80,965 4,967 85,933 Mayers, Michael 84,071 3,190 87,261 McComb, Tom 79,696 776 80,473 McCurrach, Raymond 105,533 11,424 116,958 McElroy, John 82,946 4,073 87,019 McGowan, Cameron 76,866 500 77,366 McLean, Robin 66,726 19,792 86,518 McQuarrie, James 93,042 4,436 97,478 McQuillan, Dan 80,509 2,426 82,935 Meldrum, Colin 82,121 4,905 87,027 Mennell, Morris 103,893 (4) 500 (4) 104,393 Merry, Callan 95,483 509 95,992 Metcalfe, Robert 121,618 1,992 123,609 Miller, Christopher 78,950 1,489 80,439 Miller, Douglas 77,050 2,221 79,271 Milnes, Katherine 86,024 2,696 88,720 Moore, Jennie 84,078 3,563 87,641 Morrell, William 99,271 223 99,493 Morris, Duane 124,460 2,605 127,065 Morrison, Thomas 84,451 4,980 89,431 Morton, Gary 87,148 1,096 88,244 Mullock, Leonard 91,623 828 92,451 Nakano, Terry 78,736 802 79,539 Neale, Michael 81,449 2,957 84,406 Neden, Douglas 111,342 6,143 117,485 Nees, Roy 75,133 1,420 76,553 Nenninger, Fred 104,078 6,332 110,410 Nesci, Christopher 77,461 1,261 78,722 Ng, Bun 83,029 3,163 86,192 Nicholls, Robert 110,686 8,837 119,523 Nichols, George 77,821 320 78,141 Nichols, Kristian DH 78,638 3,546 82,184 Nicol, Gord 88,449 1,048 89,497 Ninow, Michelle 75,558 71 75,629 Nishimura, Ronald 85,331 2,231 87,562 O'Brien, Lynn 75,643 - 75,643

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. (4) Reimbursed by outside agency. Schedule 2 Page 6 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Oliver, Frederick 72,691 2,517 75,208 Oljaca, Goran 95,584 3,348 98,932 Olson, Judy 85,875 412 86,287 Palsenbarg, Rudolf 136,004 12,577 148,581 Paone, Antonio 82,664 500 83,163 Pawluk, Lorne 87,802 6,055 93,857 Pellow, Scott 95,692 1,366 97,058 Peters, Gregory 97,991 521 98,511 Peters, Sharon 84,410 1,781 86,192 Piombini, Marino 86,685 1,430 88,115 Plagnol, Christopher 85,923 3,270 89,193 Plavsic, Michael 86,140 500 86,640 Plouffe, Patrick 85,391 698 86,089 Plummer, Derek 95,595 2,311 97,906 Ponzini, Colleen 76,690 3,493 80,183 Ptak, Leslaw 78,036 894 78,930 Ragan, Melanie 82,847 3,918 86,765 Ranahan, Dennis 90,886 644 91,529 Randt, Ralph 91,091 5,536 96,627 Reil, Dean 95,671 13,860 109,531 Remillard, Paul 112,723 5,777 118,500 Rich, Justin 86,039 1,138 87,177 Riches, James 83,140 2,184 85,323 Ritchot, Denis 81,060 848 81,908 Roberts, Guy 86,090 997 87,087 Romo, Ignacio 74,539 1,349 75,889 Ross, Lyn 81,565 4,312 85,877 Rourke, Nina 74,363 1,366 75,730 Ruth, Gordon 153,532 1,244 154,776 Sabatini, Linda 89,877 1,919 91,796 Samis, David 76,747 834 77,582 Santorelli, Gino 80,820 1,027 81,846 Schade, Frieda 99,866 1,895 101,761 Scott, David 77,954 - 77,954 Scott, Richard 108,085 5,471 (3) 113,556 Searle, Michael 86,136 5,235 91,370 Sellars, Iain 89,781 955 90,736 Semotuk, Verna 83,521 1,453 84,974 Sherwood, Herbert 74,890 4,360 79,250 Shibata, Kelly 75,671 5,263 80,934 Shore, Linda 141,636 6,143 147,779 Sidi, Shelina 71,217 4,475 75,692 Simon, Giuseppe 82,607 84 82,691

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. (3) A portion reimbursed by outside agencies. Schedule 2 Page 7 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Sinclair, Mark 86,042 3,212 89,254 Singh, Inderjit 85,979 7,532 93,510 Siu, David 95,483 2,703 98,187 Skydt, Paul 101,360 3,850 105,210 Smardon, Douglas 79,969 2,358 82,327 Smerychynski, Anthony 64,395 20,406 84,801 Smith, Gregory 154,211 1,900 156,111 Smyth, Sean 86,060 4,385 90,445 So, Simon 111,591 6,459 118,051 Sokalski, Mitchell 123,206 115 123,321 Solon, Gary 104,270 3,538 107,808 Soo, Gary 77,393 1,585 78,978 Squire, Chris 84,138 2,108 86,246 Stephens, Kenneth 85,222 7,494 92,716 Strangway, Paul 81,627 1,033 82,660 Stringer, Michael 95,339 2,361 97,700 Stuart, Scott 72,571 3,251 75,822 Stubbs, Kenneth 93,041 4,398 97,439 Suddes, Stephen 86,073 2,493 88,566 Sukumar, Alady 95,708 4,481 100,189 Sullivan, Barry 77,886 2,333 80,218 Sywulych, Steve 85,979 4,758 90,737 Tailford, John 92,976 2,271 95,246 Tancon, Daniel 84,683 2,712 87,394 Taw, Richard 89,778 2,522 92,300 Ternent, Stewart 86,410 122 86,532 Thien, Shaw 88,806 4,365 93,172 Thompson, David 73,001 3,255 76,256 Thompson, James 77,107 2,821 79,928 Tomsic, Heather 77,386 4,502 81,888 Towill, Marilyn 85,983 3,748 89,732 Trotzuk, Philip 108,242 1,289 109,531 Tsang, Tony 86,140 4,287 90,427 Turner, Karen 85,859 2,198 88,057 Van Oord, Ronald 107,365 995 108,360 Van Roodselaar, Albert 101,015 4,731 105,746 Vas, Erno 84,050 8,606 92,656 Vaughan, Bernard 86,090 1,023 87,113 Veenstra, Ted 74,872 5,778 80,650 Verbeke, Trevor 87,450 608 88,058 Vetleson, Paulette 108,465 187 108,652 von Euw, Edward 98,579 5,289 103,867 Vosilla, Robert 95,357 669 96,025

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. Schedule 2 Page 8 of 8

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Employees

(1) (2) Name Remuneration Expenses Total

Wallis, Richard 78,008 491 78,499 Walsh, Heidi 76,391 2,224 78,615 Walsh, James 79,481 555 80,036 Walter, Nela 76,618 3,555 80,173 Wardlaw, Alistair 85,979 5,798 91,776 Wdowiak, Iwona 77,388 784 78,172 Webster, Andrew 74,396 2,307 76,702 Wilke, Brad 68,624 9,472 78,096 Williams, Brian 85,259 725 85,984 Wilting, P 95,532 1,514 97,047 Wishart, Peter 80,895 5,301 86,195 Wong, Ben 79,167 3,811 82,979 Wong, Gary 85,774 5,303 91,076 Wong, Jeanie 82,894 3,231 86,125 Wong, Michael 80,353 - 80,353 Wong, Siu KF 81,930 1,515 83,445 Wong, Thomas 86,223 2,833 89,055 Wood, Ronald 82,187 273 82,460 Woods, Stanley 98,421 4,475 102,896 Worthen, John 71,856 4,333 76,189 Wu, Thomas 76,781 3,304 80,085 Yang, Wilbert 85,994 2,844 88,838 Yee, Larry 102,356 3,982 106,338 Yee, Vernon 81,998 1,985 83,983 Yeomans, M 87,092 1,758 88,850 Yuen, Francis 77,675 2,688 80,363 Zimmer, Rob 69,662 5,573 75,235 $ 29,397,648 $ 1,020,398 $ 30,418,046

Consolidated Total of other employees with remunerations and expenses of $75,000 or less 48,388,537 1,086,139 49,474,676

Total $ 77,786,185 $ 2,106,537 $ 79,892,722

(1) Includes salary plus any taxable benefits. (2) Includes GVRD business-related expenses for training, travel, mileage and memberships. Schedule 3 Page 1 of 1

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Reconciliation of Remuneration to Financial Statements

Total Remuneration - Schedule of Remuneration and Expenses:

Employees (Schedule 2) $77,786,185

Members of the Board of Directors and Elected Officials (Schedule 1) 457,834

$78,244,019

Total Salaries and Benefits per Financial Statements (Consolidated Financial Activities by Object) $88,235,751 Salaries and benefits included in allocated programs 2,425,501 90,661,252

Less Employer share of non-taxable payroll remittances (10,030,434)

Other ** (2,386,799)

$78,244,019

Difference -

** For financial statement purposes, accrued employee benefits (i.e. banked overtime) are included in the financial statements, but are not reflected in remuneration paid to employees. Schedule 4 Page 1 of 1

SCHEDULE OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Statement of Severance Agreements

There were 3 severance agreements under which payments were commenced between the Greater Vancouver Regional District and its non-unionized employees during fiscal year 2005.

These agreements represent between 3 to 16 months of compensation. Schedule 5 Page 1 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

521474 BC LTD. $ 88,414 A & A ANDERSON TANK SERVICE LTD 145,886 A.B.E. LOGGING LTD 122,876 A.R. HYTECH ENGINEERING LTD. 306,599 A.R.THOMSON GROUP 153,320 AAA AUTO COLLISON 30,038 ABB INC. 271,829 ABBOTSFORD MECHANICAL & METALS 62,348 ABBOTSFORD, CITY OF 75,267 ABS PUMPS CORPORATION 91,258 A-C SYSTEMS INC 30,362 ACKLANDS - GRAINGER INC 384,236 ACRES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 83,083 ACTION GLASS LTD. 60,667 AIR LIQUIDE CANADA INC 61,793 AIR-TEC CONSULTING LTD 39,633 AJILON FINANCE 51,178 ALCATEL CANADA INC. 99,260 ALEXANDER CONSTRUCTION LTD. 813,521 ALFA LAVAL INC 102,569 ALLAN, J. D. 204,093 ALLEGIS GROUP CANADA 40,502 ALLSTREAM INC. 30,378 ALMA PLUMBING & HEATING LTD. 339,935 ALPINE BUILDING MAINTENANCE INC. 82,850 ALPINE SPRINKLER SYSTEM LTD 27,499 ALSTOM CANADA INC 76,279 A-MILLENIA CONSTRUCTION LTD 450,815 AMRE SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED 112,339 ANDREW SHERET LTD 25,888 ANDRITZ BIRD INC 26,466 ANGUS & ASSOCIATES 218,925 ANIXTER CANADA INC. 33,173 ANNACIS WASTE DISPOSAL CORP. 79,696 APLIN & MARTIN CONSULTANTS LTD. 52,404 APPLEWOOD KIA 59,177 APPLIANCE CANADA WEST LIMITED 85,818 ARLINGTON GROUP PLANNING & ARCHITECTURE 53,843 ARMTEC LIMITED 172,809 ARROW TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS INC. 2,109,285 ARTCRAFT DISPLAY GRAPHICS INC. 85,881 ARTECH ELECTRIC LTD 46,199 ARTHON CONSTRUCTION LTD. 1,290,609 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 679,924 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (B.C.) LIMITED 386,350 ASSOCIATED LOCKSMITHS 40,852 Schedule 5 Page 2 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS CANADA 32,314 ATLAS PAINTING & RESTORATIONS LTD. 36,793 AURORA ENTERPRISES 590,188 AUTODESK INC. 28,744 AVENSYS 134,196 AVENUE MACHINERY CORP. 94,072 AWESOME OPOSSUM WILDLIFE CONTROL 36,060 AWWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION 28,816 AXTON INCORPORATED 35,245 AXYS ANALYTICAL SERVICES LTD 178,595 AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING LTD. 28,310 AYLA CANOES RENTAL & SALES 50,360 A-Z LOCKMASTERS (1992) LTD 43,998 B G CONTROLS LTD. 171,892 B. CHANDRA AND ASSOCIATES LTD. 47,873 B. CUSANO CONTRACTING INC. 579,747 B.A. BLACKTOP LTD 39,966 B.A. BLACKWELL & ASSOCIATES 101,329 B.C. LUNG ASSOCIATION 45,000 B.C. RECORDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. 50,311 B.C. RENTALS 36,967 B.G.E. SERVICE & SUPPLY LTD 32,738 BABCO ELECTRIC GROUP INC. 150,460 BANK OF MONTREAL 493,495 BARNES WHEATON 29,505 BC BEARING ENGINEERS LIMITED 163,742 BC CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 25,000 BC HOUSING 46,350 BC HYDRO 9,028,943 BC RAIL 172,249 BEAVER ELECTRICAL MACHINERY LTD. 90,218 BELCARRA ,VILLAGE OF 52,877 BELL WEST INC. 81,406 BENCHLANDS ENTERPRISES 75,216 BENEFIT FLOORS LTD 312,743 BENJAMIN, JANET 44,940 BENWELL ATKINS LTD 28,707 BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS 56,363 BETA MACHINERY ANALYSIS LTD 50,163 BILFINGER BERGER/FRU-CON JOINT VENTURE 12,487,989 BIO-AG TECHNOLOGIES INC. 607,315 BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 65,025 BLACK & MCDONALD LTD 222,146 BLACK PRESS GROUP LTD 52,511 BOC CANADA 383,912 BOC EDWARDS HIBON 301,612 Schedule 5 Page 3 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

BOERSMA, GERALD AND KAREN 40,000 BORDER TO BORDER 142,759 BRENNTAG CANADA INC. 1,749,597 BRITCO 139,851 BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSMISSION CORP. 34,775 BROADWAY ROOFING CO. LTD. 149,391 BULL HOUSSER & TUPPER 108,073 BURNABY, CITY OF 1,200,420 BUSBY PERKINS & WILL ARCHITECTS CO 26,582 C & M ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. 36,252 C & S ELECTRIC LTD 25,776 C.A.P. VENTURES LTD. 437,986 C.D. NOVA LTD. 189,370 C.G. INDUSTRIAL SPECIALTIES LTD 55,180 CACHE CREEK, VILLAGE OF 710,843 CAMPBELL SCIENTIFIC CANADA CORP 34,204 CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY 23,039,294 CANADA MORTGAGE & HOUSING CORPORATION 13,554,642 CANADIAN DEWATERING LTD. 346,398 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY 31,537 CANADIAN TIRE STORE 37,915 CANEM WEST OPERATIONS INC 143,826 CANSEL SURVEY EQUIPMENT 68,035 CANSPEC GROUP INC 79,859 CANSTAR CONSTRUCTION LTD 232,624 CANTEST LTD. 31,612 CARTER CHEVROLET OLDSMOBILE 43,914 CARTER GM 236,585 CATHERINE BERRIS ASSOCIATES INC. 37,962 CEL-COM SYSTEMS LTD 25,775 CESCO ELECTRICAL SUPPLY LTD. 26,193 CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT 242,376 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 330,629 CHAMPION WINDOW & PRESSURE CLEANING 38,911 CHEN ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS INC. 43,074 CHEVRON CANADA LIMITED 69,767 CHROMA COMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC. 27,601 CIBA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS CANADA 639,747 CINTAS THE UNIFORM PEOPLE 25,116 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION CO LTD 468,156 CLEARTECH INDUSTRIES INC. 475,399 CLOUDBURST TRANSPORT LTD 42,024 CNC GLOBAL SEARCH 252,065 COAST MARINE CONTRACTING LTD 59,552 COASTAL FORD SALES LTD 57,687 COCHRAN, ANNE 27,044 Schedule 5 Page 4 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

COLLINGWOOD & ASSOCIATES 60,961 COLUMBIA BITULITHIC LTD. 65,718 COLUMBIA VALVE & FITTING LTD. 30,684 COMMANDER WAREHOUSE EQUIPMENT LTD. 53,983 CONCORD EXCAVATING & CONTRACTING LTD. 243,527 CONETEC INVESTIGATIONS LTD. 37,328 CONSOLIDATED DATACOM INC 26,719 CONTEXT RESEARCH LTD 277,607 COQUITLAM, CITY OF 737,714 CORNERSTONE PLANNING GROUP 51,233 CORPORATE COURIERS LTD 167,532 CRANE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 36,139 CROSSIN CORISTINE WOODALL 207,522 CROSSTOWN METAL INDUSTRIES LTD 466,505 CTH SYSTEMS INC. 34,874 C-TRON SYSTEMS CORP 45,458 CULEX ENVIRONMENTAL LTD 105,883 CURTIS BRADLEY CLEANING 234,483 CUSTOM TRUCK PRODUCTS 25,208 D.H. DAVIDSON & ASSOCIATES LTD. 32,507 DADSONS ELECTRIC CO. LTD. 193,952 DALE MCCLANAGHAN CONSULTING LTD 51,146 DAVIDSON BROS MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS LTD 35,620 DAYTON & KNIGHT LTD. 135,146 DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION 1,064,503 DELTA AIRPARK OPERATING COMMITTEE 48,265 DELTA CLEANING 189,057 DELTA, CORPORATION OF 1,373,211 DENNISON CHEVROLET LTD. 139,331 DESIGN GROUP STAFFING SERVICES INC., THE 87,771 DETROIT DIESEL-ALLISON BRITICH COLUMBIA 91,130 DIAMOND HEAD CONSULTING LTD 54,061 DILLON CONSULTING LTD 103,024 DIONEX CANADA LTD 34,937 DIRECT ENERGY BUSINESS SERVICES INC 313,390 DOBNEY FOUNDRY LTD. 81,380 DOCUMENTUM, A DIVISION OF EMC 31,989 DOMINION BLUE REPROGRAPHICS 51,539 DONALD LOCKWOOD NOTARIAL 80,056 DONALDSON COMPANY INC. 75,864 DORR-OLIVER EIMCO 116,504 DOUGLAS ANTHONY SERVICES LIMITED 31,833 DOUGLAS LAKE CATTLE COMPANY 27,037 DOUGLAS LAKE EQUIPMENT 45,389 DOVETAIL CONSULTING 28,580 DTM SYSTEMS CORP. 33,755 Schedule 5 Page 5 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

DUECK CHEVROLET, OLDSMOBILE,CADILLAC LTD 77,325 DYNAMIC ENGINEERING INC 27,416 E.B. HORSMAN & SON LTD. 29,371 EAGLE WEST TRUCK & CRANE INC 140,309 EARTH TECH (CANADA) INC. 306,583 EBA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD 349,644 EBCO INDUSTRIES LTD 66,343 EBSCO CANADA LTD 77,441 ECI MANUFACTURING INC 130,738 ECL ENVIROWEST CONSULTANTS LIMITED 63,624 E-COMM 2,151,598 ECOSTAT RESEARCH LTD 50,242 EECOL ELECTRIC (SASK) INC. 172,128 EIC SOLUTIONS LTD. 689,629 ELEVEN STARS ENT INC 120,696 ELGAR ELECTRIC LTD 164,188 EMA CANADA, INC 231,497 EMCO CORPORATION 311,527 EMERGEX PLANNING INC 35,112 ENKON ENVIRONMENTAL LTD 110,078 ENVISION SUSTAINABILITY TOOLS 80,250 EPCOR WATER SERVICES INC. 103,033 ERNST & YOUNG LLP 87,217 ESRI CANADA LIMITED 87,875 ESSE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 83,837 EUREST DINING SERVICES 143,173 EVERYDAY ALLSTAR CLEANING SERVICES LTD. 30,491 EVS ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANTS 53,387 EXACT METALS LTD. 99,758 EXCEL DRAPERY 62,905 F & M INSTALLATIONS LTD 43,442 FAN, BENEDICT H., P. ENG. 45,868 FARRIS, VAUGHAN, WILLS & MURPHY IN TRUST 295,272 FARRIS,VAUGHAN,WILLS & MURPHY 365,225 FIBERWRAP INSTALLATIONS 56,995 FILENET CANADA INC. 56,347 FINNING INTERNATIONAL INC. 356,721 FIRST AID & SURVIVAL TECHNOLOGIES 45,457 FISHER SCIENTIFIC CO. LIMITED 75,120 FLEETWOOD DISPOSAL 44,365 FLOWMETRIX TECHNICAL SERVICES INC. 95,216 FLOWSERVE PUMP DIVISION 1,388,180 FLYNN CANADA LTD 42,482 FOSTERS CONSTRUCTION LTD. 204,086 FOUNDEX EXPLORATIONS LTD. 137,953 FRANSEN ENGINEERING LTD. 332,765 Schedule 5 Page 6 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

