Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Environment. Does the honourable Minister of Environment have an opening statement?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Indeed, I do, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a statement before the Estimates begin.

I am very pleased to be in the 1999-2000 Estimates, and I hope that the members have had the opportunity to review the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, the document that was prepared for the department.

Before proceeding with an overview of the department's activities for the '99-2000 year, I would like to acknowledge the dedicated effort of all departmental staff who worked towards fulfilling the department's mandate. We really do have a very capable and outstanding staff. I have been impressed with their knowledge and expertise and their scientific backgrounds.

The vision of the department, and we do have a vision that I think is important to put on the record, is to ensure a high level of environmental quality for present and future generations of Manitobans. The department continues to pursue a number of specific strategies contributing to the fulfilment of this vision.

These include the implementation of the federal-provincial harmonization agreement, through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, commonly called CCME; building partnerships with local governments, provincial departments, industry and so forth, focusing on regional solutions, particularly for solid waste; developing innovative approaches to compliance and enforcement; working with partners to prevent pollution before it occurs–I think that is important, because prevention is an emphasis that needs to be made as well as addressing pollution after it occurs; reducing waste with continued emphasis this year on implementation of the province's used oil initiative; placing greater reliance on targets, objectives and standards rather than prescribing specific technologies or approaches; extending resources through involvement of others, using delegation and empowerment, we believe that is a very important facet; using financial instruments and licences in orders to ensure clients' respect to comply with and practise environmental stewardship; striving to provide quality service to all departmental clients; ensuring that the expanding livestock industry is sustainable through the implementation of our revised Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation.

As well, we have a continuous improvement initiative. That is the department's continuous improvement vision to deliver the highest quality of service to achieve the best value for tax dollars. In that regard, the department has surveyed clients and employers for their input respecting departmental operations and programs and to identify improvement opportunities. Generally clients have confirmed the importance of the department's programs, and the department continues to work towards improving delivery at a reasonable cost. As well, we emphasize in our vision training as a normal course of business, we will continue our commitment to training and development of staff to ensure that they are knowledgeable, well trained, and can effectively deliver the requirements of their positions. Ongoing training of staff includes, but is not limited to, enforcement and compliance training, conflict resolution training, emergency response training, Manitoba Environment training seminars, and various other technical and management training opportunities.

We have performance measures in place that we work under the Manitoba measures initiative. We work at improving the planning process to develop a business plan that clearly reflects priority areas, and staff have done extensive work in outlining key departmental goals and objectives. Work plans are being linked more closely with the departmental business plan, and performance measures are being developed to assist in determining whether the department is achieving its goals and objectives.

As in past years, the department continues to recognize the activities of staff, and we will again this year be holding recognition days to formally recognize exceptional employee organizational performance during a combined presentation with Environment Canada and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Environment departments' co-location, an interesting thing in terms of co-operation, is that for the past two years, the Environment Canada offices and the Manitoba Environment offices have been co-located.

We are just down the street at the corner of Broadway and Main, and that working together has led to increased co-operation with Environment Canada and an ability to identify opportunities to optimize the co-location initiative. We are working with CCME in that regard as well. It enables a number of specific program areas to be explored more easily to reduce costs and foster co-operation, and with the signing of the Canada-Manitoba accord on environmental harmonization, additional program activities will be identified, and we like that ability to increase efficiency by reducing costs and duplication and overlap.

In terms of regulatory review, the department will continue in the upcoming year to actively review and amend many of its existing regulations to make sure that they are current, to make sure that they are in conformity with the criteria set out by the regulatory review committee. That is an opportunity, of course, to ensure that we discard obsolete regulations and that we make sure that the regulations we have are compatible with the department's goals of protecting human health and the environment.

Any significant amendments make their way through this process and will continue to involve stakeholder and general public consultation. This is a very open, transparent and inclusive department.

We have some legislation regulations to be addressed in the '99-2000 year. We will be reviewing The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act in the year. A formal review will be done. This act has served well since it was enacted back in 1984, but there have been changes in the field in past years, and the department is addressing them. That act, of course, coming in under the New Democrats, has served well, and, as changes have evolved in the field, we will look to see upgrading it to reflect those evolutionary features.

There will be opportunities for major revision if they are considered necessary. Some changes will follow leads carried out by the federal government because there is national linkage, particularly in hazardous waste management, as we look towards trying to ensure a national standard. Some of the issues that will be under consideration would include possibly looking at how much more emphasis should be placed on pollution prevention.

We know that is an area that we need to look at in terms of a preventative measure. What kind of greater emphasis needs to be placed? Should more encouragement be given to onsite disposal and hazardous waste recycling? Should some less hazardous waste, such as used oil, used batteries, used asbestos, et cetera, be given different treatment under the act, and if they should, what rules should apply? How do we encourage continued recycling or increased recycling of household hazardous waste? How do we address medical waste? So we have a number of questions that we have been working on. Some are new areas, and we want to ensure the review is thorough, so we will be seeking stakeholder input as we go through. The public is most helpful in coming forward to offer opinions in these kinds of regards.

* (1440)

As well, we are looking at a waste disposal ground regulation. The department will continue the review of the waste disposal ground regulation. It was, under The Environment Act, registered in July '91, and was initiated as a result of concerns expressed by municipalities on the site classification system. We have a number of things we are going to be doing there.

A regional waste management task force was established in '98-99, for a comprehensive review of the provincial waste management situation. That will be reporting in the fall of '99. The task force has representation from major stakeholders as well as regulating agencies. The Association of Manitoba Municipalities is a major participant in this.

Livestock waste regulation. Manitoba's agricultural industry is becoming more diversified, and part of that diversification is the continued expansion of the livestock industry. We need to ensure that, as the industry grows, it does so in a sustainable fashion. Manitoba Environment's livestock management program was fully implemented in '98-99, and following support from Treasury Board, there are six new positions to assist the department in this expanded initiative. Amendments to the environmental legislation were passed on April 1, '98, and a concerted effort has been launched to ensure environmental protection from these operations across the province.

We recognize the sustainable growth of livestock industry means being sensitive to the environment, and that is what these new regulations and expanded program initiatives are designed to do. The goal is to ensure that we are leaving the environment in the same shape or in better shape for our children. As we move forward, we will continue working towards that goal.

Private sewage disposal systems regulation is the fourth point, and increased rural residential development brings with it associated problems such as sewage disposal. Large homes with modern conveniences are handled by septic tanks and fields, which traditionally were designed for a more simple lifestyle. We find that in areas with clay soils, such as the Winnipeg-Selkirk corridor, that we are looking to make sure that we have safe sewage. As well, we find places, Headingley being a good example, where you have a village that is some 200 years old, older than the city, and finding itself now with sewage seeping in its land. Environmentally, then, it is required that you have safe sewage for residents of that village. Some of them objected because since Headingley was incorporated, the city of Winnipeg was put up next door, and they are saying that Headingley should not have clean environmental–that they should be kept at risk because the city of Winnipeg was built next door to it. I think that is wrong. We must ensure that we have good sewage disposal where it is needed to keep people safe.

We have storage and handling of petroleum products. We will be looking, as well, at activities in that regard toward the development of a new regulation, and The Ozone Depleting Substances Act which I have already spoken to in the House. Administrative Monetary Penalties, which we call AMPs, we will further explore that possibility, implementing an AMPs process.

I have some fairly detailed notes, but I am just going to touch on the highlights of them in the interest of getting into the questioning, and I may come back later and spend some more detail on some of these points.

Sustainable development, I think today in an earlier speech in the House that I outlined what the points under sustainable development were and why we feel they are important. They are the underlying concept for all that we do in government. Premier Filmon, having read the Brundtland report at the time it came out, became an immediate fan. His background in engineering, of course, and his understanding of ground water, et cetera, probably made that report very appealing to him. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister, to complete her remarks.