FRASER RICHMOND SOIL & FIBRE LTD. 1,198,852 FRASER RIVER PORT AUTHORITY 44,042 FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT 59,275 FRASER VALLEY THERMAL SERVICES LTD. 27,100 FRIESEN EQUIPMENT LTD. 64,237 FYFE DEVELOPEMENT LTD. 108,723 GARTNER LEE 101,545 GCL CONTRACTING & ENGINEERING INC 1,038,217 GENERAL SWITCHGEAR & CONTROLS LTD 91,028 GEORGE THIRD & SON 50,360 GEOWARE INC. 45,650 GGEM CONSULTANTS LTD. 68,669 GLEN THOMPSON INDUSTRIES LTD 113,477 GLENTEL INC 271,483 GMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES 63,875 GNH ENGINEERING LTD 31,463 GOLDEN ALPINE ENTERPRISES CORP 36,227 GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD 994,805 GORDON CRANE & HOIST INC. 30,321 GRAHAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LTD. 22,903,208 GRAND & TOY LIMITED 473,653 GRANT, DANNY & MACFARLANE, SHARON 37,750 GREAT PEOPLE PERSONNEL LTD. 65,102 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY 1,470,846 GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION 471,735,642 GREENBRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 32,941 GREENTECH DESIGN LTD 73,365 GREENWAY EQUIPMENT LTD. 307,933 GREYELL MACPHAIL LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT 52,041 GUILDFORD REFRIGERATION & APPLIANCE SERVICE LTD 168,540 GUILLEVIN/FLECK BROTHERS 140,497 GVRDEU 325,502 GYGAX ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES LTD 73,846 H. FONTAINE LTD 49,484 HAMPTON POWER SYSTEMS LTD. 90,953 HANLEY AGENCIES LTD. 46,995 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD TRANSPORTATION & TUNNELS LTD 1,574,472 HAYWARD GORDAN LTD 58,623 HAZCO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. 166,135 HEMMERA ENVIROCHEM INC. 28,085 HIGHWOOD PINCHER CREEK 118,125 HILTI (CANADA) LIMITED 92,697 HODGSON KING AND MARBLE LTD 305,403 HOLACO CONSTRUCTION (1997) LTD 363,375 HOLLAND BARRS PLANNING GROUP 26,162 HOME DEPOT 163,013 Schedule 5 Page 7 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

HONEYWELL LIMITED 177,550 HOWE, JIM 50,814 HYDRA MARINE SERVICES INC 50,452 HYSECO FLUID SYSTEMS LTD. 48,179 IBM CANADA LIMITED 35,142 IDEAL WELDERS LIMITED 680,523 IMRIE ENGINEERING INC 67,089 INDUSTRIAL ENGINES LIMITED 28,476 INFINITY SQUARED SERVICES INC. 43,264 INFORM NETWORK FOR MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 29,275 INFOSAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC 49,496 INGLIS, GORDON 37,828 INKSTER, THELMA 37,217 INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 601,471 INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BC 576,755 INTERCON SECURITY LIMITED 961,997 INTERCONTINENTAL TRUCK BODY 33,972 INTERLOCK EMPLOYEE & FAMILY ASSISTANCE 49,512 IOTA CONSTRUCTION LTD 189,638 IPEX INC 219,616 IRC INTEGRATED RESOURCES CONSULTING INC. 90,494 IREDALE PARTNERSHIP 28,555 ITG INDUSTRIAL TRADES GROUP LTD. 102,711 ITT FLYGT 138,518 J C ANDELLE INC 44,300 J J REFRIGERATION LTD 45,947 J. DEWITT ENTERPRISES LTD. 44,719 J.A. ELECTRIC 349,007 J.S. FERGUSON CONSTRUCTION INC 204,793 JACQUES WHITFORD 97,447 JAS CONSULTING LTD. 137,163 JELCON EQUIPMENT LTD 130,318 JERRY ANTON & ASSOCIATES 33,175 JIFFY JOHN RENTALS LTD 29,942 JJM CONSTRUCTION LTD. 5,256,745 JOHN CRANE CANADA INC. 54,842 JOHN MEUNIER INC. 85,500 JOHNSON CONTROLS LTD 108,529 JOPO SYSTEMS LTD 54,875 JPSH ENTERPRISE INC 151,917 JRS ENGINEERING LTD 55,416 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 25,983 KAMLOOPS COMMUNICATIONS INC 27,710 KANAKA EDUCATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIP SOCIETY 48,900 KEEN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. 37,864 KELLY SERVICES (CANADA) LTD 42,699 Schedule 5 Page 8 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

KENDRICK EQUIPMENT (2003) LTD 26,355 KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES 295,407 KEYSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL LTD 27,324 KING KUBOTA SERVICES LTD 43,793 KINGSTON CONSTRUCTION LTD 14,646,817 KLOHN-CRIPPEN 1,792,973 KNIGHT PIESOLD CONSULTING 256,674 KOMATSU RENTS 34,516 KRAFT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES LTD 34,312 L.B. MACHINE COMPANY LIMITED 67,947 LA CHANCE, CHARLES 43,023 LABWARE INC 75,460 LAFARGE CANADA INC. 103,705 LANARC CONSULTANTS LTD 81,260 LAND AND WATER BRITISH COLUMBIA INC 686,550 LANDS WEST PROPERTY SERVICES INC 32,127 LANDTEC GROUND EXPERT LTD 34,508 LANGLEY CONCRETE & TILE LTD 2,524,563 LANGLEY, TOWNSHIP OF 85,727 LEHIGH NORTHWEST MATERIALS LTD. 97,167 LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD. 198,182 LEVELTON ENGINEERING LTD 29,312 LGL LIMITED 55,217 LIONS BAY, VILLAGE OF 112,005 LITZ CRANE SERVICE LTD. 51,258 LIVINGSTON INTERNATIONAL INC. 50,685 LOWE-LUM DEVELOPMENTS LTD 46,070 LRF CONSULTANTS LTD. 69,276 M R SMITH LIMITED 39,800 MAIL-O-MATIC SERVICES LTD. 40,584 MAINLAND PLUMBING & HEATING LTD 79,454 MAINLAND SAND & GRAVEL LTD. 188,331 MANDEL SCIENTIFIC COMPANY LTD 47,982 MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 612,204 MAPLE RIDGE TANK CLEANING SERVICE LTD. 46,803 MAPLE RIDGE, CORP. OF THE DISTRICT 559,456 MARINE ROOFING & SHEET METAL LTD. 87,589 MAXXAM ANALYTICS INC 73,151 MCELHANNEY CONSULTING SERVICES LTD. 34,233 MCGINN ENGINEERING & PRESERVATION LTD. 53,490 MCKENZIE INTEGRATED SYSTEMS CORP 27,720 MCRAE'S ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. 217,253 MCRAE'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE (VAN) LTD 199,435 MEQUIPCO SALES LTD. 40,937 MERAN INDUSTRIES LTD. 30,526 MERCER HUMAN RESOURCE CONSULTING LIMITED 60,187 Schedule 5 Page 9 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

MERIDIAN SPECIALTIES INC. 25,972 MERLETTI CONSTRUCTION LTD 2,029,554 METRICA SERVICES INC. 41,537 METRO BLASTING INC 26,187 METRO MOTORS LTD 112,004 METRO TESTING LABORATORIES LTD 35,224 METROTOWN CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE CO. LTD 83,511 MGM CONSTRUCTION LTD 510,454 MICHELIN NORTH AMERICAN (CANADA) INC 57,314 MICROSOFT CANADA CO. 590,378 MIDLYN HR COMMUNICATIONS 240,741 MILANI DRAINAGE PLUMBING & HARDWARE 34,854 MINISTER OF FINANCE & CORP RELATIONS 2,766,714 MINI-TANKERS CANADA LTD 67,316 MISSION CONTRACTORS 152,395 MITCHELL PRESS LTD. 46,099 MITEL NETWORKS CORP 230,978 MONTENAY INC. 8,426,397 MORROW BIOSCIENCE LTD 151,180 MOTT ELECTRIC LTD. 121,923 MOUNTAIN MANUFACTURING (2002) LTD 48,887 MPT LAND SURVEYING CO (SURREY) LTD 27,240 MUELLER FLOW CONTROL 81,790 MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY OF BC 233,062,945 MUNICIPAL PENSION PLAN 9,430,252 MURRAY-LATTA MACHINE CO (1988) LTD 89,574 N & D CONSULTING LTD. 37,121 N.W. ENGINEERING LTD. 107,278 NAC CONSTRUCTORS LTD 36,587,255 NATIONAL PROCESS EQUIPMENT 32,960 NEW DIMENSIONS CANADA INC 72,439 NEW WESTMINSTER, CORP. OF THE CITY 1,148,658 NEW-LINE PRODUCTS LTD. 66,485 NEXUS LEARNING GROUP INC 56,503 NICHELE, FRANCESCA 25,790 NOBLE TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT LTD 155,148 NORPAC CONTROLS LTD. 68,378 NORTH SHORE RESCUE TEAM 32,906 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY OF 1,007,144 NORTH VANCOUVER,THE DISTRICT OF 871,502 NORTH WEST OFFICE FURNITURE LTD 47,599 NORTHERN BUILDING SUPPLY LTD. 111,304 NORTHERN TRAILER LTD 43,331 NORTHVIEW CONSULTING 36,985 NORTHWEST BOARDING KENNELS 49,917 NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS LTD. 57,895 Schedule 5 Page 10 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

NORTHWEST PIPE COMPANY 5,567,133 NOVATEC CONSULTANTS INC 35,466 NOW NEWSPAPERS LTD. 46,240 NWRI-RECEIVER GENERAL FOR CANADA 71,690 OAKRIDGE GENERAL CONTRACTORS 383,880 OCE CANADA INC. 29,127 OCEAN CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES LIMITED 33,897 ODRA CERAMIC TILE 41,212 OLYMPIC INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES LTD. 361,257 ONSIDE RESTORATIONS SERVICES LTD 50,437 ONYX INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LTD. 417,213 ORACLE CORPORATION 174,844 OTIS CANADA INC 33,859 PACIFIC BLASTING & DEMOLITION LTD. 27,178 PACIFIC BLUE CROSS 81,990 PACIFIC BLUE CROSS DENTAL CARE PLAN 1,078,685 PACIFIC BLUE CROSS EXTENDED HEALTH 862,708 PACIFIC COASTCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC 79,882 PACIFIC LIAICON AND ASSOCIATES INC 2,681,288 PACIFIC NEWSPAPER GROUP INC. 46,471 PACIFIC-SURREY CONSTRUCTION LTD. 84,399 PANARAMA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 46,832 PARTNER TECHNOLOGIES INC. 1,047,895 PARTNERS INSTRUMENTATION INC 30,585 PARTNERSHIPS BRITISH COLUMBIA INC 27,092 PAUL FORD AG SERVICES 300,159 PCO SERVICES INC. 57,252 PEDRE CONTRACTORS LTD. 3,771,909 PERSONA CONSTRUCTION LTD. 71,524 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, THE 115,261 PETER KIEWIT SONS CO. 12,776,527 PETRO CANADA 115,625 PHH VEHICLE MANAGEMENT SVCS 1,074,094 PHOENIX TRUCK & CRANE 84,383 PITNEY BOWES 78,860 PLANIT MANAGEMENT INC. 28,243 PLAS-TANKS INDUSTRIES, INC. 47,328 POLAR BATTERY VANCOUVER LTD 35,994 POLLUX CANADA 57,627 POLYCRETE RESTORATIONS LTD 456,566 POLYGON CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LTD 64,366 PONTE BROS. CONTRACTING LTD 861,009 PORT COQUITLAM, THE CITY OF 328,221 PORT MOODY, CITY OF 5,116,261 POSTAGE BY PHONE SYSTEM 51,360 PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS 38,511 Schedule 5 Page 11 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

PRINTERWORKS 31,266 PRK SERVICES 25,402 PROACTIVE RESOLUTION INC. 33,438 PROGRESSIVE MOWERS 71,283 PYX FINANCIAL GROUP INC. 56,849 QUADRA CHEMICALS LTD. 379,038 QUALICHEM INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LTD 46,623 QUAY STRATEGIES INC 26,474 R. WALES & SON INDUSTRIAL 25,202 R.A. OAKLEY LTD. 195,965 R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD. 257,771 RAESIDE EQUIPMENT LTD. 29,121 RAMCO'S CARPET WAREHOUSE LTD. 731,174 RANSOM AGENCIES LIMITED 56,318 RAYBERN ERECTORS LTD. 45,509 RAYDON RENTALS LTD 40,087 RECEIVER GENERAL OF CANADA 154,559 RECYCLING COUNCIL OF BC 45,275 REGE CONSULTING CORPORATION 42,303 REHTLANE CONSULTING 64,645 REMDAL PAINTING & RESTORATION INC 25,418 RESMOR TRUST COMPANY 246,466 REVENUE SERVICES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1,015,650 REVERE, INC. 67,105 REVY 74,658 RICHMOND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE LTD. 60,178 RICHMOND, CITY OF 1,093,686 RISSLING CONTRACTORS LTD. 141,056 RITCHIE, TAMRA JAYE 58,888 RIVERA DESIGN GROUP LTD. 41,512 RIVERSIDE EQUIPMENT (1994) INC 26,769 ROBERTS FILTER INTERNATIONAL INC. 1,366,350 ROBICON CANADA LTD 61,182 ROBINS FLOTECH LTD 78,859 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION CANADA INC 622,907 ROCO CORPORATION 43,357 ROCO RESCUE OF CANADA INC. 83,003 ROLLINS MACHINERY LIMITED 209,298 ROSS MORRISON ELECTRICAL LTD. 310,151 ROSS SUPPLY LTD. 61,983 S. GLENN SIGURDSON INC 25,423 S.S.G. HOLDINGS LTD 1,099,192 SAFWAY SCAFFOLD SERVICES INC 83,831 SALMON'S RENTALS LTD. 29,592 SANDWELL ENGINEERING 547,418 SASAMAT VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOC 25,866 Schedule 5 Page 12 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

SCHALIN, DAVID AND CARLYN 41,000 SCK HOLDINGS LTD 48,200 SEAWARD ENGINEERING & RESEARCH LTD 63,155 SEMIAHMOO BULLDOZING & TRUCKING LTD 40,018 SERVICEMASTER 31,744 SHARP'S AUDIO-VISUAL LTD. 29,877 SHAW CABLE 57,983 SHELTAIR GROUP RESOURCE CONSULTANTS INC. 83,703 SI SYSTEMS 996,624 SIDHU, S. TRUCKING 29,104 SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES-FIRESAFETY 32,981 SIMARK CONTROLS LTD 40,004 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY 72,594 SMITH CAMERON PUMP SOLUTIONS 116,889 SNF CANADA LTD. 114,517 SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION 75,188 SOUKUP LAND SURVEYING INC. 88,422 SOUTHERN CROSS HOLDINGS LTD. 93,102 SPEEDY GLASS 33,031 SPHERION 25,052 SPX PROCESS EQUIPMENT 492,549 SQUAMISH NATION 719,716 SSBV CONSULTANTS INC 3,211,225 STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. 37,055 STAPLES 50,394 STAPLES MCDANNOLD STEWART 32,900 STAPLES MCDANNOLD STEWART "IN TRUST" 292,431 STASUK TESTING & INSPECTION LTD 71,568 STEALTH VALVE 2,464,442 STEEL GUYS FABRICATING LTD 25,670 STEELGUARD FENCING 30,846 STERLING FLEET OUTFITTERS 26,873 STRATEGIC ACTION GROUP 61,633 STROMA SERVICE CONSULTING INC. 70,936 SUBOCEANIC SCIENCES CANADA LTD 29,932 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL CANADA 392,189 SUPER SAVE DISPOSAL INC. 148,487 SUPERIOR ASPHALT PAVING 32,101 SUPERIOR HANDYMAN SERVICES 317,736 SUPERIOR PROPANE LIMITED 66,911 SURFWOOD SUPPLY (1964) LTD. 37,959 SURREY CEDAR LTD 27,080 SURREY FIRE & SAFETY LTD. 29,476 SURREY, CITY OF 1,221,395 SUSTAINABLE CITIES FOUNDATION 174,500 SYLVIS ENVIRONMENTAL 189,570 Schedule 5 Page 13 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

SYNOVATE LTD. 52,894 TALON HELICOPTERS LIMITED 253,055 TD BANK FINANCIAL GROUP 509,170 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION #31 382,344 TEBO MILL INSTALLATIONS LTD. 58,615 TECK COMINCO METALS LTD. 87,308 TEK SYSTEMS 294,595 TELUS 249,658 TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC 901,942 TELUS ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS PARTNERSHIP 338,800 TELUS MOBILITY 510,330 TERASEN GAS INC. 609,488 TERASEN WATERWORKS (SUPPLY) INC 58,386 TERRITE CONTRACTING 89,663 TEXCAN,DIVISION OF SONEPAR INC. 90,709 THE 500 STAFFING SERVICES 131,616 THOMAS G. ANDERSON LAW CORPORATION 120,375 THOMPSON FOUNDRY LTD. 42,875 THOS. W. MACKAY & SON LTD. 149,636 TIKAL CONSTRUCTION LTD 85,811 TLD COMPUTERS INC 233,601 TOSHIBA OF CANADA LIMITED 283,471 TP SYSTEMS LTD. 275,611 TRANSLINK 151,823 TREE ISLAND INDUSTRIES 89,223 TREEN GLOVES & SAFETY PRODUCTS LTD 51,500 TREVOR JARVIS CONTRACTING LTD. 367,439 TRI-ARROW INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY INC 546,620 TRIMAR TIRE LIMITED 45,575 TRI-R SYSTEMS INC. 26,002 TRISTAR INDUSTRIES LTD 108,282 TRITECH INDUSTRIES LTD. 624,507 TRITON TRANSPORT LTD 82,941 TROW ASSOCIATES INC. 44,926 TRYDOR INDUSTRIES (CANADA) LTD 192,333 UAP INC (D.B.A. NAPA AUTO PARTS) 117,558 ULTRA-TECH CLEANING SYSTEMS LTD 80,841 UNIFEED LTD 28,857 UNISOURCE CANADA INC. 48,428 UNITED RENTALS OF CANADA 139,910 UNITED WAY OF THE LOWER MAINLAND 153,042 UNIVERSAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT COMPANY 32,903 UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 315,310 UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA 38,925 UPPER VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION LTD. 106,571 US FILTER/ASDOR LIMITED 39,780 Schedule 5 Page 14 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