Mrs. McIntosh: The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says it is repetitious, because I said this in the House this morning. Pardon me, then, I will not answer any questions that have been asked in the House. So better not ask any. I would not want to be repetitious, so if you ask any questions that have been asked in the House, I will indicate that the member for Burrows does not wish me to answer them. Given that, you have not asked very many, that should not pose too much of a problem.

But I just feel that it is important to stress that sustainable development is the hallmark of our government, brought in at the beginning of our tenure as government. Before it became trendy, before everybody jumped on board, this government was a leader in sustainable development, not just here, but worldwide.

I was pleased this morning to hear the opposition indicate support for sustainable development, because I had not heard that before. I had heard a lot of jeering and laughing about it as if it were funny. This morning I heard support, and I am very pleased about that change in attitude. I think it is important that that appreciation be noted, and I do not think it is part of the "me too" philosophy recently adopted by the NDP. I believe it is a sincere appreciation of what sustainable development is all about, and I am pleased about that.

Of course, Shoal Lake is another area. We continue to monitor the water quality there. Harmonization is an important factor, because Manitoba continues to be committed to effective environmental management in Canada, including the efficient use of the collective resources of all jurisdictions. We are continuing to take an active, in fact leadership role in continuing the negotiations to harmonize environmental management in Canada, an accord and three subagreements, inspections, Canada-wide standards and environmental assessment were signed in January of '98 by the CCME ministers, and there are two further subagreements related to enforcement. Monitoring and reporting are currently being negotiated. A specific implementation agreement is being negotiated currently to activate the environmental assessment subagreement.

There is considerable work underway nationally to develop Canada-wide standards for pollutants of concern across the country. As the standards are completed, each government will undertake to achieve the standard in a specified time period, and we are looking forward to continuing work in that area.

We have the Canadian Environmental Protection Act review which is in line with our goals on harmonization. We are working with other provinces and the federal government to ensure there is an effective process in place for the control of toxic substances in Canada. I maybe will say more on that later. The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, which is also known as the NAFTA environmental side agreement, Manitoba formally signed into this agreement in 1997, joining Quebec and Alberta as the first three provinces to do so. The department will continue to be an active participant in the many important trade and environment issues that need to be dealt with so we can ensure that Manitoba's interests and the interests of its people are advanced and protected.

Emergency response. The department received 434 calls this year through the emergency system involving 300 environmental accidents. I am very proud of their ability to respond and of the fact that people know now to call and seek that assistance. It is a very good indication that environmental concerns are going to be receiving and are receiving now priority attention.

* (1450)

Pollution prevention and waste minimization. Very vital part of today's world, one that the general public has come to understand as well. So there is a good partnership ability and good partnerships forming between the public and governments. This is a way that we intend to continue promoting waste reduction.

As a result of efforts initiated with the adoption of the province's Waste Reduction and Prevention Act, we have made significant progress in reducing waste, and we will continue to work on even more.

National efforts to reduce waste, co-ordinated by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, have indeed resulted in achievement of a 50 percent reduction in packaging waste as a result of the National Packaging Protocol, and we have other statistics as well that are good news stories that are important for Canada. The survey indicated that by 1996, the Manitoba government had achieved a 16 percent reduction in overall solid waste. We still need to do more, of course, and are seeking to do more. That was by 1996. We are now at 1999, so we are looking to see what that figure will be as we arrive at the year 2000.

Much of the improvements in recycling activities are, in part, due to the good people of Manitoba who have opted in with moral and physical support and municipalities who have worked very hard. As a result, as of 1999, for example, virtually all used tires are being processed for recycling.

Over 95 percent of all Manitobans now have access to multimaterial recycling services. Over $2 million annually is being spent on used tires and $4.5 million in support payments for municipal recycling programs. Over 33,000 tonnes of recyclable materials are being recovered and made into new products locally and internationally, with over 18,000 tonnes of old newspapers recycled at Pine Falls. Over 30,000 trees were conserved that way. I will indicate that–[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. If we want to carry on conversations, please do it at a lower tone.

The honourable minister, to continue her remarks.

An Honourable Member: Why do you not just table it?

Mrs. McIntosh: May I do that?

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): No, I prefer to listen to you.

Mrs. McIntosh: Okay. Thank you very much. I thank my critic for that, because I do want to put all this on the record, but I was concerned about taking too much time. So I appreciate that consideration. I thank him for it. I will try to move hastily, though, and not take too much time.

In February 1998, new business plans were prepared and submitted to the Minister of Environment by the Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation and the Tire Stewardship Board. These plans were approved in principle, and requests for changes in levy structures have been deferred, pending consideration of regulatory amendments that will be required for more comprehensive approval. I am pleased to report this first experience with business plan renewals has gone very smoothly.

In '98, the department conducted extensive public consultation processes on the effectiveness of the Manitoba Product Stewardship regulation. Based on this review, the regulation was continued, and the objective for the new business plan is to explore the feasibility of broadening the funding base for recycling programs, as well as expansion of waste reduction activities in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors.

In addition, we will be looking to have either higher rates of participation and the material recovery achieved than the current level of 40 percent of the designated materials being addressed by the program. We also have a stewardship program for the management of used oil filters and containers now launched in Manitoba. That was in 1997 that we put that regulation in place, Used Oil, Filters and Containers Stewardship Regulation, to require the establishment of industry-managed steward-ship programs as a condition for selling these products in Manitoba.

The Manitoba Association for Resource Recovery Corporation was formed to carry out this obligation. It has a five-year business plan, which was approved early last year. The funding for that program comes directly from the industry-managed stewardship program, with no funds being submitted to the government. I am truly delighted to report that under the MARRC business plan tremendous progress has been achieved in the first year of operation, surpassing the business plan projections.

We have 16 equal centres established in rural Manitoba to complement three collection facilities present in Winnipeg. We have 10.9 million litres of used oil collected, 21 percent above projections. We have one million used oil filters recycled, 43 percent above projections. We have 90,000 kilograms of used plastic oil containers recycled, 50 percent above projections. So we are certainly experiencing success there, and that is another success story I am pleased to report upon.

Other new initiatives that will be receiving particular attention from the department will include organic waste and composting, construction and demolition of waste, and household hazardous waste. The biggest shift in Manitoba's waste reduction strategy is the third strategy component, to reduce, on reducing waste at source–the first R of the three R hierarchy of waste reduction, which is reduce, reuse and recycle.

We want to work on reducing, and to accomplish this means working in close partnership directly with Manitoba businesses. We have had, since 1996, a very close co-operation with the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada in the Manitoba division. Under a memorandum of understanding committed to raising awareness and developing methods to improve environmental performance and competitiveness, information material, success stories and procedures for conducting pollution-prevention audits have been prepared and a progress report on this project has just been completed.

As a result of these efforts, the Technical Assistance for Pollution Prevention office was established by the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada in 1998. This partnership with my department and Environment Canada will focus its assistance to small- and medium-size enterprises, where indeed an opportunity is highest.

I am pleased to report that results are beginning to occur in the printing sector, which is the first area being targeted by this project, with a demonstration of pollution-prevention practices by Manitoba's printing industry. I am optimistic that the encouragement of voluntary initiatives to prevent pollution will be a very effective complement to my department's existing compliance and enforcement programs.

Mr. Chairman, we talked about regional based management this morning with the Capital Region Committee. We have done a lot of work in regional waste management preparation. My predecessor, the Honourable Mr. McCrae, established a regional waste management task force to review solid waste management activities throughout the province and to make recommendations to the government of Manitoba on opportunities to support the further development of regional waste management systems in Manitoba. It is an area to which we will be devoting considerable attention in the coming year.

The objective of the regional waste management task force is to develop a regional solid waste management action plan that will propose a vision for a province-wide solid waste management system. It will minimize risk to human health and the environment and support the continued growth of the Manitoba economy. We are working together in conjunction with municipalities, the city and the Capital Region and the AMM, as it is called now, because they are no longer two municipal organizations. They will, in developing their action plan, review solid waste management activities in Manitoba, review waste management strategies in other jurisdictions, review provincial waste management facility operating regular requirements, undertake public consultations and make recommendations on waste management practices and funding criteria to support regional waste developments.