US FILTER/WALLACE & TIERNAN 46,867 VALLEY TRAFFIC SYSTEMS INC. 171,012 VALON KONE BRUNETTE LTD 141,063 VAN TEL/SAFEWAY CREDIT UNION 114,571 VANCOUVER OFFICESPACE LTD. 54,399 VANCOUVER PARKS BOARD 38,649 VANCOUVER PORT AUTHORITY 209,872 VANCOUVER- WHISTLER PAINTING INC 47,572 VANCOUVER, CITY OF 1,232,832 VAN-NET CLASSIFIEDS 29,448 VARIAN CANADA INC. 193,592 VERITAS SOFTWARE CANADA INC 43,467 VIKANES CONSULTING INC. 33,136 VIKING CHAIN INC 121,051 VWR CANLAB 43,258 VWR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS 74,011 WAINBEE LIMITED 109,420 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CANADA CORPORATION 342,301 WASTECH SERVICES LIMITED 31,785,539 WASTE-TECH INC 161,466 WATER MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 61,148 WATEROUS DETROIT DIESEL ALLISON 252,463 WATEROUS POWER SYSTEMS 42,148 WATSON GLOVES 26,286 WATSON, LYDIA 32,000 WDA CONSULTING INC. 29,854 WEIR CANADA INC. 141,279 WESCAN SYSTEMS LIMITED 38,985 WESCO DISTRIBUTION CANADA INC 224,149 WESCO INDUSTRIES LTD. 49,187 WEST COAST CORROSION 57,675 WEST COAST FALCONRY INC 45,191 WEST COAST SAFETY CONSULTANTS 36,380 WEST COAST VULCANIZING SHOP LTD. 46,883 WEST VANCOUVER, CORP OF THE DISTRICT 3,013,613 WESTBURNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY 583,573 WESTCAN ENGINEERING AND MACHINE 166,609 WESTCORP PROPERTIES INC 85,500 WESTECH ENGINEERING INC. 63,414 WESTERN FENCE & GATE LTD. 39,795 WESTERN MEDICAL ASSESSMENTS 26,033 WESTERN OIL SERVICES LTD 72,677 WESTERN VERSATILE CONSTRUCTION CORP 5,030,093 WESTMAR CONSULTANTS INC. 53,456 WESTOWER COMMUNICATIONS LTD 292,138 WESTPRO CONSTRUCTORS GROUP LTD. 1,350,966 Schedule 5 Page 15 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY LIMITED 154,832 WHITE PINE ENVIROMENTAL RESOURCES INC. 209,021 WHITELAW TWINING 37,797 WILDFIRE FIRE EQUIPMENT INC 51,227 WILLIS CANADA INC. 2,566,985 WINVAN PAVING LTD. 70,280 WOLSELEY CANADA INC. 428,788 WOOD WYANT 27,593 WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD OF B.C. 893,838 XEROX OF CANADA LIMITED 102,481 XY SOFTWARE LTD. 56,287 YEOMEN PROPERTY MAINTENANCE & RENO LTD 31,542 YOHO PROJECTS LTD. 515,124 ZEEMAC VEHICLE LEASE LTD 83,183 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF CANADA 35,023

Payments to suppliers of goods and services who received aggregate payments exceeding $25,000 $ 1,062,722,779

Consolidated total paid to suppliers who received aggregate payments of $25,000 or less 11,151,524

Total payments made to Canadian suppliers $ 1,073,874,303

Payments made in 2005 for Grants/Contributions

BIEAP-FREMP $ 50,000 FRASER BASIN COUNCIL 232,500 PACIFIC PARKLANDS FOUNDATION 75,000 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 66,500 VANCOUVER SYMPHONY SOCIETY 38,000

Payments for Grants/Contributions exceeding $25,000 $ 462,000

BC PHOTOGRAPHY & MEDIA ARTS SOCIETY 5,000 COASTAL JAZZ & BLUES SOCIETY 5,000 GREEN THUMB PLAYERS SOCIETY 4,000 PACIFIC BALLET BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIETY 9,500 PACIFIC CINEMATHEQUE PACIFIQUE SOCIETY 3,500 PLAYHOUSE THEATRE CENTRE OF BC 7,000 PUBLIC DREAMS SOCIETY 2,000 RICHMOND GATEWAY THEATRE SOCIETY 2,000 THE ARTS CLUB OF VANCOUVER THEATRE 8,000 UNITED WAY OF THE LOWER MAINLAND 15,000 VANCOUVER ART GALLERY 8,500 VANCOUVER INTL. CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL 2,000 Schedule 5 Page 16 of 16

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31 2005

Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

VANCOUVER OPERA ASSOCIATION 20,000 VANCOUVER THEATRE SPORTS LEAGUE 2,500

Payments for Grants/Contributions of $25,000 or less $ 94,000

$ 556,000

Total Payments to Canadian Suppliers ($Cdn) $ 1,074,430,303 Schedule 6 Page 1 of 1

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Payments to U.S. Suppliers ($US)

Supplier Name Payment Amount

OZONIA NORTH AMERICA, INC. $ 32,062 SCHRADER, ERNEST K. 33,668 KOLLGAARD, ERIC B. 37,722 GARTNER INC 44,428 QUINCY NEW HOLLAND, INC 45,500 WHEELABRATOR TECHNOLOGIES INC 48,781 MWH AMERICAS, INC. 51,759 U.S. MARKETING AND DECISIONS GROUP INC. 53,995 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 55,060 JENBACHER ENERGIESYSTEME INC 56,903 PARKSON CORPORATION 56,958 I. M. IDRISS 79,500 WATER ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH FOUNDATION 105,900 WATEROUS POWER SYSTEMS 204,586 OSI SOFTWARE CANADA ULC 485,758

Payments to US suppliers of goods and services who received aggregate payments exceeding $25,000 1,392,581

Consolidated total of all payments to US suppliers who received $25,000 or less 258,350

Total payments made to US suppliers ($US) $ 1,650,931

Total payments made to US suppliers converted to Canadian $ $ 1,924,820 Schedule 7 Page 1 of 1

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES

For the year ended December 31, 2005

Reconciliation of Payments for Goods and Services to Financial Statements

Total payments to Canadian Suppliers (Schedule 5) $1,074,430,303

Total payments to US Suppliers - in Canadian dollars (Schedule 6) 1,924,820

$1,076,355,123

Total expenditures per Financial Statements (Exhibit B - Consolidated Statement $489,286,328 of Financial Activities)

Items included in Financial Statements but not in Schedules 5 and 6: Salaries and benefits per Schedule 3 (90,661,252) Employee's and director's expenses per Schedules 1 and 2 (2,135,009) 2005 Accounts Payable and accrued liabilities (108,255,753) Non-cash adjustments 126,037 Items in Schedules 5 and 6 but not included in expenditures in the Financial Statements: 2004 Accounts Payable and accrued liabilities 86,789,601 Payroll and other remittances 26,327,497 Municipal GST rebate, ITCs and remittances relating to revenues collected 20,153,380 PST remittances relating to revenues collected 507,604 Payments relating to debt financing and debt reserve funds: Payments to members 8,811,995 Payments to GVTA 471,735,642 Payments to Municipal Finance Authority 233,062,945 Payments for GVHC Mortgages 15,916,488 Interest on long-term debt (75,310,380)

$1,076,355,123

Difference -

Board Meeting Date: June 28, 2006

To: Board of Directors

From: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer

Date: June 16, 2006

Subject: 2003-05 Sustainability Report

Recommendation: That the GVRD Board receive for information the 2003-05 Sustainability Report.

1. PURPOSE

To provide the Board with the 2003-05 Sustainability Report.

2. CONTEXT

The Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) provides a framework for the GVRD’s operations. The 2003-05 Sustainability Report provides an overview of how well we have been doing with respect to our commitment to sustainability over the last three years.

This is our first three-year report, a departure from our previous two annual reports. The format change to more of a story-based approach is designed to improve communication about our sustainability practices and to stimulate dialogue about sustainability within the GVRD and the Greater Vancouver region.

Attachment: 2003-05 Sustainability Report (under separate cover)

GVRD sustainability report 2003-2005 building a sustainable region Table of contents

4 8 12 22

About this Sustainable Sustainability Recognizing report Region in Design the Energy Page 4 Initiative Page 12 Value of Solid Page 8 Waste Page 22

The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) is a federation of 21 municipalities and one electoral area that make up the metropolitan region of Greater Vancouver. 26 34 38 42 One other local municipality – the City of Abbotsford – is a member of the GVRD for our parks function only.

The GVRD’s responsibilities are:

Ecological A Regional Challenge of Investing Conservancy Greenway Affordable in Regional • Essential utility services for participating municipalities: potable water, sewage Network Housing Transportation collection and treatment, and solid waste disposal and recycling Page 26 Page 34 Page 38 Page 42 • Regional parks and greenways • Affordable rental housing • Labour relations services for participating municipalities • Regional growth management planning 46 54 58 60 • Air quality management and pollution control • To ensure linkage of land use and transportation planning through ratification of Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (GVTA) strategic plans including limits on financial components • Electoral area administration, Sasamat Volunteer Fire Department and management of the 9-1-1 emergency phone system. Working Learning and The Way Ahead COVital SignsNOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC Together for Exchanging Page Total58 2003 (tonnes) 101 Page 52060 109 5 5 0 Corporate Knowledge For more information about the GVRD, visit www.gvrd.bc.ca. Total 2004 (tonnes) 115 581 96 15 13 13 Sustainability Page 54 Page 46 Total 2005 (tonnes) 460 60 112 12 10 0

GVRD SR2003-05 / P. GVRD SR2003-05 / P. Photo by Monica Crowder, Clerk III

About this report letterletter from from the the chair chair

I take great pleasure in introducing the Greater Vancouver Regional District’s Sustainability Report for The purpose of this report ployees. These measures focus on key achievements 2003-2005. The report clearly reflects the firm commitment and action-oriented focus of the GVRD as it is to provide an overview are presented at the end of and challenges rather than seeks ways to ensure both the livability, and sustainability, of the region today, and for generations to come. of our performance with the report (see Vital Signs). providing an overview of all We are blessed to live in one of the world’s great places – a place of stunning natural beauty, broad econom- respect to sustainability of our functional responsi- ic opportunity, and a diverse, vibrant social fabric. With that blessing comes the responsibility to under- practices and to stimulate Additional quantitative bilities. We hope this new stand, protect, and where possible enhance the values that are the root of our privileged quality of life. dialogue about sustainabil- data are available on the structure provides a clear GVRD website, including ity within the organization picture of what and how we To accomplish that, we as a Board of Directors have agreed, by way of the Sustainable Region Initiative, to our financial statements and the region. are doing at the GVRD. weave principles of sustainability into everything the GVRD does. This report demonstrates, through stories and related financial in- as well as statistics, our successes in that regard, as well as those areas where more work is required. The GVRD is committed to formation (see www.gvrd. We welcome and encour- sustainability. Over the last bc.ca/about) and an annual age comments on our Sustainability means many things to many people, and throughout the report you will find remarkable three years, we have been update and index of the performance. Building stories of how sustainable practices have become an integral part of GVRD planning and operations. From incorporating sustainability performance measures and maintaining a vibrant, realigning the footprint of our $600 million water filtration project in the Lower Seymour Conservation practices into our activities. derived from the Global healthy and sustainable Reserve so that important ecological features were preserved, to implementing energy efficiency programs In this report we describe Reporting Initiative (GRI) region is a collaborative at wastewater treatment plants that result in significant cost savings, the GVRD really is ‘Turning Ideas into some representative cases, sustainability performance process. To provide feed- Action’. including capital projects, protocol for public sector back or for more informa- waste management, land organizations (see www. tion regarding GVRD’s On a personal level, sustainability becomes even more real for me on my monthly excursions to the Delta- acquisition and usage, gre- gvrd.bc.ca/sustainability). sustainability practices Surrey Greenway. Integrated greenways take advantage of existing utility corridors to provide additional enways, housing, transpor- please contact us at the opportunities for recreation, habitat protection, and alternative travel, but more importantly, allow me to tation, corporate practices The three-year trend data address below: enjoy even more of what makes our region so livable. They are the product of innovative thinking and broad and learning and exchang- contained in this report, community partnership. ing knowledge. combined with the annual updates and annual GRI It is my hope that the GVRD’s commitment to sustainability shines through as you digest the information, We also provide a per- data which will be forth- GVRD, Attention L. King and personal stories, that make up this report. I am proud that, thanks to the collaborative efforts of the formance summary and coming on our website, 4330 Kingsway GVRD, its member municipalities and community partners we have made significant progress in our jour- trend data from 2003-05 provide a more com- Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8 ney towards a sustainable region. compared with previous prehensive quantitative E-mail: [email protected] And while challenges remain, I am convinced we are on the right road. Once you have reviewed the report, I years for 33 regional and overview of sustainability in am sure you will think so too. corporate performance Greater Vancouver and at Telephone: 604-432-6200 measures covering Water, the GVRD itself. Fax: 604-451-6614 Liquid Waste, Solid Waste, Lois E. Jackson Air, Energy, Land, Trans- This is our first three-year Chair, GVRD Board of Directors portation, Housing, Densi- report. It is a departure ty, Economic Performance, from our previous two Public Education, Health annual reports. We have and Safety, and our Em- changed the format to

GVRD SR2003-05 / P. GVRD SR2003-05 / P. letter from the letter from the chair commissioner/cao

Welcome to our 2003-2005 Sustainability Report. The lesson from all this is an old one: “No matter how heavy the blossom, if the roots be shallow the plant is vulnerable.” In political terms, in 2003 the SRI was shallow rooted and for the initiative itself to be sustain- able, this had to be addressed. For those familiar with our earlier reports, you will notice right away the change in timeframe. Our earlier reports were based on annual assessments. This report provides a three-year perspective, the timeframe Refocusing on core responsibilities, producing lauded new plans for drinking water, air quality manage- for the mandate of local government elections, and therefore the GVRD Board. ment and regional parks and greenways – all reflecting the new sustainability approach – as well as con- tinuing a parade of award-winning sustainability inspired projects, politically re-grounded the Initiative. At There is also a second major change to this report format. In this first triennial retrospective, we decided the same time, emphasizing our ‘facilitator and supporter’ role in such external endeavours as the creation to emphasize the broader assessments and the stories, and relegate the detailed quantitative information of the Greater Vancouver Economic Council began to validate the broader conception of our role in creating to the ‘vital signs’ appendix and even more detailed assessments to our developing website-based set of a sustainable region. This slow but steady process received a spark from the United Nations decision to lo- indicators. Our aim is for something more readable and impressionistic, leaving the appetite for detailed cate the third World Urban Forum in Vancouver in 2006, reinforced somewhat by the winning bid for the 2010 accounts to be satisfied in these other sources. Winter Olympics by Vancouver and Whistler based on a sustainability theme. The ‘sustainability community’ The compilers of these stories have tried to achieve a reasonable balance between our success stories and in Greater Vancouver was mobilized by these themes and a highly successful breakfast series was launched stories of attempts that did not always hit the bull’s eye. As I read them over, I share our Chair’s sense of our to help build that network. The GVRD, and its SRI, was seen as a major player and increasingly as a leader in commitment to sustainability shining through. But in all candour, from where I sit, I have to say we may have this process. captured the commitment more vividly than we have captured the struggle that underlies it. By the close of 2005, after three years of hard work, we could see a growing alignment of the GVRD commu- At the beginning of the period, staff were encouraged to see the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) as an nity, the elected officials of the GVRD and the GVRD staff. The approach of the new GVRD Board, which took evolution of past GVRD philosophies and practices, and challenged to bring forward ideas to make us an office at the end of 2005, reinforces that conclusion and allows us all to share Chair Jackson’s conviction even more sustainable organization. Staff responded well to this challenge and a number of projects yielded that “we are on the right road.” awards and recognition from local and international organizations. However, the sheer volume slowed us It would be unforgivable hubris to suggest we have reached our destination, or even that we are very far down, and by the close of the period it became evident that we had neither adequately responded to staff’s down that right road. While the weather forecast is brighter, there are still patches of fog and the prospect of sustainability ideas nor developed a full understanding of sustainability thinking throughout the organiza- likely squalls to be dealt with. But from 2003 to 2005 the SRI was challenged in the way ideas and initiatives tion. are challenged in a healthy democracy, and it has emerged into 2006 stronger and deeper rooted for the The newly elected Board of 2003 also raised questions about the existing initiatives. The ‘comprehensive’ experience. nature of a three-legged sustainability stool approach raised concerns that adopting such an approach As we enter the next triennial, 2006-2008, I am happy to report that we do so with ambition, energy and op- might lead to the expansion of the GVRD’s role, and thereby either invite downloaded responsibilities it could timism. The challenges and the distance to be traveled are formidable. But with the help of our community not afford to accept, or intrude on the autonomy of member municipalities. These political doubts put a and municipal partners, a livable and sustainable future for the GVRD is ours to achieve. brake on work conducted by 11 external task forces and proposals to establish a broader citizens assembly. Matters were further compounded by the confusion over the relationship of the SRI to the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP). The latter is the region’s official growth management strategy, dealing almost en- Johnny Carline tirely with land use and transportation. But, perhaps because of its somewhat ambitious title, it was widely Commissioner/CAO, GVRD assumed to be the comprehensive strategic plan for the future of the region. As controversial transportation plans came to dominate the political agenda, interest in the renewal of the LRSP increased, and there was not a clear or commonly held view of the role of sustainability thinking in general – and the SRI in particular – in relation to these political priorities.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P. GVRD SR2003-05 / P. Sustainable

region initiative regional and business plans redefining business casing to principles into daily work. Staff The Sustainable Region Initiative is the overarching framework and policies in that same light incorporate sustainability, and submitted more than 500 ideas • Reach out and build a network reporting on our progress: for increasing sustainability in 62 for all The GVRD’s activities. brainstorming workshops involv- of partners and grow a similar 1. Speaker Series: Designed to region-wide commitment that ing more than 750 people. While inform and engage staff in sus- sound in design, the Sustain- will result in a truly sustainable tainability issues as told from the Informed by Minister Gro Harlem Conceptualizing and implement- Since 2002 the SRI began to ability Challenge experienced sig- region. perspective of people outside the Brundtland of Norway’s landmark ing the SRI is a dynamic process provide a common point-of-refer- nificant delays in execution, and Corporate organization, and to celebrate the definition of sustainable develop- that involves many stakeholders, ence. we are still addressing each of successes of GVRD initiatives. ment: Development that meets including our Board and mem- Implementing the SRI in the the ideas. One idea implemented “Turning ideas into action” GVRD began at the corporate the needs of the present without ber municipalities, business and 2. Sustainability Challenge: De- resulted in saving more than evolved as a tag line to represent level and involved engaging staff, compromising the ability of future community groups, and GVRD signed to encourage staff to find $60,000 per year and reducing the ‘here and now’ message. For adjusting our business practices, generations to meet their own staff. These groups tend to view ways to integrate sustainability vehicle emissions by disposing needs, the SRI focused atten- sustainability through their own the GVRD, the SRI includes three tion on how we can contribute to unique perspectives – this means commitments: the widespread and long-term that parts of the SRI that resonate • Re-examine and adapt our “ We often think of the future very abstractly and fail to ask the question, “How are we going to economic prosperity, social well- with one group do not necessarily corporate practices in the light live today in light of what we want the future to be?” The SRI is an umbrella for all the differ- being and ecological health and resonate with the others. of sustainability principles ent plans and issues that need to be examined in order to have a region that is going to be truly integrity of Greater Vancouver. sustainable for future generations.” • Review and co-ordinate all our “ Marvin Hunt, Surrey Councillor, GVRD Board Chair 2003-2005 GVRD SR2003-05 / P. GVRD SR2003-05 / P. SRI Framework Adopting the SRI framework social and community organiza- (BCGEU), Business Council of BROAD VISION FOR A SUSTAINABLE, LIVABLE REGION focused greater attention on the tions, and the public. While some British Columbia, Fraser links between different plans and actions will be our responsibility, Basin Council, Greater Vancouver systems and on the need for a achieving regional sustainability Gateway Council, Sustainable clear path from broad principles requires a collective effort. We Communities Initiative, Smart Sustainability Lens • Balance consideration of present and future generations to specific actions. see our role as a catalyst and Growth BC, Surrey Chamber of • Care for economic prosperity, community well-being, and facilitator for collaborative efforts Commerce, Greater Vancouver xpanding SRI to the Region ecological integrity E at the regional level. Transportation Authority, United • Identify and protect assets and resources – Mitigate risks Responsibility for shaping a Way of the Lower Mainland, – Ensure stability and renewal sustainable future for Greater From 2002-2005, regional SRI Vancouver General Hospital, UBC – Improve and enrich through innovation and co-operation Vancouver is widely spread partners included BC Hydro, the Hospital Foundation and among governments, business, BC Government Employees Union Vancouver Labour Council.