They will be concluding their work, we hope, sometime in the summer of '99. I am hesitant to give specific dates for reasons that if you say July and it is August, then you are in trouble or vice versa, so just that we expect sometime in the summer of '99 that they will complete their work. We encourage them to move along at a good pace, but we do not want them to move with unseemly haste. We would like them to be thorough and make sure they have taken the time to cover their research thoroughly. When they are finished, we will be in an excellent position then to adopt and pursue an integrated solid waste management strategy. As I say, a similar exercise is focusing on the Capital Region as well.

The Environmental Youth Corps, I guess people are familiar with this one. They will be operating again in the '99-2000 year. I am very pleased to confirm that. The Environmental Youth Corps offers Manitoba's young people an opportunity to prepare for environmental challenges of tomorrow by gaining valuable education experience today. That program has been well received. The environmental projects eligible for funding to a maximum of $5,000 include, but they are not restricted to, water quality, waste minimization, protection of flora and fauna, rehabilitation of the natural environment and habitat preservation. So that program focuses on maximizing the involvement and participation of youth.

* (1500)

Over $1 million, during that last eight years, has been provided to 422 community projects involving over 40,000 young people. During this last fiscal year, a total of 56 projects received EYC grants totalling $139,000, and they involved over 3,000 young people.

So it is a very good program, again, working in partnerships, and we find that those partnerships provide a most effective delivery system. It also illustrates the importance of community participation and pride in protecting one's environment.

Manitoba water quality, that is something we are all concerned about. I know the member this morning, this afternoon, earlier this afternoon, was asking questions that ultimately were about the quality of water. Or was it this morning? Sorry, was speaking this morning, yes, on a resolution he put forward. While I maybe disagreed on some of the processes, I certainly agree with the member on the need to ensure that our water quality remains high. The goal there in our Manitoba water quality initiatives would be to make sure we continue undertaking studies to gain a better understanding of the impacts that maybe put water quality at risk. So we will work closely with the agricultural sector, and we will be looking, as well, to seek early solutions to avoid costly problems; again, prevention over addressing problems later.

We will work with the stewardship groups throughout the province. We are continuing to monitor the many streams, rivers and lakes in Manitoba to track water quality changes and implement early corrective measures when they are needed. We will provide the technical and scientific skills to ensure they are well positioned to respond to water quality issues both at the present time and in the future. We will continue to maintain strong links with local laboratories to ensure we have the technical support to deliver sound programs in both water quality and other environmental factors.

We receive a lot of our water from upstream neighbours in Saskatchewan, Ontario, North Dakota and Minnesota because of our geographic location, and we will work co-operatively with our neighbours to ensure that water, as it crosses borders, is of the highest possible quality required to meet our needs here in Manitoba.

I think on the issue of climate change I have made comments earlier in the Chamber. We are active participants in the national process that has been established in response to the Kyoto Protocol challenge. We have a national implementation strategy currently being developed, and my department is assisting in the development of a provincial climate change strategy. We are working towards the management and reduction of the release of greenhouse gases.

The State of the Environment Reporting: The proclamation of The Sustainable Development Act on July 1, '98, replaced The Environment Act requirement for state of the environment reporting with sustainability reporting. Based on the development of a set of provincial sustainability indicators, the first full sustainability report is not required until 2004, but we will incorporate information on sustainability indicators. Those indicators will incorporate information on environmental, economic and social issues.

We will have an interim stability report ready in 2000, and that is intended to address the gap between the '97 State of the Environment Report and the first full sustainability report in 2004. This report will provide an analysis of the recommended sustainability indicators and present a focus on the issue of urban sustainability.

The department, of course, continues to work with a whole series of groups and governments and nongovernment organizations on those kinds of initiatives. From this group of partners, a small core team was established, and over the past several months the core team has developed a definition and criteria for sustainability indicators, a list of categories with which to identify sustainability issues, key sustainability issues for these categories, possible indicators to address the issues and suggestions for linkages and discussion between the categories, issues and indicators.