Management Plans External “To the Fraser Basin Council, collaborative leadership is all about people working together Drinking Water, Liquid Waste, Indirect A Sustainable Organization Transportation, Economy, Social, towards common goals. We see the Sustainable Region Initiative cultivating this leadership by Solid Waste, Housing, Parks and Influence Business Plans, Emergency Preparedness, Security, Greenways, Air Quality, Growth fostering dialogue among all who care about the region’s future - through the partners group Management Systems Agriculture, Culture... Management, Biodiversity, Biosolids and through regional outreach. The Fraser Basin Council is pleased to be a founding mem- SRI, Partners Committee, ber of the SRI partnership, and looks forward by way of its continued participation to further Dialogues, Consultation, advancing sustainability in the region.” Intergovernmental linkages, International Outreach “ David Marshall, Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council

Indirect Actions Influence Policies, Programs, Projects, Processes

Cyclist on Bridge Performance Measures, Reports and adaptive management roughly 160 tonnes per year of signed to raise awareness of and/or revised three long-term non-recyclable residuals from the sustainability issues, to support management plans: Drinking Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment accountability and informed deci- Water, Air Quality, and Regional plant locally, rather than trucking sion-making, and to encourage Parks and Greenways (see www. them to the United States. people to find ways to improve the gvrd.bc.ca/managementplans). GVRD’s performance. To date we A consultation program was 3. Sustainability Business Cas- have produced two reports cover- structured to encourage resi- ing: Designed to help analyze and ing our performance in 2002 and dents, interest groups, business prioritize capital projects in long- Source: GVRD 2003. representatives, and mayors and citiesPLUS Wins Grand Prix range planning and help analyze councillors to participate. Activi- project options during design, Our initial focus on corporate ties common to all three plans In 2003, GVRD and its Cities Planning for Long- from 30 cities across implementing authority based on consistent and trans- projects made it easier to align included: a Council of Councils regional and national part- term Urban Sustainability Canada. parent economic, environmental our plans with sustainability prin- meeting where participants were • The plan proposes to ners won the International – or, citiesPLUS – focused create a world-wide and social metrics. The capital ciples and to begin expanding the asked to provide key issues of in- In awarding its top prize, project development process was SRI to the broader community. Gas Union sustainability on the GVRD and its 21 legacy network of cities terest to their local communities competition. municipalities and one the jury noted two key fac- interested in learning refined to ensure that sustain- tors in the plan’s favour: Management Plans relative to the plans; requests for electoral area working to- how to apply sustainabil- ability principles are considered feedback from local and regional Nine international teams gether to plan sustainable ity principles to urban throughout a project’s life cycle, We have been revising all GVRD each submitted a staged • Plan results were government agencies and Lower urban systems. developed with, and will system design. management plans and busi- 100-year plan for a and three tools for sustainability be applied by, an actual ness unit plans as they come Mainland First Nations; and nine major metropolitan area. This initiative involved 500 business casing were developed public meetings. local government juris- to facilitate the new process. up for renewal, adapting them Canada’s submission, experts and participants diction with planning and to the SRI model. Over the last 4. Sustainability Report: De- three years, we have developed

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.10 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.11 Sustainability Tree Frog Photo by Dave Samis, Operations Supervisor in Design Over the last three years, we • Recycling or reusing excavated • Using natural lighting and ven- The SRI has provided staff with a management framework that have been incorporating sustain- soils and construction debris; tilation design features ability principles into the design for example, over 95 per cent • Consulting with the public ensures we more clearly focus on the application of sustainability and construction of new GVRD of the Surrey Transfer Station’s regarding how to best mitigate principles and consistently integrate economic, environmental capital projects, including the construction debris was di- the impact on surrounding Little Mountain Reservoir, Sur- verted from disposal areas during construction and social considerations into our projects. rey Transfer Station, Cloverdale • Reducing water use through • Conducting environmental and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Storage efficient landscaping (natural Facility, and the Seymour Cap- noise monitoring and mitigat- and wetland grasses pro- ing impacts for affected parties ilano Filtration Project. These vide landscaping and reduce projects are part of ongoing during and after construction, surface runoff) and low-flow holding plant salvage events, improvements to provide drink- fixtures ing water, collect and dispose of protecting existing trees and wastewater and manage solid • Using environmentally friendly replanting and replacing trees. waste. They specifically address construction products, such as We continue to change the way regional issues such as growth, EcoSmart™ concrete, which we, and many others, look at reliability and quality. incorporates fly ash, reducing capital projects and the way these Cloverdale Seymour- the amount of cement needed projects ultimately will look. Little Mountain Surrey Transfer sanitary sewage Capilano Common design elements within to produce the concrete, reservoir Station overflow Filtration Plant Storage facility these capital projects include: thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.12 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.13 Little Mountain Reservoir Viewing Platform at Imagine an aging, partially buried concrete structure, Little Mountain equivalent to four football fields in size, filled with Little Mountain water, that needs to be completely demolished, removed reservoir Photo by A. Sukumar, Senior Structural Engineer and then rebuilt – in the middle of one of Vancouver’s most popular and environmentally sensitive urban parks. Dr. A. P. Sukumar, Senior Structural Engineer, on the Little Mountain Reservoir Reconstruction Little Mountain Reservoir located One of the first major capital proj- addition to those noted on page 13 in Queen Elizabeth Park is the ects undertaken under the SRI, that were incorporated include: minology a bit from social, tracted more than 500 a team member. It’s when environment, economic people. We pitched a big the common goal is in largest of 22 water reservoirs in the new reservoir contains 25 per to people, surroundings, tent on top of the roof. We everyone’s mind. the GVRD system. Due to signifi- cent more water than its prede- • Developing a state-of-the-art earthquake-resistant design resources. It made it more held five open houses. T he cant structural and seismic de- cessor while being built on the palatable to people work- fifth open house had no Our common vision and ficiencies, as well as operational same facility footprint. It has an • Optimizing water storage ing with it. Then we asked more than 15 people. The mission statement started limitations, a decision was made expected service life of 100 years capacity and cost without en- the question: what are the consultation process with with a partnering work- croaching on park areas things that are going to be the local residents had led shop. We developed a to demolish the old reservoir and and is designed to survive not only affecting people, either by to a point where they just project charter and then build a modern replacement on the maximum credible earth- • Implementing a partnering doing, or by not doing the were not concerned any- measured performance the same site. The $38-million quake for the site, but remain strategy with all the stakehold- project? more. And no complaints against these goals on a project was completed in Decem- functional after the event. were received during the monthly basis. ers to complete the project This was never a traditional ber 2003. We had an elaborate public project, which is a remark- Sustainability elements in within a tight schedule project, being that the consultation – way beyond able achievement. whole reservoir was well the normal – because we Photo by A. Sukumar, Senior Structural Engineer hidden in the middle of a expected a lot of resistance We used state-of-the-art great park in the middle of from the public. At one construction, which got us the city. So, you’re going of the open houses, one noticed in technical circles, to a prestigious place and participant said – “I don’t plus we installed things like demolishing a reservoir, want this project here, right sound barriers and a view- removing about 7,600 truck in the middle of my park.” ing platform for the public. loads of demolished con- But the consensus was an The viewing platform, made Charter crete, causing sound pol- understanding about its from recycled material lution, road closures, and necessity. The supporting from the top of the old res- When we had a dip in the so on. It was a very good structure for the existing ervoir, was very popular. graph we figured out why learning experience from reservoir was very weak. and brought it back. The Little Mountain beginning to end – and very Reservoir We couldn’t guarantee the We finished the project on key was monitoring. It was exciting. safety of people who lived time and on budget. This not just a charter that got adjacent to the reservoir. was achieved through the filed away. We managed to There were no clear guide- So we said “We are going to diligence of GVRD, con- it. It shows that partnering, lines available at that time disturb you for a while, but tractors and consultants when properly done, can on how to apply the SRI to for a good cause.” working as a team on a have great results. projects. When we looked partnering basis. Partner- at it, we changed the ter- The first open house at- ing is more than just being

• Arranging alternative facilities for lar park visitors and tourists alike Engineers of BC Award of Excellence the 500-plus daily tai chi practi- The Little Mountain Reservoir was in 2004. The project has received tioners who had been using the one of four GVRD projects to win the extensive coverage internationally reservoir rooftop to continue their first annual Sustainability Award be- amongst the engineering commu- daily exercise during construction stowed by the Association of Profes- nity through technical papers and • Providing a wheelchair-accessible sional Engineers and Geoscientists invited talks. construction viewing platform of British Columbia. The project which was well used by the regu- was also awarded the Consulting

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.14 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.15 Surrey Transfer Station Cloverdale sanitary sewer On April 28, 2004, the GVRD opened the Surrey overflow storage facility Transfer Station, which was subsequently To manage sanitary sewer overflows in Cloverdale, identified as the first Leadership in Energy Cloverdale we designed a unique storage system that will Surrey Transfer TM sanitary sewage Station and Environmental Design (LEED ) certified overflow reduce and eliminate wet weather sanitary sewer transfer station in North America. Storage facility overflows caused by major storm events.

The STS received the Silver pleted on schedule. from the design stage. The Sur- LEED™ certification in 2005, rey Transfer Station Monitoring The Cloverdale area of the City • Using gravity for most of the Since the start of construction Constructed on a successfully demonstrating that sustainable Committee (STSMC), composed of Surrey experiences sanitary operation of the facility, which in summer 2003, work progress remediated brownfield site in an features could be effectively of stakeholders in the Port Kells sewer overflows caused by ex- saves pumping energy has been slow and behind sched- industrial area, quantified high- incorporated into an industrial area, helped to identify, analyze, cessive inflow and infiltration of ule. Due to the performance of lights of the sustainability ben- • Devising an innovative vacuum facility at a very small additional and address construction and stormwater into sanitary sew- the contractor, we terminated efits of the construction include: flushing system that will use cost of approximately $130,000 on operational impacts on the neigh- ers during major storm events. a small amount of retained the contractor’s right to perform a $9-million budget. • 40 per cent occupant water use bourhood. They also provided When this combined wastewater wastewater to avoid pumping work under the contract, and are feedback on building and site de- and stormwater flow exceed now using our own construction The new benchmark for the reduction (compared with the in fresh water for tank cleaning sign aesthetics, ongoing commu- the sewer capacity, it overflows crews to complete the project. We rapidly growing field of green US EPA Standard and over 60 and flushing nication with the community, and the sewer system into overland expect to complete the new construction, the LEED™ Rat- per cent when compared to the support for the GVRD’s efforts to ditches and agricultural lands. • Having automated controls facility by fall 2006. ing System is a set of standards BC Plumbing Code or standard obtain LEED certification for the Such events, although infrequent, (linked to the GVRD’s Opera- developed by the United States practice) building. are undesirable. tions Centre in Burnaby) moni- In 2003, the facility’s design Green Building Council. It is used • 40 per cent reused/recycled tor and control the process, received the Association of Pro- to evaluate building performance materials used For example, to control odours When complete, the $6-million reducing the need for opera- fessional Engineers and in six categories: sustainable site • 26 per cent increase in energy that could have a negative impact new system will automatically tors to travel to the site Geoscientists of BC’s Sustainabil- choice, water efficiency, energy efficiency over American So- on the surrounding neighbour- divert overflows to a 6,700- With consideration of potential ity Award. and atmosphere, materials and ciety of Heating, Refrigerating hood, the STS was fully enclosed cubic-metre concrete storage social benefits now part of the resources, indoor environmental and Air-Conditioning Engi- with a concrete pit for unloading tank, store the overflow until design process, the project team, quality and innovation and design neers (ASHRAE) 90.1 Standard and storage with a built-in odour- the storm has passed, and then in consultation with the City of processes. The levels of certifica- neutralizing spray system. We return the stored flow to the • 80 per cent of materials manu- Surrey and the Agricultural Land tion are silver, gold and platinum. continue to work with the facility’s wastewater conveyance system. factured locally within 160 Commission, made allowance for The 5,600-square-metre facility is neighbours through the STSMC to kilometres, further reducing a road dedication so that farmers one of seven transfer stations in improve odour control by Other sustainability innovations emissions from transportation incorporated into the new facility can get their equipment to and the regional system. The station expanding the spray system and from their fields. receives solid waste from Surrey • 96 per cent of the construction adjusting operations practices include: and neighbouring municipalities debris diverted from disposal and procedures. for reloading into transport trail- • Diversion of storm water ers for hauling to disposal at the through a bioswale to reduce Source: GVRD Cache Creek Landfill. As part of the discharge of suspended an evenly distributed network of solids transfer stations, the facility’s lo- To encourage the use of green cation is convenient for residents transportation methods, bicycle and haulers to drop off residential storage and change rooms are Cloverdale SSO Facility and commercial wastes and re- provided for staff, public transit is cyclables, reducing fossil fuel use nearby and the facility has an on- and exhaust emissions. site charging station for electric It took longer than expected to vehicles. select the appropriate site for Impacts of the facility on work- the transfer station, resulting in ers, users and the surrounding a significant delay. Once started, community were also addressed however, the facility was com-

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.16 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.17 Photoby Paul Wilting, Senior Project Engineer (Civil) seymour-capilano

New Westminster filtration plant CSO Facility The Seymour and Capilano Watersheds supply

up to 70 per cent of our drinking water. Seymour- Capilano Construction of new water supply and treatment Filtration Plant facilities for these water sources is underway.

Water will be conveyed between of chlorine needed to ensure to reduce the need to drive con- Capilano and Seymour through water quality. The filtration plant crete and gravel trucks through twin tunnels located in bedrock will occupy approximately eight adjacent communities 160 to 640 metres below the hectares and filter up to 1.8 billion • Protecting wildlife habitat and surface. We have received com- litres of water per day – enough stands of large trees, such as Combined Sewer Overflow Storage Project at Poplar Landing mitments from the federal and to fill Madison Square Gardens Douglas-fir and Sitka Spruce provincial governments of $118 three times. Clearwells for water million towards this $600-million storage adjacent to the filtration • Protecting sensitive habitat by When rainstorms hit, the the project will result in system at GVRD’s Lake City • using EcoSmart™ con- avoiding work during bird nest- combined sewers (sanitary an immediate 30 per cent Operations Centre that the crete project, which is expected to be plant will store the treated water completed in 2008. for distribution at peak times. ing seasons whenever possible and storm) in parts of New reduction in combined plant now has capacity to • using recycled material Westminster, Burnaby and overflows to the Fraser process the wastewater • Salvaging tree stump root wads (including wood) from Filtration improves drinking We used many sustainable design Vancouver often do not River, a key objective of stored in the tank. The the dismantled City of for habitat enhancement have the capacity to carry the GVRD’s Liquid Waste tank’s contents will then be water quality by actively remov- and construction approaches, Vancouver works yard in • Implementing new software all the flow to the treat- Management Plan. pumped back into the pipe control building con- ing micro-organisms, organics, including: and systems to optimize op- ment plants. As a result, “This is an exemplary proj- system and treated at the struction silts and clays caused by heavy combined sewer overflows plant. • On-site concrete batch plants erations and provide “just-in- ect in that it is protecting • using beams and clad- rainfall, and reduces the amount (CSO) occur to receiving the environment, utilizing Built on an unused brown- and gravel resource extraction time” water delivery waterways. ding salvaged from a sustainable design and field site in New Westmin- sawmill The new $14-million construction principles and ster, the project demon- combined sewer overflow is a partnership between strates sustainable design • including a green roof Photo by Amanda Felker, Co-op Student storage project in New three levels of government. and construction by: and washrooms for future park users in the Westminster will help to As a bonus, most of the fu- Clearwell at the • reducing combined control building. reduce the CSO problem ture park users will not be sewer overflows to the Seymour-Capilano while the long-term solu- aware that there is a stor- Fraser River while maxi- This represented a unique Filtration Plant tion of CSO elimination by age tank buried beneath mizing conveyance and opportunity for partner- rebuilding older combined their feet.” treatment facilities ship between the GVRD and sewer systems with sepa- Paul Wilting, Senior Engi- City of New Westminster. rated sewers continues. neer, GVRD • providing a site develop- Access to the Canada/BC ment plan that includes Infrastructure Program Given the cost of building There are three com- housing built to green storage facilities to handle ponents of the project: was crucial to the proj- standards – the housing ect, and the partnership overflows, the traditional the West Branch/Poplar will be opened to the de- approach has been to Landing sewer reconstruc- provided the necessary velopment market by the leverage to access these invest scarce resources in tion, the CSO tank and the City of New Westminster a long-term solution. At control building. Construc- funds. In a shared funding after the tank construc- arrangement, the federal, the same time that other tion of the 20,000-cubic- tion is finished municipalities with com- metre storage tank began provincial, and munici- bined sewers (Vancouver in January 2005, and when • providing additional pal governments each and Burnaby) were com- complete will be able to parkland open space provided one-third of the mitting strictly to sewer store some of the excess with access to water- project’s final costs. separation, Pat Connelly, combined flows temporar- front and connection to then head of engineering ily during heavy rainfalls. greenways for New Westminster, was When the storm has sub- • integrating public art convinced the investment sided, monitoring equip- with urban infrastructure in sewer overflow storage ment at the Annacis Island was justified. Wastewater Treatment • developing on-site Plant will alert a control stormwater best man- When in operation, in 2006, agement practices

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.18 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.19 Photo by Dave Samis, Operations Supervisor

Construction on Twin Tunnel

Frog at Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. Courtesy of Inspector Hal Langpap, Hatch Mott MacDonald

• Enhancing terrestrial habitat the ground under the treated The Operations and Maintenance frogs on the mountain by using green roof technology water storage area. This geo- Centre building is being built us- designs exchange system will save 0.5 ing LEED™ standards, targeting The GVRD worked with the site could be left intact. The two large stormwater is a key part of our land • Selecting low-energy ultra- gigawatt hours of electricity gold certification on completion. local stewardship groups Unfortunately, tree clear- ponds are already devel- stewardship approach to per year and reduce green- to save a pond at the site ing was already underway oping into rich habitat for involve residents and com- violet light disinfection for of the Seymour Capilano in that area. Trees had been frogs, salamanders and munities in supporting the primary disinfection at the house gas emissions by about Filtration Plant, habitat removed up to the southern birds. Habitat protection goals and objectives of the plant - this will be the largest 325 tonnes per year. It is also to a number of native frog edge of the pond leaving it and creation are key ingre- Lower Seymour Conserva- UV light installation for water cost-effective, with a payback and salamander species. exposed to the sun. dients in our sustainability tion Reserve Management treatment in the world of 12 years when compared The pond was originally Community volunteers, efforts at this and other Plan. Local school groups, with electrical heat and only developed by a farmer in staff and the project project sites. North Vancouver Brown- • Building 42 kilometres of the early 1900s to serve ies, Scouts, and Capilano five years when compared with arborist transplanted This event and other heating and cooling coils in a natural gas heating system. his small homestead in the ferns, and cedar and activities such as the plant College students are also area. Douglas-fir trees along the salvage event involve and involved. Approximately A last-minute change in exposed bank to provide engage the community in 1,300 volunteers have the design of the project shade, shelter and habitat the filtration project. The helped enhance the habitat meant that a small pond for the pond ecosystem. Watershed Keepers, a of the amphibian pond and in the northwest corner of volunteer-based group, surrounding area.

Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant

“The GVRD has acted in an exemplary manner by providing a thorough public consultation process throughout the Seymour Capilano Filtration Project. Our community has taken great interest in this project, which is developing into one that we can all feel good about.” “ Janice Harris, North Vancouver District Councillor

Courtesy of Contractor, SNC - Lavalin GVRD SR2003-05 / P.20 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.21 Recognizing the energy value of “Electrical Substation at the GVRD Waste-to-Energy Facility” Photo by Ron Richter, Plant Manager, Montenay Inc. solid waste The GVRD provides solid waste While new strategies in recycling tonnes of steam, a portion of Improved waste-to-energy processes have changed the way people disposal services using an inte- are being developed to decrease which supplies the total energy grated solid waste management waste going to landfills, we have needs of a nearby paper recycling look at incineration. system consisting of a series of also been looking for innovative facility, and also generates a total transfer stations, two landfills and sustainable ways to deal with of 120,000 MWh of electricity and a waste-to-energy facility. In solid waste. every year at a rate of 15 MW. 2005, GVRD disposed of almost 1.2 million tonnes of solid waste The GVRD Waste-to-Energy Facil- As energy costs hit new highs, generated in the region. ity (WTEF) in Burnaby operates the idea of extracting energy from at capacity with a throughput of waste becomes even more Continuing efforts to increase approximately 280,000 tonnes valuable. the percentage of waste that is per annum, or more than 20 per recycled or reused result in the cent of the waste disposed in the diversion from disposal of about regional solid waste management one-half of all waste generated. system. This produces 880,000

GVRD Waste-to- Energy Facility

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.22 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.23 awards for the facility: lence Award from BC Hydro reduce common air contami- for outstanding achievement, nants. Pollutants are minimized Waste-to-Energy Facility 1. The 2003 Sustainable Com- Originally commissioned in 1988 to dispose of leadership and innovation in by strict control over combustion munity Award in the renew- electrical energy efficiency conditions, including tempera- solid waste through incineration, the people able energy category from the in B.C. ture and air flow. Federation of Canadian Munici- behind the facility realized they could use the palities. This award recognizes 4. The 2004 Facility Recognition GVRD Waste-To- energy released in the burning process to and promotes municipal leader- Award in the large combus- Energy Facility ship in championing sustainable tion facility category from the produce steam for sale to a neighbouring mill. community development and American Society of Mechan- best environmental practices. ical Engineers. This award recognizes achievements in 2. The 2004 Applied Energy solid waste processing for In 2003, an addition to the system 3. Reduce emissions to the air designed into the existing foot- Innovation Award from the allowed it to generate electric- shed by supplying energy that print of the facility. both combustion and mate- Canadian Institute of Energy rial recovery. ity from the steam and extract might otherwise have been cre- for the installation of the tur- even more value from the facility. ated by burning fossil fuels The turbogenerator that was developed allowed steam energy bogenerator at the WTEF. The WTEF has state-of-the-art This electricity is produced using emission control equipment to a turbogenerator. This project The initial stages of the SEE-Gen to be used regardless of steam 3. The 2004 Power Smart Excel- was named SEE-Gen, an acro- Project considered sustainability volumes required by the paper nym for the Social, Economic and in all aspects of construction and recycling mill. It also secured a Environmental Generation of operations, such as maintaining larger firm base of electricity for Electricity. zero liquid discharge status and sale to the BC Hydro grid. The recycling all waste steel. To opti- turbogenerator runs well and The generator project had three mize financial and environmental provides the GVRD with $6 million goals: benefits, work included an up- a year in revenue. Cache Creek grade of the combustion control 1. Create 15 megawatts (MW) system and boiler modifications. In 2003, the turbogenerator was of electricity, enough to power This allowed for increased heat one of four GVRD projects to earn 15,000 homes with little to no recovery and steam quality re- the Association of Professional impact on the environment quired to generate power. Design Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia’s inaugural 2. Create a revenue source to and construction considerations ensured no impact on the steam Sustainability Award. In 2004, help keep down the public cost of the GVRD along with Montenay waste disposal supply to the adjacent paper recycling mill, and the project was Inc., the plant operator, won four

Courtesy of Lex Engineering Ltd.

Photo by Jonn Braman, Project Manager Cache Creek Landfill Replacement

WTEF during Knowing that the Cache tion for an environmental Resource Management, a process to evaluate Turbogenerator Creek Landfill will reach assessment certificate the Hon. George Abbott, disposal options. Our chal- Construction - 2003 capacity and close by 2008, for the Ashcroft Landfill informed the GVRD of his lenge will be to determine the GVRD made a decision Project was accepted by decision to suspend the as- the best option to replace to purchase property in the provincial Environ- sessment pending a formal the Cache Creek Landfill, Ashcroft, B.C. where a new mental Assessment Office review of alternatives to the and either have it designed, solid waste landfill could on August 6, 2004. Prior project. This decision was constructed and operat- be sited alongside a work- to filing the application, based on the province’s ing, or have an appropriate ing cattle ranch. we consulted with the evolving understanding of interim solution in place, The province provided neighbouring communi- First Nations rights and before the facility closes. constant advice and over- ties of Ashcroft and Cache titles issues. sight to the assessment Creek and four nearby First Since the decision, we of the proposal and after a Nations bands. have been working with comprehensive study was On June 7, 2005, the the province and other completed, an applica- Minister of Sustainable stakeholders to develop

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.24 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.25 ecological Codd Wetlands Photo by Lori McGrath, Internal Communications Co-ordinator

Conservancy The purchase of Burns Bog and ecosystems and rehabilitating returning salmon to Stoney Creek Over the last three years, the GVRD participated in the Codd Wetlands reflects a shift habitat that was degraded by past and improving fish populations on from acquiring land primarily development. the Bonaparte River. purchase of two of the Lower Mainland’s most ecologically for recreational access to also sensitive sites – Burns Bog and Codd Wetlands. acquiring land for the protec- We also took on some habitat tion of valuable and sensitive restoration projects, including

Burns Bog & Fish return to Bonaparte river Codd Wetlands Stoney creek

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.26 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.27 Burns Bog & Codd Wetlands Photo by Sheila Gardner, Media Relations Officer (Former) Recognizing that many organizations within the community were also dedicated to preserving biodiversity in the region, in 2004 the GVRD Burns Bog & Codd Wetlands entered a partnership approach to securing and managing ecologically significant sites.

The $73-million purchase of supported by the community and Both sites will be managed as more than 20 square kilometres local stewardship organizations. “Ecological Conservancy Areas,” of Burns Bog was made possible a new type of protected area des- through a partnership including Both sites are extremely ignation within GVRD to maintain the federal and provincial govern- important acquisitions because and protect the ecological in- ments, the Corporation of Delta of their size, uniqueness, and tegrity and biodiversity values of and the GVRD. Codd Wetlands high biodiversity values. Burns the lands. They will also be used was secured with $4.5 million of Bog is the largest raised domed as ecological benchmarks for B.C. Pitt Meadows Mayor Don McLean and Premier Gordon Campbell funding from Ducks Unlimited, bog left in Western Canada and environmental research and for the District of Pitt Meadows, the home to some provincial- and na- monitoring climate change. Land Conservancy of B.C., the tional-listed species at risk. Codd Mayor Don MacLean, District of Pitt Meadows, GVRD and the province, plus a Wetlands is the largest intertidal donation from the landowners. wetland complex in the Pitt River On the partnership approach and why this acquisition Watershed. These purchases were strongly was important for Pitt Meadows

Codd Wetlands was identi- We were still going to be committed, but at the end cost versus $4.5 million “fied initially as an impor- short of funding, so we of the day, it worked. for the Codd Wetlands, and Photo by Lisa Pelles, Park Assistant tant piece of land to pre- contacted the owners, the People sometimes see I assumed the province serve by the Department Aquilini Investment Group Codd Wetlands as a local and federal government of Fisheries, who then and they also contributed acquisition, but it’s all would be the key players. I brought it to our attention. to make the deal possible. connected. Codd Wetlands am very pleased the GVRD Marcel Labreche fight- The Pitt Meadows Coun- Pitt Meadows put up supports many local spe- contributed money, and ing the Burns Bog fire. cil passed a resolution to $200,000, the province cies and allows spawning that Delta realized how conserve it, but early on $1.3 million and the GVRD salmon to migrate to the important preserving this we realized the cost of ac- was involved in a big way, Pitt River. If that had been was to the region and to quiring the land would be putting up $1.3 million. And lost we would have lost Delta. I was pleased to see prohibitive. So we looked ultimately the GVRD and valuable means for fish Delta committed a sum to partner with other NGOs the province put the proj- to complete their journey of $6 million. When you and government. It was ect together and did the – and the salmon fishery have this type of commit- certainly a collaborative agreement and everything contributes to all of the ment from all the partners process. We worked with needed to make a go of it. region and the region’s it comes together. Tim- our MLA to bring attention It is certainly proof that economy. ing is crucial to put these to the project in Victoria, deals together – there’s a partnerships work. Without Burns Bog was a more which he did and was in- any one of the group that window that opens up once strumental in assisting us. regional acquisition for in a while and you have to was involved, this would GVRD. I’ve heard it called We also worked with land not have happened. Some have the commitment of conservancy groups and the lungs of the Lower all partners at that time days we had to take a step Mainland, and it is truly the provincial government back and make sure every- – or quite often the window (Ministry of Environment). that. The players had to be closes. one was still involved and bigger as it is a $73-million

On September 11, 2005, a major fire started along the southeast border of Burns Bog and quickly grew to two square kilometres in size. Heavy smoke from the fire blanketed several areas of the Lower Mainland. A multi- agency firefighting response, involving Delta, the Province of BC and the GVRD worked quickly to contain and extinguish the fire, limiting bog impacts and restoring acceptable air quality.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.28 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.29 Fish Return to Stoney Creek Bonaparte River Until recently, maintaining fish habitat and The Bonaparte River Habitat Restoration near urban development were often mutually Cache Creek is an example of the multiple benefits exclusive in Greater Vancouver. of sustainability – in this case, how sustaining the Fish return to environmental health of a river leads to sustaining Bonaparte river Stoney creek the economic health of the community around it.

Paving over, culverting and pip- remarkable group of volunteers to build Newberry weirs in the ing streams and creeks were dedicated to maintaining fish Brunette River, which Stoney While there is a wonderful social Landfill. The Bonaparte’s fishery habitat along two sections of the historically accepted practices in populations. Creek flows into. Stumps and and educational benefit to main- is of great value to local First riverbank. The work involved opening up new areas for devel- woody debris were brought in taining healthy urban water- Nations and anglers. However, re-sloping banks, installing opment. For example, while it is While construction of a fish from the GVRD watersheds and sheds, fish are an enormous food because of large spring runoffs rock groynes, placing rip-rap estimated that there used to be ladder by Burlington Northern used for bank stabilization, fol- source and economic engine on and strong back eddies, sig- and planting trees. The results: many salmon-bearing streams enabled fish to return as far as lowed by the planting of native the West Coast, and it is not only nificant erosion has occurred improved populations of rainbow the Lougheed Highway, they running through Vancouver, shrubs and trees to improve fish urban areas that are having to along the riverbanks, negatively trout, chinook and re-established development has reduced that could go no further. In 2004, we habitat. Work was also done at deal with the negative effects of impacting crucial fish habitat. steelhead population. number to two. joined with the Department of Cariboo Dam to regulate the degraded fish habitat. In partnership with the Bonaparte Fisheries and Oceans Canada speed in which the gates open The Bonaparte River runs Indian Band, the Secwepemc In the case of Stoney Creek, cul- (DFO) and the Stoney Creek En- and close so the fish won’t be through properties owned by the Fisheries Commission and verting a portion of the creek dur- vironment Committee to design given a false sense to migrate up GVRD, used in association with Wastech Services, the GVRD ing construction of the Lougheed and construct a series of baffles the river only to be left high and operating the Cache Creek participated in projects to restore Highway cut off an abundance allowing fish to pass through for- dry with the closing of the gates. of spawning areas located in the merly impassable creek culverts upper portions of the waterway. located under the highway and After a 50-year absence, salmon Restoring the habitat of Stoney reach their traditional spawning are now returning to the up- Creek to allow fish to return to grounds. per reaches of Stoney Creek to their historic spawning grounds spawn. Courtesy of Kat-Katkam.ca is one of numerous sustainability The baffles, however, are just projects carried out on this and a small part of the restoration other creeks within the Brunette of Stoney Creek. In addition, we Basin Watershed by the GVRD, partnered with the Sapperton our municipal partners and a Fish and Game Club and the DFO

Courtesy of Lloyd Struck Bonaparte River

Volunteer streamkeeper at Stoney Creek

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.30 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.31 here and there is enough with actual product, actual Culex pipiens to knock out mosquitoes at results, and we believe our whole sites. approach is translatable to The only place we use it other jurisdictions. in great quantities is at wastewater treatment The WNV situation brought plants. The ponds are like a to the forefront the issue big incubation soup and we of mosquito control in the have to use large quanti- region. Like in almost all ties and on a regular basis. populated areas of Canada, We are actually seeing the spraying insecticide to con- population decreasing in trol “nuisance” mosqui- the region because we are toes is a practice that has hitting them at source. been done by some GVRD Courtesy of Culex Environmental The biggest challenge was municipalities; we admin- twofold – getting everyone ister the contract for four of West Nile Virus Monitoring to recognize that there was these and one municipality a better, scientific way of manages its own contract. managing the problem The work done by John what part of their life cycle gradually the amount of and it’s tied in with getting MacFarlane and his team they’re most vulnerable habitat that produces WNV everyone to recognize that on controlling the potential – there’s about a three day is decreasing in the region they are an equal partner sources of the WNV in a period in each genera- as we go along. tion – so we put bacterial On GVRD land we started agent in the water – it’s not out a few years ago Courtesy of Culex Environmental a chemical – this bacteria monitoring vigorously 1,200 hatches, multiplies in large locations - we now have it numbers, is only eaten by reduced to about two dozen John MacFaRlane, Policy Co-ordinator, the larva of biting insects locations of what we call A New Approach to West Nile Virus Mosquito Management – which are in fact mos- great interest. And we are quitoes in this area – the able to take sniper shots bacteria rot out their gut at those sites and know team dealing with WNV felt How John’s plan came the pieces together and and they die from that and that we are controlling the this was not necessarily together and was put into came up with an approach nothing else is affected. bulk of WNV mosquitoes the right approach. Or the practice is best described which says “no we won’t in- The bacteria die off within at those sites. The cost only approach. He present- in his own words. discriminately apply insec- eight hours – they’re natu- obviously goes way down, ed the Regional Engineers “Like anything this has ticide everywhere or even rally occurring anyway – we the monitoring cost has Advisory Committee with a been a team effort – people in a bunch of places – we’ll just produce them in large levelled out because we different plan that wouldn’t focus on me because I’m only put it where we have to numbers – and the rest of still watch other sites in Courtesy of Culex Environmental jeopardize the ecological the head of the group and we’ll do that by finding the system continues to case they become active, balance of waterways in- – it only works because we out where the places are function without even notic- but the actual application Culex tarsalis (adult) cluding delicate areas such have a magical collection that WNV mosquitoes live.” ing we’ve done this. of pesticide we use is a few as the recently purchased of a couple dozen different We know they don’t live So what happens is that sacks of this stuff – they Burns Bog and Codd Wet- everywhere, so let’s go the wetlands remain or literally use pinches of this Maintaining a sustain- people who each bring a in the solution of this thing less intrusive way has led lands. His arguments were through the whole region become healthier and stuff, a little in the water able approach to the piece to the puzzle as part - that’s the sustainable to a rethinking of this prac- persuasive. of this partnership - we put and find out every place environment can become they do live and figure out model – working together tise at the GVRD. John will a complicated issue when A regional WNV work - faster, cheaper, more now work with the member the environment natu- group, chaired by the GVRD effectively more efficiently, municipalities to incorpo- rally produces things that in 2003-05 and continuing, more responsibly. rate elements of his plan threaten human lives. The with representatives from When we started out this into their efforts to control West Nile Virus (WNV) is 15 municipalities and nine was a wicked problem. Al- nuisance mosquitoes. one such threat. Prepar- other jurisdictions, adopted though we still have some a unified approach based If his efforts are success- ing for its inevitable arrival big challenges, we are, as ful, John’s unique, sustain- is one such complicated on John’s plan. In 2004, he a group, very cognizant was recognized by Fraser able approach to dealing issue. that we have made huge with the potential problem Health with the “British progress. We’ve come so The accepted response Columbia Provincial Health of WNV could ultimately to the problem of WNV, far in this, way beyond the lead to a better region- Officer’s Award for Excel- wildest dreams of anyone and more specifically, the lence in Public Health” for wide, sustainable mosquito mosquitoes that bear the who started out at the control program. his “exemplary work in beginning of this progress. virus, is chemical pesticide intersectoral collabora- application. John MacFar- Courtesy of Culex Environmental Courtesy of Culex Environmental We genuinely have found tion around vector-borne a better way to manage lane, the GVRD policy co- disease protection.” ordinator heading up the Larvicidal Treatment Larvicidal Treatment this – we can back that up

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.32 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.33 a regional greenway Deer on Greenway in Delta Photo by Geert Kuiper, Welding Inspector

Network Utility corridors for sewer, water These combined corridors are and other projects nearby. the GVRD, our associated municipalities and community groups have been and other utility lines crisscross an innovative approach to sus- Community art is installed to en- working together to create a regional greenway network that will one the region. In 2000, GVRD plan- tainability, incorporating utility hance key sites along the green- ners and engineers overlaid functions with recreation, habitat way. A good example is a project day allow residents and visitors to walk, cycle and observe wildlife possible environmental and rec- protection and the vehicle-free on the New Westminster water- along linked greenways that stretch to all corners of the region. reational greenways with exist- movement of people. front where school kids designed ing and planned utility corridors their own fish illustrations. The to see how they could integrate Keeping with the GVRD’s part- best designs were embedded them. This was one of the proj- nership approach resulted in in tiles installed at Sapperton ects already underway when the off-channel fish habitat being de- Landing. The tiles have proved SRI was launched and so beauti- veloped with design input by the remarkably resistant to vandal- fully demonstrated the essence federal Department of Fisheries ism and are a wonderful addition of what the SRI was seeking that and Oceans, construction on land for visitors. it became one of its flagship donated by the local municipality, projects. Since then, we have channel design by the GVRD and integrated greenways, wherever trees bought and planted by a lo- cal streamkeepers group. integrated possible, with utility development greenways to take advantage of the sizable Community organizations and and utility linear corridors that make up the corridors schools are encouraged to adopt GVRD’s water and sewer network. streams and undertake studies

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.34 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.35 Integrated Greenways and Utility Corridors There are four greenways under development integrated which, when completed, will provide approximately greenways and utility 100 kilometres of trails. They are the Brunette- corridors Fraser, Delta-South Surrey, Pitt River, and Seymour River Greenways.