That information will first go to the full working group and then to the sustainability reporting subcommittee of the Manitoba round table and then to further revisions we made to a list of issues and indicators before we are into public consultations in the fall.

The department has an enforceability component, of course. The department this year was responsible for some 1,450 licensed operations in the province. These operations are obliged under the terms of their licences to meet certain environmental and health conditions. The number of key areas of focus in this regard include strengthening of the compliance program in the livestock area in keeping with the new Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation, increased Environment Act licence enforcement respecting forest management activities in support of the sustainability of this industry. That would include an audit of the Louisiana-Pacific air monitoring program, that type of thing.

Continuing to address contaminated sites and hazardous waste regulations is a priority area; continuing to give priority attention to addressing Flin Flon air quality concerns, as well as water management issues in the area, placing increased emphasis on ambient water quality monitoring to ensure this critical resource is protected; regularly inspect all licensed sewage treatment plants to ensure compliance.

A risk management approach will be implemented with respect to Environmental Act licence enforcement to ensure that the department resources are targeted at those operations posing the greatest risk or concern and reviewing all components of the food inspection program and development of a clearer risk management policy and protocol for inspections and compliance.

As well, Mr. Chairman, we have a whole series of activities being undertaken in terms of a drinking water program. A very quick highlight of some of the activities: a risk assessment protocol will be implemented to determine the need for frequency of inspections and sampling of water supply sources; enter into partnerships with the industry re Canadian Water & Wastewater Association relative to playing a more active role in the operation of facilities.

Thorough regulatory review: a number of regulatory processes will be streamlined with more authority being delegated to the environmental officers and public health inspectors. Improved operator training will be pursued. Mandatory training will be considered. Local entities will be encouraged to take a greater interest. Those that use the water need to be more involved; and partnership opportunities with the Union of Manitoba Municipalities or the AMM.

Northern Affairs First Nations organizations, seasonal operations, the Parks Branch will be explored, et cetera. We will also conduct a northern community water sewage treatment plant operator training session in conjunction with Northern Affairs.

That concludes my opening remarks with respect to the '99-2000 Estimates.

I thank my honourable critic for his patience and the time that he allowed me to make these remarks and for his listening carefully to them. I look forward to his remarks and the questions he might pose.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Minister of Environment for those remarks. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), have opening remarks?

Mr. Dewar: I would like to begin by just welcoming the minister to her new responsibilities. I know that we have had the opportunity, though she claims it has been a very infrequent opportunity, to deal with questions in the House, but I like to think I have had a number of good questions raised.

I want to thank as well her dedicated staff who are here today and will be joining us soon, who are working every day to monitor and to sustain our natural environment in this province. There will be a number of issues that I wish to touch on in the time that we have today. Clearly some of the issues that we have raised in Question Period, we would like to follow up on some of those.

* (1510)

In the minister's comments she raised a number of issues as well that I would like to touch upon. You mentioned water testing. I think water is probably one of the most important environmental concerns that we have as a province. I know I get calls, and following the issues and are aware of issues concerning water quality. We raised that the other day in Question Period, not only the rivers but of course the aquifers that many Manitobans rely upon for their source of drinking water. You raised an important point about the expansion of septic fields in the Capital Region and waste management in the Capital Region. I would like to speak about that.

I recently moved from Selkirk to Lockport. We moved from a system where, of course, we had a very well maintained sewage system to a septic field. So that is different. When I was younger, we lived on a farm. We were used to the idea of septic fields and how that worked, but it also has an impact upon the natural environment. What we have seen in my area, and there is no denying that that there has been a great deal of expansion over the last 20 years, the last 10 years, between Selkirk and Winnipeg, for example, on both sides of the river. There has been just an incredible expansion of housing units and most of them, I suppose all of them, have septic fields as their source to deal with human waste. So that is something we want to follow up on.