One of the first integrated between Burnaby Lake Regional through the Delta Nature Reserve Red-winged blackbird greenways began in Burnaby Park and North Road is complete along the sewer maintenance at Delta-South Surrey and New Westminster in 2000 by and planning for the final phase road, and will provide interpre- Greenway combining installation of sewer between Sapperton Landing and tation for the recently acquired pipes with plans to connect, via the New Westminster Quay has Burns Bog. greenways, some of the area’s commenced. natural open spaces. This green- The newest integrated util- Photo by Dave Samis, Operations Supervisor way now serves more than 25,000 Planning, land acquisitions and ity greenways project is on the visitors each year. The project development are also underway North Shore. It is a partnership also involved replacing culverts along the South Surrey Intercep- between the GVRD, the District of Reserve with the waterfront along regular park, these greenways, property lines or through their to allow free movement of fish tor for a greenway that connects North Vancouver, and the City of Burrard Inlet. by their very nature as linear neighbourhoods make greenway through local streams. the Fraser River with Boundary North Vancouver. The Seymour corridors, involve many differ- installations a management chal- Bay through Delta and Surrey. River Greenway will connect Creating greenway corridors ent landowners, both public and lenge. The second phase of the project This greenway will eventually the existing trail network in the might seem like a simple proposi- private. Concerns of along the Brunette River corridor incorporate trails that run Lower Seymour Conservation tion, as urban parkland is usually landowners adjacent to these considered a good idea, but the corridors about increased process is in fact tricky. Unlike a Photo by Loger Aure, Research Technician recreational traffic near their

Source: GVRD South Surrey Greenway through Delta Nature Reserve

Stoney Creek section of Brunette-Fraser Greenway

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.36 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.37 the challenge of affordable Playground, Heather Place (GVHC) Photo by Lynda King, Division Manager housing (which is the most affordable with families, who are Over the last three years, the Access to suitable, affordable housing is essential for regional rental stock) through aging, searching for affordable rental Greater Vancouver Housing sustainability. In Greater Vancouver, finding affordable rental housing redevelopment, demolition and housing. Shifting social patterns, Corporation (GVHC) completed conversion to strata units. New including immigration and single- just one significant social housing (both market and non-market) and affordable purchased housing is a construction has also focused parent households, are also a fac- project – the Inlet Centre in Port significant challenge at all income levels. In 2005, almost 21 per cent of on strata developments rather tor in high demand for low-cost Moody. High building costs forced than purpose-built rental housing rental housing. the cancellation of a potential Greater Vancouver residents spent more than 30 per cent on shelter - stock. This is not surprising given new housing project and are In 2004, the average monthly rent well above the national average of 16 per cent. that a 2006 pro forma showed constraining the development of that the rate of return on equity in Greater Vancouver was $821, new projects, while the struggle for building rental stock is 1.7 per which requires an annual income with the leaky condo problem The traditional focus of the housing of households have incomes at or above of $32,840 to be affordable. While affordability debate has been on lower $100,000. Greater Vancouver is in large cent compared with 57 per cent continued on some GVHC-owned for condo construction. the average household income properties. income earners, but this is only one part a victim of its own success, having of renters in Greater Vancouver part of the problem in Greater Vancou- created an environment that continues Shifting economic patterns, in 2001 was $41,640, the 2001 ver. to grow and attract new residents. The including a growing service average income of renters in core basic problem is an imbalance between economy and a reduced industrial need was $18,740. Roughly one in Greater In 2005, purchase of a single supply and demand. Vancouver family house in Greater Vancouver base, are creating a large number three renter households is in core Housing required a minimum household At the same time, there has been an of lower income earners, many need. Corporation income of $121,921 - only 16.4 per cent ongoing loss of existing rental stock

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.38 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.39 Recently, it was announced that “leaky condo” repairs required The GVHC continues to look Greater Vancouver direct-to-tenant subsidies will on 13 housing complexes. By for efficiency gains, and has be made available to low-income squeezing the existing replace- improved its annual operating Housing Corporation families that should help those in ment reserves, normally meant performance. Improved cash Between 2002 and 2005, the Greater Vancouver need. However, while this does for other repairs like new roofs flows from operations are being assist tenants to afford housing, it and other long-term main- directed to incremental water Greater Housing Corporation (GVHC) increased social does not necessarily support new tenance items, the GVHC has ingress repairs, so that over the Vancouver family rental housing being built. completed about $11 million next seven years all necessary Housing housing units from 3,397 units to 3,559 units. Corporation of the work. Over the last year, work should be completed. In 2005, the rising costs to sub- working with CMHC to refinance sidize each unit and declining our existing properties, we were federal grants forced the GVHC able to raise sufficient funds to do board to reduce the level of fund- We now house nearly 10,000 In addition to the challenge Low-cost mortgages provided the second major batch of repairs ing for “rent-geared-to-income” people, second only to the num- of building new rental stock, through the federal government – about another $8 million. It units, from 40 per cent to 30 per ber housed by BC Housing in this developers of social housing are on many GVHC properties has required, however, that we cent of total housing stock. region – but there are still more – including the GVHC – also face – but there are no new mortgages go further into debt to do it, not a than 10,000 households in the another challenge: how to afford to be granted under this program. Over the past three years, we favoured approach when finan- region on the province’s social to manage and maintain the prop- have also been struggling to find cial sustainability is a goal, but a The provincial government housing wait list. Half of these are erty while charging low rents. In a financially sustainable way to necessary one given the current continues to be a strong source family households. affordable housing, rent on 30 per pay for the $36-million worth of circumstances. cent of the units is geared to in- of various subsidies for family, The high cost of construction seniors and disabled housing, come. As a general rule, rents are Source: GVRD forced the GVHC to abandon a set so that a maximum of 30 per but new subsidies are becom- potential new family housing cent of a tenant’s gross income ing more limited. The current project in 2004, following which is charged for rent. However, the provincial government housing the last available program that policy is focused on subsidies difference between what it costs Inlet Centre provided subsidies for the con- to own and operate and a property for independent seniors’ liv- struction of family housing was and the (reduced) rental receipts ing – another growing segment cancelled. must be overcome. of affordable housing demand.

Photo by Lynda King, Division Manager

Local school, Heather Place

The Inlet Centre in Port Moody

The 96-unit Inlet Centre is owned by the City of together a range of grassroots organizations, at Heritage Mountain Port Moody, but leased to partners from both the including the Burquitlam Boulevard and Ungless GVHC for 60 years at a 35 public and private sectors, Lions Care Society, Way is the first housing per cent discount – an ex- including the City of Port B.C. Women’s Housing development in Canada to ample of how municipali- Moody, B.C. Housing, Coalition and Crossroads integrate a hospice with ties can support affordable Canada Mortgage and Hospice Society. affordable and support- housing by offering land to Housing Corporation, The Inlet Centre won the ive housing for families, social housing providers at and South Fraser Health 2003 CHRA Silver Georgie seniors and mature reduced rates. Authority, and encouraged Award for Best Public- single women at risk. The The project brought significant involvement Private Partnership. $2-million centre site from local individuals and

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.40 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.41 investing in Regional Transportation SkyTrain Source: TransLink The year 2004 was important for The STP included almost two along with the Federal Strategic the GVRD in that it ratified the billion dollars in much needed Priorities Fund, are significant 2005-2007 Greater Vancouver transportation investments fund- steps on the road to improving the Transportation Authority’s (GVTA) ed by the region, with other part- region’s transportation system. Strategic Transportation Plan ners adding additional funding to New Deal for Cities to Fund Transportation Approved (STP). This marked the beginning some of the projects. Ensuring “It’s very appropriate that the GVRD was the first recipient of these new funds.T his agreement was a long time coming, of a significant commitment to sustainable revenue sources was and actually originated in the GVRD boardroom,” - George Puil, GVRD Board Chair (Former) transportation in the region. also important. The new STP, It was former GVRD Chair George Puil who began the charge to have gas tax revenues returned to our cities, and “ successive GVRD chairs continued to work hard to make it happen. The GVRD was involved in developing criteria for disbursement of these revenues, to fund projects that are aligned with the desired sustainability outcomes of reduced GHG emissions - cleaner air and cleaner water.

GVTA Strategic Strategic Transportation Priorities Fund Plan

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.42 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.43 GVTA Strategic Strategic Priorities Fund Transportation Plan The New Deal for Cities sustainable In 2004, the GVRD Board, after much discussion revenue stream to fund the GVTA’s strategic transportation plan was a major achievement in GVTA Strategic and debate, ratified amendments to the Greater Strategic Transportation this period. Priorities Fund Plan Vancouver Transporation Authority’s (GVTA) Strategic Transportation Plan.

The new three-year plan and of improvements to transporta- the slimmest of margins at the In April 2005, an agreement in funding of GVTA. This is an im- in GVTA’s plan. All funds received ten-year outlook, developed by tion and transit networks, divi- GVRD Board – a single vote of the principle was reached with the portant agreement for the region. will be transferred to GVTA - in the GVTA was ratified by the GVRD sions were evident in regards to 119 in the region’s weighted vot- provincial and federal govern- The GVRD requested that 100 per 2005-06, this amounts to $36.84 Board, after successfully push- the priority and phasing of some ing system. ments for a portion of the gas tax cent of the federal gas tax funds million. This is a major source ing to secure provincial funds for proposed actions. As an example, to be provided to the GVRD for go towards the development of of much needed new funding for the northeast sector line, and approval of the Canada Line stable and predictable regional public transportation as identified public transportation. the inclusion of backup financial – formerly known as the Rich- strategies in the event federal mond/Airport/Vancouver (RAV) funding was insufficient. While line – was contentious. Ratifica- the board was strongly supportive tion of the plan was confirmed by U-Pass: Transit Solution to Community Growth

In September 2003, the by the GVRD Board in 1997. • Transit’s mode share of • Not having to provide ad- GVTA introduced a univer- U-Pass was developed in all weekday trips to UBC ditional parking spaces sal transit pass for UBC response to community increased from 17 per generated a cost-savings and SFU students at UBC concerns about the univer- cent in the fall of 1997 of over $20 million. and SFU. The U-Pass cut sity’s decision to develop to approximately 42 per Source: TransLink In 2005, the Federation transit costs for students surplus lands and build a cent in the fall of 2005. of Canadian Municipali- from $67 a month to ap- new community projected • Trips by automobile to ties honoured TransLink’s proximately $22 a month. to grow to 18,000 people by UBC were reduced by 29 U-Pass program with the The pass was introduced 2021. The community was per cent. FCM-CH2M Hill Sustain- in cooperation with the concerned about the traffic able Transportation Award two universities and their impacts of this growth. • Transportation cost savings to students for innovation and excel- Commercial Drive student societies and with UBC committed to reduc- lence in increasing transit SkyTrain Station financial support from both ing single occupant vehicle were over $3 million per month. ridership and reducing universities and VanCity travel to the campus by 20 automobile travel. Credit Union. per cent from 1997 levels. • Greenhouse Gas Emis- The idea of a U-Pass was The results of the U-Pass sion savings are over first introduced in UBC’s program exceeded expec- 16,000 tonnes per year. Official Community Plan tations. By the fall of 2005: (OCP) which was adopted

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.44 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.45 Working Together for Corporate Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Photo by Dave Samis, Operations Supervisor

Sustainability The internal implementation of Kingsway in Burnaby, the major- of corporate sustainability: Over the last three years the GVRD has committed to the SRI was done by attempting ity work from one of five sewage Eco-efficiency at the Wastewater to engage all staff rather than as- treatment plants, an operations Treatment Plants, Asset incorporating sustainability into its daily work. signing the task to a select group. centre, three area Parks’ offices, Management, Head Office It’s a decentralized approach for a and a number of works yards, Building Efficiencies, Health and geographically dispersed organi- parks and residential buildings Safety and GVRD in the zation – asking staff to interpret operated by the GVRD. Community. sustainability in their own daily work life. While about 500 people In the following section we will work at our head office at 4330 review progress in five key areas

Eco-efficiency Occupational at Wastewater Integrated Asset GVRD in the Health and afety Treatment Management Community (OH&S) Plants

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.46 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.47 Eco-efficiency at Waste- Integrated Asset water Treatment Plants Management Wastewater treatment plants account for over The GVRD has more than $5 billion of assets Eco-efficiency half of the GVRD’s total energy consumption. ranging from office chairs to wastewater at Wastewater Integrated asset Treatment treatment plants. These assets vary in age, management Plants complexity, importance and condition.

Between 2003 – 2005, energy cent of this. These projects will a safety management system, Maintaining these assets and nor too late in their life cycle. software applications (People- consumption decreased by 6.6 have a payback of approximately an environmental management planning for their eventual dis- Soft, CDACS, CMMS, GIS) with per cent, while the volume and $350,000 and 10 million kWh per system, a divisional performance posal and replacement, and the While we have managed our as- smaller but valuable information strength of wastewater treated annum. In addition, the plants indicators system, and an as- acquisition of additional assets sets since we started operating repositories (Ops99). remained stable. We invested now self-generate more than 70 set management system (un- needed to support growth in the the first water main, this task has about $1 million in various per cent of the energy required to der development). The results region is a complex task. Ensur- typically been done on an often This work was started in earnest energy-saving projects at the treat the region’s wastewater with achieved over the last three years ing that we economically maxi- ad-hoc basis by individuals with in 2004. Not the sexiest of tasks, plants, including co-generation the Annacis Island Wastewater are testament to the value of mize the useful life of our assets a comprehensive knowledge of the first steps involved under- automation at Annacis, a light- Treatment Plant leading at 79 per effective leadership, thoughtful while meeting the needs of our the systems. These systems have standing what we expected of ing upgrade at Iona, pumping cent. goal-setting, teamwork, and in- customers is another sustainabil- become increasingly complex and an asset management system; automation and logic upgrade at novative technologies in realizing ity goal of the GVRD. interrelated, requiring structured communicating our plans within Iona and Annacis, and a digester The WWTP division’s Sustainable tangible gains from re-examining processes to manage these as- the organization; determining gas blowers’ upgrade at Iona, Operating Strategy comprises operations with a sustainability In March 2004, we released our sets. In addition, this infrastruc- how information was to be stored with BC Hydro contributing 50 per four management systems: perspective. Strategic Business Plan for the ture is aging, and with this comes and distributed throughout the integrated operations and main- issues of age-related asset organization and understanding tenance of the water and sewer replacement needs. the existing information reposito- Photo by Dave Samis, Operations Supervisor utilities. A key principle on which ries in use. this plan is based is that “assets The task of asset management are investments.” This plan has requires us to capture and easily In 2005, we developed a web- created a shift in our thinking retrieve critical asset informa- based Asset Replacement Annacis Island about assets – from a reactive tion from an integrated system. Forecasting Tool that calculates Wastewater Treatment Developing this system ranges replacement requirements for Plant approach to a proactive approach. Previously, we fixed problems from simple activities such as assets based on the age, condi- as they arose. Now, we manage creating common acronyms and tion, replacement cost and life ex- assets based on their expected equipment numbering standards pectancy of the asset; established remaining life, with the goal of to complex activities such as first order magnitude estimates replacing them neither too early connecting diverse “enterprise” of age, replacement cost and

Key Asset Management Activities to Ensure the Provision of Healthy Drinking Water

Ongoing activities to en- our smaller reservoirs, • Annual inspection of – turnover of water in sure the reliable provision using divers to vacuum submerged pipeline the reservoirs is minimal of healthy drinking water the tanks. This approach crossings. Ensuring ad- – over time the chlorine include: enables us to keep the equate sea or river bed used to treat the water • Water reservoir clean- reservoir in service dur- cover over pipe crossings dissipates. By limiting ing. Traditionally this ing maintenance. reduces likelihood of the amount of water has been done by shut- • Corrosion protection. breakage. going in and allowing ting down the reservoir This protects pipes and • Water reservoir exercis- the water to drain right every several years. In prevents premature cor- ing. During months of down, turnover, and 2005 we conducted a rosion failures reduced water demand water quality, are maxi- pilot project at three of – typically, winter/spring mized.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.48 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.49 life expectancy for our “vertical” up to 40 per cent. The integrated condition of our critical assets assets; developed tools that can asset management system will employed to meet agreed upon collect asset information and play a big role in providing the levels of service. We will plan the conducted preliminary pilot work information we need to allow us improvement or replacement at the Annacis Island WWTP. to make asset acquisition, main- of these assets to minimize the GVRD Head Office, tenance and disposal decisions in overall life-cycle costs to meet 4330 Kingsway Successful integrated asset a sustainable way. “In five years the service requirements.” Dave management programs have time, we will budget our opera- Duthie, Technical Support Divi- been known to reduce the operat- tions and maintenance expen- sion Manager. ing and capital costs of utilities by ditures based upon the known

As Chair of the Water Committee, I was the main political contact for the media during the 2003 water shortage. The situation was particularly difficult because we had to persuade the public to take the shortage seriously, while reassuring them that these circumstances were temporary and unusual. As we should have expected, the media focused on the more dramatic possibility that our reserve capacity was not sufficient for future growth and that global warm- Photo by Horst Unger, Senior Project Engineer ing was affecting our water supply. As a result, our communications strategy had to adjust to Ed Luccock, “ include both our short-term emergency plan and our long-term plans for the regional water services. I thought our staff did a very good job of providing the right emphasis on the immedia- Head Office Energy Reductions cy of our problem, without causing needless fear, after we recognized our early warnings were unheeded. We also learned to anticipate that a short-term crisis caused by the maintenance of and commitment to the in 2006 will give us better Of course, the focus can’t our assets can raise broader questions about future sustainability, so we need to be prepared sustainability program has control on a time clock just be on saving money. led to some interesting low, basis for turning things Having cold, unhappy with information that will address those issues. and high tech successes, in on and off and increased workers because you Derek Corrigan, Mayor of Burnaby his goal to reduce energy efficiencies in what kind of turned off the heat to consumption at head office. air quality we supply and reduce your energy bill can His approach includes: temperatures we maintain. cause serious consequenc- Being responsible for what es. Just ask Ebenezer you’re doing. Keeping it simple: Scrooge. From pumping as much fresh air into the The biggest bang for the Painting our parking building as possible for the Challenge buck, because it costs garage white got all kinds health benefits, to accept- Making the best of what nothing, is to get occupants of positive feedback from ing the fact that leaving the Every now and then we turned out to be one of the the consequences of not containing water restric- you have is a positive to cooperate with energy staff. Having the walls blinds open every now and have to take a major facility hottest, driest summers in reducing consumption. The tions to be enacted only principle that applies to saving measures. Things reflective make the space a then to enjoy the view out off line (for upgrades). We decades. Unable to access media ran with the story in cases of severe water life in general. It is also a as simple as closing or de- lot brighter. People thought a window has energy ben- know we are going to be at source water from Burwell and it worked. Consump- shortages or extreme principle that is practised flecting the blinds can save we had added lighting, but efits too keeping the people risk – we do everything we Lake, the possibility of tion was reduced and the emergency situations. by the people in charge 30-40% on energy use in a we were actually able to in the head office operating think we can to manage the water shortages became a situation was brought Nothing probably could of building operations day. A huge gain, if people reduce the amount of light- as efficiently as possible is risk, but nonetheless, the real issue. under control. have been done differ- at the head office of the will do it. ing we used. It also helped also being considered by GVRD. Faced with the from a security point of view stars can align in the wrong Stage One of our drought It was a good dry run for ently to alleviate a potential Ed as he continues to make way. drought that summer. You challenge of contributing Setting proper schedules as a brighter area is more the most of what he has plan was implemented as our drought plan. Forgive to a sustainability cause, and running things ef- secure. In 2003/04 we did In summer 2003, neces- is customary on June 1st. the pun. After that event need to forecast the risks – which is a key component and have a contingency while operating a building ficiently: a lighting upgrade, which of learning to live sustain- sary repair work on Bur- The usual notices were the drought response plan that was designed in a pre plan in case absolutely ev- When we aren’t here, the changed all the lights to ably. well Lake, one of the upper put out to the public about was revised to stress the “sustainability” time, mak- low energy consumption mountain lakes within our water conservation. But urgency of the situation, erything goes wrong. And printers/copiers go to sleep you hope it never will. ing the best of what they bulbs. It cost $190,000, but source watershed, was nothing happened. Water sooner. In 2004, the GVRD have is one of their guiding and the lights are turned off. A new building man- we got a $55,000 rebate undertaken. It was a major consumption continued also extensively revised the mantras. from BC Hydro and yearly job and the optimum time at the same rate. Stage original 1993 Water Short- agement system approved Building manager, Ed in 2005 for implementation operating costs will be to fix these facilities is the Two was initiated, with a age Response Plan, adding reduced. summer. Unfortunately, it sterner message about a Stage four of the plan Luccock’s understanding

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.50 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.51 Occupational GVRD in the Community Health and Safety (OH&S) the GVRD ensures that community involvement Fewer GVRD workers are being affected by and support for others is a part of the cultural fabric of the organization. Occupational injury and illness, and the severity of those GVRD in the Health and afety Community (OH&S) incidents is also decreasing.

This is a reflection of the com- management system was first Accident frequency rates and As a publicly-funded organiza- more than 200 people watching Multiple Sclerosis Society Annual mitment of staff who are work- introduced at the GVRD, the severity rates for 2005 remain tion, we can provide very limited the “GVRD Idol” karaoke contest Carnation Drive, Food Bank, Used ing to advance their safety. Staff continuous reassessment and below the four-year average and resources to fund charitable in support of the United Way. Book, Clothing and Toy drives, participate in extensive training refinement of safety standards we continue to see the GVRD per- causes and events. However, se- Showcasing over 50 singers it Run for the Cure, 24 Hour Relay, and spread the message of safe and supporting programs has led forming near the top of its WCB nior management and the Board raised just under $900. Sun Run, Dragon Boat Festival, work practices. Their commit- to steady improvement in worker classification unit (Local Govern- of Directors provide our Commu- Christmas Craft Fair, and Bowl- ment to implementing a pro- safety, with a decrease in injuries ment and Related Operations, CU nity Team, a volunteer body made One indication of the level of ing for Big Brothers. gram that meets or exceeds all from 49 in 2002 to 37 in 2005. #753004). Improvements in our up of employees from across participation and growth in giving legislated occupational health Improvements in GVRD safety safety management system are the organization, with an annual at the GVRD is the annual United The GVRD and its staff benefit and safety procedures and, more over the past three years have ongoing, ensuring a sustainable budget of $15,000 in support of Way campaign. through a year-round calendar of enjoyable events that foster team importantly, one that is embraced resulted in a Workers’ Compen- strategy for managing our safety employee initiatives. Employees The GVRD now exceeds the aver- by workers and management is sation Board (WCB) merit award efforts and regulatory compliance are encouraged to participate in spirit and morale. We take pride age participation rate among in our efforts and achievements. paying off where it counts most. equating to a 0.9 per cent de- requirements. community events and charitable municipal employers by three per crease in our 2005 rates. fundraising through this team. Since 2001, when the safety cent. And we’ve been recognized Also, through the Joint Corporate for our efforts – in 2004 and 2005 Leadership Initiative, manage- we were finalists in the United ment and our two unions jointly Way’s Spirit Awards program. sponsor community events, The United Way campaign is only including our annual charity golf one of 16 major events, each of Photo by Lori McGrath, Internal Communications Coordinator tournament, which in its first which attracts its own group of three years has raised more than enthusiastic promoters and par- $10,000 for local charities. ticipants. Other major charitable, This innovative resourcing and non-profit and community events involving GVRD staff include: Red Safety Week promotion model supports a host of fundraising events. Imagine Cross Blood Donor Program,

United Way Donations

2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Dollars Raised $45,457 $43,248 $53,404 $60,635 Participation Rate 22% 21.7% 27.5% 26.8% Average Donation $177 $155 $149 $180

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.52 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.53 Learning and

Exchanging Great-horned Owl in Stanely Park Photo by Andrew Hunt, Operations Supervisor knowledge more resilient cities able to Board members and staff often Many articles are published in GVRD participates in a number of local, national and cope with economic, ecological attend and make presentations at trade journals, and we recently international activities relating to the exchange and transfer and social stresses. local, national and international prepared a best practice chapter • The National Water and conferences, learning and shar- for a book published by the Asian of knowledge and best practices between organizations. Wastewater Benchmarking ing their expertise with others. Development Bank showcasing Initiative, which allows us, as a Notable among these were the the GVRD’s approach to sustain- charter member, to “partner” Innovating Cities UN-HABITAT ability. conference in Geneva in 2005 with 32 other Canadian water In addition, some of our staff and wastewater utilities for the and the FCM Community Plan- ning Missions in Europe in 2003, volunteer for non-profit organiza- Why do we do it? It’s a win-win • Sustainable Cities Initiative (In- • PLUS Network, a peer learn- purposes of comparative anal- 2004 and 2005. This knowledge tions that promote helping others situation. Exchanging best prac- dustry Canada), a partnership ing network of cities sharing ysis of a significant number of is transferred back to the GVRD, gain knowledge. For example, tices and learning helps us to do a between the Government of best practices on integrated performance measures. Infor- bringing new ideas and ways of one of our engineers is active in better job in our region, and shar- Canada, non-government or- long-term planning for sus- mation on the best practices approaching challenges to the Engineers Without Borders, and ing what we’ve learned hopefully ganizations (NGOs), the private tainability, thereby improving of well-run utilities is shared region. Also, we have hosted another in Water For People, both helps others to do a better job in sector and local government members’ ability to develop ac- through this initiative. This has foreign delegations from such non-profit, international humani- theirs. to develop and implement tion plans and assess results, led to identifying opportunities places as Sweden, Italy, Austria, tarian organizations dedicated sustainable economic develop- reduce development costs to improve how we manage our Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, to helping people in developing Some of the activities we are ment plans for cities. and compare their progress infrastructure. and the Philippines. communities. involved in include: to benchmarks and to one another. The goal is to create

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.54 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.55 Source: Istockphoto.com Source: Istockphoto.com

Lake Geneva, City of Salvador, Brazil Switzerland

Lucien Bradet, Director General [former], Source: Istockphoto.com Sustainable Cities Initiative, Industry Canada, on GVRD’s involvement in SCI Intersection in the his- toric EDSA, Philippines What we were trying to do SCI a lot of credibility and own, could have been the GVRD is still part of the “was to show that we have a lot of depth. A level of seen to be just looking for discussions there the private sector capac- confidence was built more contracts. The value for Canadian ity to do a lot of things at rapidly because GVRD is One of the best examples public sector participants the municipal government knowledgeable and from is the waste management is in exposing managers level in terms of infrastruc- the public sector, so the project in the City of Salva- to issues and problems ture and so forth, but also international participants dor, Brazil. outside of our region. In that we had a lot of knowl- were more open to talk the best-case scenario we edge of good governance than they would have been GVRD worked with Salva- dor, reviewing contracts, can help to solve things and good administration with just the private sector. elsewhere, while bring- and we could show that, GVRD played an in-be- tenders, really helping them to understand the ing back to Canada new not only from a private sec- tween role in many cases. solutions and maybe some tor point of view, but from a This was a very major governance aspect of the project. Public and ways of looking at issues in public sector point of view. asset for us – they were a different manner. GVRD was an extremely knowledgeable – people private sector partners in good example of the public would listen to them and Canada and Brazil have all sector point of view as Van- they would also bring this benefited from the trust couver is known by people in-between value to the and personal relation- as one of the best cities in discussion, whereas the ships established between the world. It brought to the private sector, on their officials in Salvador and

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.56 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.57 the way Container Vessel at Vancouver Terminal Photo by Zorik Pirveysian, Division Manager ahead We will continue to incorporate Sustainable development is Please direct your comments to: OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, WE HAVE FOCUSED OUR ATTENTION ON sustainability principles as appro- an ongoing and collaborative priate in all of our activities and process. Telling our story in this GVRD, Attention L. King CLEARLY ARTICULATING AND INCORPORATING SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES practices. In 2006, this includes report is one of the ways in which 4330 Kingsway INTO OUR ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES. Starting IN 2006, WE began TO completing five new management we can contribute to this col- Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8 plans – Regional Growth Strategy, laborative effort. We would like E-mail: [email protected] MOVE THE SUSTAINABLE REGION INITIATIVE (SRI) INTO THE COMMUNITY. Solid Waste Management Plan, to hear your assessment of this Telephone: 604-432-6200 Regional Housing Strategy, Biodi- report, our sustainability perfor- Fax: 604-451-6614 versity Plan and the Biosolids mance in general, or any other This includes launching the “Fu- leaders and municipal official, Forum (WUF3). This biennial UN- Management Plan – and deliver- topic related to sustainability. ture of the Region: Sustainability this dialogue series will help HABITAT event on urban sustain- ing our first sustainable procure- Dialogues”, a series of high-pro- decision makers shape the future ability examines and identifies ment policy. file debates and discussions that of the region. solutions to the critical problems will challenge and stimulate fresh facing cities around the globe. thought on a range of regional is- In 2006 we also have an oppor- The GVRD is an active participant sues. Topics will include Housing, tunity to share experiences and in WUF3. In addition to showcas- Industry, Labour and Immigra- ideas with the world. In June ing our region, we will be sharing tion, Drugs and Crime, Economy, 2006, more than 6,000 partici- the lessons we have learned over Transportation, Energy, and pants from 150 nations will gath- the last three years, and learning Agriculture. Targeted at business er in Vancouver, Canada for the some new ones. third session of the World Urban

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.58 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.59 REgional

1. Greater Vancouver’s ranking in the Mercer Quality of Life Survey

2002 2003 2004 2005 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd (behind Zurich) (tied with Geneva and (tied with Vienna; Zur- (tied with Vienna; Zurich – 1st; Vienna; Zurich – 1st) ich – 1st; Geneva 2nd) Geneva 2nd) (Toronto 15th; Calgary 25th)

2. Greater Vancouver’s Ecological Footprint Greater Vancouver’s ecological footprint is 7.71. Of the 20 Canadian municipalities and urban regions studied, York Region, Calgary and Edmonton had the largest ecological footprints, at 10.33, 9.86 and 9.45 hectares per person, respectively. The three smallest footprints were recorded by Greater Sudbury, Niagara Regional Municipality and Quebec City, with 6.87, 6.88 and 6.89, respectively. [From Ecological Footprints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions” a report prepared for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities by Anielski Management Inc.]

3. Total Storage for GVRD Usage (Dry Season)

100 21 2003 2004 90 244 2005

80 216 vital Note: Water supply conditions are pri- 0 189 marily influenced by precipitation and

Total Storage water use. During the summer, the river 60 162 flow into our reservoirs decreases while the public demand for water increases. signs 50 135 With this high demand on water supply our summer storage decreases until, in GVRD Vital Signs is a collection of 33 performance measures. 40 108 most years, the fall rains return and fill up our reservoirs. Percent of Total Storage of Total Percent They include information on Water, Liquid Waste, Solid Waste, 30 81

Air, Energy, Land, Density, Transportation, Housing, Economic 0 0 Performance, Public Education, Health and Safety, 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov and our Employees.

4. Annual biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) discharges (Tonnes per year)

The following information has Additional quantitative data are performance measures derived 2002 2003 2004 2005 been collected to provide a pic- available on the GVRD website, in- from the Global Reporting Initia- BOD 21,969 19,814 18,453 20,331 ture of sustainability in Greater cluding our financial statements tive (GRI) sustainability perfor- SS 14,109 14,556 13,232 14,583 Vancouver (see Regional) and at and related financial information mance protocol for public sector the GVRD itself (see Corporate). (see www.gvrd.bc.ca/about) and organizations (see www.gvrd. Note: Total Annual discharges for all five wastewater treatment plants. Wastewater treatment removes a portion of the suspended an annual update and index of the bc.ca/sustainability). solids (SS) and organic matter from the waste stream. The remaining portion of solids and organic matter in the treated wastewater use oxygen as they break down naturally in the environment. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) describes the oxygen used up as this organic material decays.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.60 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.61 REgional REgional

5. Biosolids Production and Use/Disposal 8. Regional Energy Consumption

23,963 25,000 Delivered for Land Application (Dry Tonnes) Regional Energy Consumption (per cent used Carbon/Non-carbon) 22,505 21,562 Stored in Inventory (Dry Tonnes 19,863 20,000 5,850 2002 2003 2004 2005 5,850 6,840 5,2 74 Carbon 75.2% 74.1% 74.8% 75% 15,000 Non-carbon 24.8% 25.9% 25.2% 25% 18,113 15,12 15,665 10,000 14,589

5,000 Regional Per Capita Energy Consumption (by type)

150 Diesel 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 120 Gasoline Natural Gas Note: Biosolids production can vary due to screen adjustments at WWTPs 90 Electricity 60

30

0 6. Solid Waste Flows 2002 2003 2004 2005

Note: Since 2005 Natural Gas data was not available, 2004 data was used for 2005 as well.

3500000 Total 3000000 Total Recycled 2500000 9. Transportation Total Waste to Landfill 2000000 Total Waste to Waste to Energy 1500000 Regional Gasoline Sales Passenger Trips - TransLink (Bus, SkyTrain, Seabus and West Coast Express) 1000000 180000000 2,000,000,000 500000 160000000 140000000 1,500,000,000 0 120000000 2002 2003 2004 100000000 1,000,000,000 80000000 500,000,000 60000000 40000000 0 20000000 7. Exceedances of GVRD Air Quality Objectives in Lower Fraser Valley Airshed 1990 1995 2000 2005 0 1990 1995 2000 2005

12 Note: Time Scale at five year intervals Note: Time Scale at five year intervals 11 SOURCE: TransLink SOURCE: TransLink PM2.5 24-Hour Objective 10 Ozone 8-Hour Objective

8 7 2 6 10. Publicly Protected Regional Green Space (km ) 6 5 5

4 2002 2003 2004 2005 3 2 ALR 537.7 537.8 536.9 536.7 2

Days objective exceeded in LFV Airshed exceeded Days objective 0 Regional Parks 116.3 116.6 127.7 128.7 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve 56.7 56.7 56.7 56.7 Watershed 523.0 523.0 523.0 523.0 Note: GVRD air quality objectives are medium-term, health-based objectives relevant to Greater Vancouver’s situation.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.62 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.63 REgional Corporate

11. Housing Starts by Structural Type in the GVRD 2002 - 2005 1. Water Quality (% meeting Health Canada Guidelines)

2002 2003 2004 2005 80.0% Single-Det Met requirements of the B.C. Drinking Water 100% 100% 100% 100% 0.0% Multiple 60.0% Protection Regulation pertaining to total coli- 50.0% form levels 40.0% Met all health-related Canadian Drinking Water 100% 100% 100% 100% 30.0% Quality Guidelines except for Turbidity 20.0% Met Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines for 98.8% 99.6% 99.3% 99.4% 10.0% Turbidity less than 5 NTU* 0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 Annual Average Source Treated Turbidity (NTU) 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 Note: Canadian Guidelines, published in 2005, indicate that source water turbidity levels for unfiltered supplies should be around one nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) and should be less than five NTU 99.5% of the time (363 days in a 12 month period). This 2005 12. Regional Housing guideline also introduced new water treatment requirements and the GVRD is currently upgrading its water supplies to meet these new guidelines. MLS Average Residential Price, Total Rental Unit Completions, 1997 - 2005 Canada Select Urban Centres, 1997 - 2004 (dollars) 400000 Calgary 2,000 2. Water Main Leaks and Breaks or Interruptions to Service 350000 Edmonton 1,600 300000 Vancouver 2002 2003 2004 2005 1,200 250000 Toronto Loss of service none* none none none 800 200000 Montreal Main breaks 0 2 2 2 150000 400 Mains out of service 0 0 2 2 100000 0 Total Rental Unit Completions Unit Rental Total 1998199 1999 2000 200320022001 2004 2005 1997 Year 2004 Leaks 34 43 35 21 Rental - Private Rental - Assisted Number of Mains affected 10 15 13 11 (Row & Apartment) (Row & Apartment) * Reported 30 minute pressure drop in Burnaby

13. Economic Activity Highlights

2002 2003 2004 2005 Change 02-05 Population 2,095,780 2,114,061 2,131,340 2,155,880 2.9% 3. Treated Wastewater Quality (% meeting guidelines) Total Labour Force 1,167,700 1,198,500 1,223,600 1,221,700 4.6% Total Jobs 1,076,200 1,110,800 1,140,400 1,152,200 7.1% 2002 2003 2004 2005 Unemployed 94,500 87,700 83,200 69,500 -26.5% Total No. of tests 6418 6395 7509 7291 Unemployment Rate 7.8% 7.3% 6.8% 5.7% -26.9% (% meeting guidelines) 99.92 99.89 99.95 99.68

Building Permit Values (000’s) 3,711,866 3,817,278 5,029,595 5,700,975 53.6% Note: Percentage of all effluent tests conducted for all five wastewater treatment plants. Regulatory requirements were met in 2005 (99.6% of all measurements) for flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), loadings and Chlorine residual with a Commercial (000’s) 465,820 607,764 657,916 628,615 34.9% few minor exceptions: Annacis (1 case) : SS loading Industrial (000’s) 290,297 216,508 261,705 344,798 18.8% Lions Gate (4 cases): BOD (1); SS (1); SS loading (1); chlorine (1) NW Langley (18 cases): most (15) originating from one temporary process upset; due to plant influent containing extremely high levels Institutional (000’s) 359,284 141,129 326,550 580,932 61.7% of solids, organic loadings & metals. Residential (000’s) 2,596,465 2,851,877 3,783,424 4,032,878 55.3% Compliance requirements vary for wastewater treatment plants. These requirements are based on level of treatment and flow for a Housing Starts 12,844 15,626 19,430 18,914 47.3% given plant. The requirements for concentrations and loadings are more stringent for the secondary wastewater treatment plants than for primary ones.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.64 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.65 Corporate Corporate

4. Sewer Incidents Summary Table 7. Public Education

Wet weather discharges 2002 2003 2004 2005 K-12 Storm events 8 5 7 8 The GVRD K-12 Education program reaches students and citizens of the region through teacher workshops Sanitary sewer overflows 29 29 11 23 which equip K-12 educators with the information, motivation and teaching tools to encourage sustained Locations 21 16 6 13 lifestyle choices that will maintain and enhance a healthy and sustainable region.

Spills School Year Teacher Workshops Participants How many students are potentially reached each Pump station failures 8 3 9 4 year? Other 10 3 2* 3 2002-2003 19 483 11,930 2003-2004 21 534 13,190 Leaks 34 0 2 3 2004-2005 41 708 17,487 Total 81 1725 42,607 Breaks 0 0 0 1 Assumptions: 1. Average classroom size for K-3 is 24 and 4-12 is 30 (Ministry of Education guidelines). * Caused by snow and sand blocking intake 2. K-7 teachers teach 1 class per year or 25 students/year. 8-12 teachers teach 150 students/year. We estimated 50 students/year. 3. Therefore, the K-12 class average per year is 38 students. 4. It has been estimated that 65% of teachers who take our workshop, use our resources in the classroom. 5. Sample Calculation for three year period: 1725 teachers x 0.65 x 38 students = potential reach of 42,607 students. 5. Visitors to parks and LSCR Regional Parks and Watershed Education 2002 2003 2004 2005 In addition, we offer education programs to provide meaningful opportunities for participants to experi- Total park visitor use 6,531,736 7,398,107 7,755,802 7,835,057 ence the unique features of our Regional Parks and the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve and closed (not including Greenways) Watersheds and affect long-term influences upon perspectives and decisions as individuals for maintaining # Visitors to the Lower 514,535 525,000 555,000 560,000* a healthy and sustainable region. Seymour Conservation Reserve 2002 2003 2004 2005 Note: Construction has restricted growth Regional Parks 18,690 17,713 21,115 14,302 LSCR and Watershed 10,400 10,632 11,688 11,418 6. GVHC Housing Note: There is a temporary decrease in participation in regional parks attendance from 2004 to 2005, while staff resources normally dedicated to public programming were shifted to develop new programs better aligned with the Parks & Greenways Plan. 2002 2003 2004 2005 Social housing 3,397 units 8% 3,566 units 7% 3,555 units 7.8% 3,555units 6.2% Broadcast/Web (excluding special of total available of total available of total available of total available The GVRD produces two shows- The Sustainable Region and co-produces GVTV with the City of Vancouver. needs housing) affordable rental affordable rental affordable rental affordable rental These air monthly on Shaw TV (Cable 4) and Delta Cable, averaging about 25,000 viewers per show (accord- housing housing housing housing ing to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurements). In addition, The Sustainable Region was licensed to The Proportion of rent- 34.90% 33.68% 34.26% 31.25% Knowledge Network and ran a 13 week series in the fall of 2005, with a viewership of about 11,000 per show geared-to-income and (delete the) stories are also licensed to Science World and Novus Cable (downtown Vancouver). assistance Number of stories created for broadcast 2002 - 2005

2002 2003 2004 2005 The Sustainable Region N/A N/A 50 41 GVTV (co-produced with City of Vancouver) 60 40 48 41

Note: These stories are in a database available on our website.

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.66 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.67 Corporate Corporate

8. Corporate Energy Consumption 11. Facility CAC and other emissions (WTEF and WWTPs)

Corporate Energy Consumption 4,000,000,000 3,500,000,000 WTEF self-generated energy (from steam) 3,000,000,000 Gasoline & Diesel (on-road) 2,500,000,000 WWTP Co-gen kWh 2,000,000,000 1,500,000,000 Electricity (Corporate and WTEF) 1,000,000,000 Natural Gas (Corporate and WTEF) CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC 500,000,000 0 Total 2003 (tonnes) 101 520 109 5 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total 2004 (tonnes) 115 581 96 15 13 13 Total 2005 (tonnes) 460 60 112 12 10 0

9. Corporate Co-generation (total and as per cent consumed) Notes: 0 does not mean zero emission. It means emissions did not meet the NPRI reporting threshold. Increase in CO emissions in 2005 is due to changes in estimation methods. 2003 and 2004 WWTP CO emissions were estimated based on published emission factors; 2005 emissions were estimated from site specific emissions factors based on emissions testing of the 2002 2003 2004 2005 cogeneration units at Annacis and Iona WWTPs. Increases in NOx are due to higher throughput of wastes and higher flue gas velocity at WTEF. WWTPS Variations in Sox, PM10 and PM2.5 are due to variations in CEMS (Continuous emissions monitoring system) measurements. Energy consumed 237,436,877 240,715,531 230,182,837 222,802,866 Energy generated 162,383,622 177,990,537 167,201,908 162,301,127 12. Paper Purchases – per cent recycled content Self-generated energy consumed 68.4% 73.9% 72.6% 72.8% 2002 2003 2004 2005 Recycled paper purchases that included 73% 76.8% 83.7% 81% WTEF 20-30 % post-consumer recycled fibre Energy consumed 39,604,294 40,240,094 37,233,820 42,445,094 Tonnes paper purchased 45.45 44.45 42.25 42.20 Energy generated 252,827,656 324,885,014 242,506,799 374,572,301

% Self-generated energy consumed 51% 44% 39% 45% 13. O, H & S Metric: Injuries and Days lost due to injuries Steam energy sold to Norampac 232,561,691 247,279,920 92,029,979 235,159,208 2002 2003 2004 2005 Electrical energy sold to BC Hydro 0 55,060,000 133,568,000 116,868,000 Injuries requiring medical aid 76 59 59 47 Notes: Steam energy in 2004 was low due to eight-month labour dispute at Norampac where they weren’t consuming steam, and elec- trical energy was higher due to increased production resulting from lack of steam export to Norampac during strike. Injuries Resulting in lost time 49 45 30 37 Electrical energy in 2003 was lower as the facility didn’t begin generating electrical power until July. Days lost due to injury 1335 1527 593 1149

10. Green Power Purchases as a per cent of Head OfficeN eeds 14. WCB Merit Discount

2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005 Green Power purchases as a % of Head Office needs 10% 10% 25% 50% WCB merit discount, based on performance 15% 16% 10.7% 14.1% relative to our industry sector

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.68 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.69 Corporate Corporate

15. Training and Development 20. Awards

2002 2003 2004 2005 2003 Average training $ per employee $940 $947 $ 992 $909 IGU Grand Prix - citiesPLUS Average training days per employee 5.6 4.6 4.7 4.0 APEGBC Sustainability Award - Little Mountain Reservoir Reconstruction project, Integrated Utility/Green- Internal training program course completions 1,668 1,308 1,561 1,308 way Corridor project, SEE-Gen Waste-to-Energy project, Cloverdale Sanitary Sewer Overflow Facility CHRA Silver Georgie Award – Inlet Centre 16. Staff Turnover BCWWA Safety First Award 2002 2003 2004 2005 Power Smart Partner Excellence Award Regular turnover 3.39 2.75 2.82 3.66

Note: Regular turnover (regular full-time employees) does not include auxiliary and seasonal hiring. 2004 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Sustainable Community Award Turbogenerator at Waste-To- Energy Facility (WTEF) 17. Average Days Absent Canadian Institute of Energy (CIE) Applied Energy Innovation Award – Turbo-generator at WTEF 2002 2003 2004 2005 BC Hydro Power Smart Excellence Award – WTEF Exempt 5.53 5.07 5.41 5.02 ASME Facility Recognition Award – WTEF EU 13.4 12.12 13.5 12.74 CEBC Award - Little Mountain Reservoir Reconstruction project Teamsters 8.93 10.08 9 8.97 ACEC Award of Excellence - Little Mountain Reservoir Reconstruction project Average 9.91 9.57 9.81 9.34 IABC Blue Wave Awards – “Check it Out” publication ARMP Records & Information Management Award – eRIM 18. Work Stoppages

2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 Legal work stoppages 0 0 0 0 Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Excellence Award – Surrey Transfer Station Number of days lost 0 0 0 0 Note: The collective agreements for the GVRDEU and the Teamsters expire on December 31, 2006. FCM–CH2MHILL Sustainable Communities Award – BuildSmart/Green Buildings BCWWA Safety Competition – 1st & 4th place 19. Financial Statements Canadian Society of Landscape Architects Award of Merit – Stormwater Source Control Design Guidelines See audited financial statements and related financial information for a picture of our financial perfor- and poster series mance (see www.gvrd.bc.ca/about). Golden Rooster Award by the BC Council of Agriculture for excellence in TV journalism in agriculture in 2005 – The Sustainable Region Canadian Blood Services Partners for Life Top Performers – 70 units Penticton Dragon Boat Festival – Silver

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.70 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.71 Photo Credits

Cherry Blossom Monica Crowder Clerk III Page: 3 Lake City Control Room Rick Marchand Utility Systems Control Page: 9 Superintendent Construction Source: GVRD Page: 8 Skytrain Station Science World Courtesy of Translink Page: 9 GVRD’s Operations Challenge Team Rick Marchand Utility Systems Control Page: 8 Superintendent Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page: 9 Plant Integrated Greenway Utility Corridor Source: GVRD Page: 8 Construction Interior Turbine Waste-to-Energy Facility Courtesy of Montenay, Inc. Page: 9 Red winged blackbird at Delta-South Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page: 8 Codd Wetlands Lori McGrath Internal Communications Page: 9 Surrey Greenway Coordinator Contractor identifying Larvae Species Courtesy of Culex Page: 8 Burns Bog Courtesy of Don DeMille Page: 9 (West Nile Virus) Environmental Chinatown Source: GVRD Page: 9 Ashcroft Ranch Cattle Source: GVRD Page: 8 Cyclist on Bridge Source: GVRD Page: 11 Nutrifor Garden Lori McGrath Internal Communications Page: 8 Little Mountain Reservoir Construction A. Sukumar Senior Structural Engineer Page: 12 Coordinator Underway, June 2003 Cache Creek Landfill and Airport Courtesy of Kat-Katkam.ca Page: 8 Surrey Transfer Station Courtesy of Eye in the Sky Page: 12 Hydroseeding Guy Gerath Watershed Operations Page: 8 Aerial Photography Technologist Cloverdale Sanitary Sewage Overflow Courtesy of West Coast Page: 12 GVRD Head Office, 4330 Kingsway Horst Unger Senior Project Engineer Page: 8 Storage Facility Illustration Container Vessel at Vancouver Terminal Zorik Pirveysian Division Manager Page: 8 Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant Courtesy of SSBV Consultants Page: 12 Inc. Annacis Island WWTP Safety Inspection Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page: 8 Tree Frog Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:12 Marcel Labreche fighting the Burns Bog Lisa Pelles Park Assistant Page: 8 & 13 Fire Little Mountain Reservoir Construction A. Sukumar Senior Structural Engineer Page:14 Local school, Heather Place Lynda King Division Manager Page: 8 Underway, June 2003 Deer along Greenway Geert Kuiper Welding Inspector Page: 8 Little Mountain Reservoir A. Sukumar Senior Structural Engineer Page:14 Tree Frog Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page: 8 Viewing Platform at Little Mountain A. Sukumar Senior Structural Engineer Page:15 Cherry Blossom Monica Crowder Clerk III Page: 9 Surrey Transfer Station Courtesy of Eye in the Sky Page:16 Multiculturalism Source: GVRD Page: 9 Aerial Photography Head Tightening Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page: 9 Cloverdale Sanitary Sewer Overflow Source: GVRD Page:17 (SSO) Storage Facility Dragonboating Robert Ng Chemist/Analyst Page: 9 Cloverdale Sanitary Sewer Overflow Source: GVRD Page:17 Cyclist on Greenway Source: GVRD Page: 9 (SSO) Storage Facility Beach Source: GVRD Page: 9 New Westminster Combined Sewer Paul Wilting Senior Project Engineer Page: 9 Shiney Stack WTEF Source: GVRD Page: 9 Overflow Facility (Civil) Satellite Photo Greater Vancouver Region Source: GVRD Page: 9 Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant Courtesy of SSBV Consultants Page:19 Inc. Cell 1 Site Work Little Bill Heyman Survey and Inspection Page: 9 Mountain Reservoir Clearwell at the Seymour-Capilano Amanda Felker Co-op Student Page:19 Filtration Plant Valve Chamber Little Mountain Reservoir Bill Heyman Survey and Inspection Page: 9 Frog at Annacis Island WWTP Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:20 Playground, Heather Place (GVHC) Lynda King Division Manager Page: 9 Construction on Twin Tunnel Courtesy of Inspector Page:21 Heather Place (GVHC) Lynda King Division Manager Page: 9 Hal Langpap, Hatch Mott Great-horned Owl in Stanely Park Andrew Hunt Operations Supervisor Page: 9 MacDonald Minnekhada Park Sara James Payroll System Specialist Page: 9 Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant Courtesy of Contractor, SNC Page:21 - Lavalin New Westminster Combined Sewer Paul Wilting Senior Project Engineer Page: 9 Overflow Facility (Civil) Inside the Turbine at the GVRD WTEF Courtesy of Montenay, Inc. Page:22 Electrical Substation at the GVRD WTEF Courtesy of Montenay, Inc. Page:23

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.72 GVRD SR2003-05 / P.73 Inside the Turbine at the GVRD WTEF Courtesy of Montenay, Inc. Page:24 Commercial Drive SkyTrain Station Source: Translink Page:44 GVRD WTEF during Turbogenerator Courtesy of Lex Engineering Page:24 Skytrain Source: Translink Page:45 construction – 2003 Ltd. SkyTrain Source: Translink Page:45 Cache Creek Jonn Braman Project Manager Page:25 Annacis Island WWTP Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:46 Burns Bog Courtesy of Don DeMille Page:26 Coquitlam Dam Maintenance Geert Kuiper Welding Inspector Page:46 Fish Return to Stoneycreek Page:26 Safety Training Malcolm Schulz Watershed Operations Page:46 Bonaparte River Page:26 Assistant Codd Wetlands Lori McGrath Internal Communications Page: 26 Dragonboating Robert Ng Chemist/Analyst Page:46 Coordinator & 27 Annacis Island WWTP Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:47 Burns Bog Courtesy of Don DeMille Page:28 Annacis Island WWTP Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:48 Marcel Labreche fighting the Lisa Pelles Park Assistant Page:28 Annacis Island WWTP Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:48 Burns Bog Fire Coquitlam Dam Maintenance Geert Kuiper Welding Inspector Page:49 Pitt Meadows Mayor Don McLean and BC Sheila Gardner Media Relations Officer Page:29 Premier Gordon Campbell (Former) GVRD Head Office, 4330 Kingsway Horst Unger Senior Project Engineer Page:51 Fish Return to StoneyCreek Source: GVRD Page:30 Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) Malcolm Schulz Watershed Operations Page:52 Assistant Volunteer streamkeeper at Stoney Creek Courtesy of Lloyd Struck Page:30 Safety Week Lori McGrath Internal Communications Page:52 Bonaparte River Courtesy of Kat-Katkam.ca Page:31 Coordinator Bonaparte River Courtesy of Kat-Katkam.ca Page:31 Dragon Boat Festival Robert Ng Chemist/Analyst Page:53 Culex pipien Courtesy of Culex Page:32 Great-horned Owl in Stanely Park Andrew Hunt Operations Supervisor Page:55 Environmental City of Salvador, Brazil Source: Celso Pupo istockphoto.com Page:56 Larvicidal Treatment Courtesy of Culex Page:32 Rodrigues Environmental Lake Geneva, Switzerland Source: Mike Morley istockphoto.com Page:57 West Nile Virus Monitoring Courtesy of Culex Page:33 Environmental Intersection in the historic Source: Tony Oquias istockphoto.com Page:57 EDSA, Philippines CulexTarsalis Adult Courtesy of Culex Page:33 Environmental Container Vessel at Vancouver Terminal Zorik Pirveysian Division Manager Page:59 Larvicial Treatment Courtesy of Culex Page:33 Environmental Poplar Landing, New Westminster Source: GVRD Page:34 Deer on Greenway in Delta Geert Kuiper Welding Inspector Page:35 Poplar Landing, New Westminster Source: GVRD Page:36 South Surrey Greenway through Delta Loger Aure Research Technician Page:36 Nature Reserve Red winged blackbird at Delta-South Dave Samis Operations Supervisor Page:37 Surrey Greenway Stoney Creek section of Burnette-Fraser Source: GVRD Page:37 Greenway Inlet Centre, GVHC Source: GVRD Page:38 Playground, Heather Place (GVHC) Lynda King Division Manager Page:39 Inlet Centre, GVHC Source: GVRD Page:40 Local school, Heather Place Lynda King Division Manager Page:40 Inlet Centre Source: GVRD Page:40 Bus Source: TransLink Page:42 Skytrain Source: TransLink Page:42 Investing in Regional Transportation Source: TransLink Page:42 & 43 Bus Source: TransLink Page:44

GVRD SR2003-05 / P.75 Greater Vancouver Regional District 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8 Telephone: 604-432-6200 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 604-451-6614 Website: www.gvrd.bc.ca

The Greater Vancouver Regional District includes the municipalities of Anmore, Belcarra, Bowen Island, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Delta, Langley City, Langley Township, Lions Bay, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, North Vancouver City, North Vancouver District, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Richmond, Surrey, Vancouver, West Vancouver, White Rock, and Electoral Area A.

This report was reproduced digitally in a small quantity to conserve materials and energy. It is available online in PDF format.

150/06/06 1. YMCA We build strong kids, strong families, strong communities.

May 12, 2006

Ed Andrusiak Manager, Regional Parks, GVRD 505-4330 Kingsway Burnaby BC V5H 4G8

Dear Ed Andrusiak,

We are pleased to report that after carefully considering all options, on May 11, 2006 the YMCA of Greater Vancouver signed a fonnal agreement to sell its Camp How'dyproperty in Belcarra to the Evangelical Layman's Church (ELC). The sale will close after a process of due diligence by both parties. The ELC's plans for the site are strongly aligned with the YMCA's mission of service to children, families and communities as well as our organization's commitment to environmental stewardship and the public interest.

We are releasing to you and the public that the ELC offer is based on: . The continuation of YMCA camping programs at the site for the next two to three years, to allow for the expansion of YMCA Camp Elphinstone and the transition of current Camp Howdy programs to other sites on the Sunshine Coast, Lower Mainland and elsewhere in BC; . No zoning changes and no new road construction; and . The honouring of existing agreements with adjacent landowners. Also, we can advise at this time that after the transitional period with YMCA Camps, the ELC plans to offer non-denominational camping and outdoor education programs such as those they currently operate at Camp Highland in southern California (www.camphigrJand.net). We are very pleased that the camp in Belcarra will remain a place where children and youth can enjoy quality outdoor experiences in a pristine wilderness setting.

Looking to the future, the sale of the Camp Rowdy property, along with funds raised through our Strong Foundations Strong Communities capital campaign, will help the YMCA replace, improve and create facilities and services where they are most needed. As mentioned, we are working on a planned expansion of YMCA Camp Elphinstone. Our

2

YMCAAssociation Services, 200-1166 Alberni Street, Vancouver, BC V6E 3Z3 / www.vanymca.org Child Care, Tel: (604) 294-9622/ Fax: (604) 294-9414 Executive Offices, Tel: (604) 681-9622/ Fax: (604) 688-0220 Finance & Administration, Tel: (604) 682-8101 / Fax: (604) 681-8036

YMCA Mission: The YMCA is a charitable association dedicated to the development of people in spirit, mind and body as well as the improvement of local, national and international communities.

~~l~,~X other plans include a new Nanook YMCA Early Childhood and Family Centre to serve inner-city East Vancouver; a new Downtown YMCA that features a 69-space licensed child care and family development centre, improved amenities for women, space for community programs and services for seniors and people with disabilities; and a YMCA Children and Youth Endowment Fund to assist families in financial need throughout the GVRD.

We are proud to have served families and children from throughout the Lower Mainland over the past six decades at YMCA Camp Howdy, and look forward to continuing this tradition through YMCA camping, health and communityprograms and services for decades to come. We thank you for your support throughout this process.

Sincerely,

1tA-- c~ V}. "-_J Bill Stewart President and CEO YMCA of Greater Vancouver

I-