As well, discussions we have had recently and will continue to have is the expansion of the hog industry. But it is not only the hog industry, of course, it is the livestock industry, whether it is cattle or chickens and turkeys and so on. They do create a tremendous amount of by-products which have to be dealt with, however. You know, some cases the waste is simply sprayed on a field or it is injected. This is a hot topic, as you know. There has been a rapid expansion of the hog industry in Manitoba, hog production, over the last number of years, and I think it concerns all of us and we want to deal with that.

Last year my colleagues the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and I attended a number of forums throughout the province. Some of them there was a little concern and in others there were a number of concerns raised about the placing of these hog operations. You know, poorly placed, poorly drained soil, near sinkholes, near aquifers that could potentially be at risk. We want to follow up on that in the time that we have.

As well, we have a report on the Consultation on the Sustainable Development Implementation report, the COSDI report, and in there is a number of very useful suggestions and recommendations. I think we should look at some of those as we proceed today. They talk in there about further public participation in the licensing of developments. They talk about the relationship between government and First Nations.

I want to talk about the harmonization agreement with the federal minister, ask about that, the auditing procedures and so on. I want to talk about the stewardship program, the oil recycling program. I had the opportunity to attend with your predecessor when he was in Selkirk last year, and we both participated in the opening of the Selkirk oil recovery facility in our community. That is something which as an individual who maintains his own vehicles and changes the oil in my car, I appreciate that because I do have the chance–I know that the oil will be recycled. Well, we will go into that as well, talk about the Household Hazardous Waste Program as well.

But there was something I wanted to touch on. It was troublesome, and I guess anybody in my position as the Environment critic will have to deal with it. It happened today in the House, and it happened in the past to my predecessors in this job, and that is, you know, sometimes it is difficult to have a mature, responsible debate on some of these issues. It happened yesterday when I stood up in the House just to ask about some of the concerns regarding the Maple Leaf plant in Brandon. I stood up, and your side of the House associated the Environment critic with Maple Leaf, and without even hearing what I said, without even listening to what my questions were, it was, oh, you are against the project, you want to shut it down, did you guys caucus this, does the member for Brandon East know this.

That, to me, was not a responsible way to try to deal with some of these issues. You know, if I ask a question on recycling, are we going to be then accused of being against recycling? We have a job to do. We have a responsibility to raise these issues, and we want to be able to raise these issues. But that to me was a big concern, when you try to raise the issues. And you were there. You heard the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) and his comments, and the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach). All he said in his comments, without even listening to what I had said because he was not there, or he had missed my comments, he said: all the member wants to do is shut down this plant in Brandon.

That is what he said in his comments, without listening to what I had said, and I do not know if that is a responsible way to deal with some of these important issues that we have a responsibility to raise in this forum. People ask us to raise these issues and we do. Manitobans want these issues raised, as well as we do.

So those are just some of the concerns that I have regarding some of the issues that we have to bring forward to the House. So, Mr. Chairman, I think what we should do now is we can get into some questions. You can invite your staff up and we will get into questioning now.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the critic for the official opposition for those remarks.

Under the Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line. Before we do that, we ask the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister to introduce her staff.

Mrs. McIntosh: I am pleased to introduce from my department, and I hope I am going to get all their titles correct. I will just double-check and make sure I am not giving incorrect titles.

Dave Wotton is the assistant deputy minister, and he has been very helpful in a number of areas already. I am familiar with his work and impressed with it. Gerry Glenn is acting director of Administration. Serge Scrafield is assistant deputy minister of Environmental Management, and Dave Wotton has Environmental Operations Division on his card.

These gentlemen, among many others, are extremely helpful to the minister and to the public, and I am impressed with the quality of their work.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister, and we will now proceed to line 31.1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $365,600, on page 62 of the main Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Dewar: What we have done before in the Estimates of this department is we just asked questions of a general nature, where we just sort of moved around from department to department within the overall Environment department, and if there is an issue that the minister does not have an answer to, she could respond in writing. If that is acceptable by her, I think that must be the most perfect way to do it.

* (1520)

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to have questions that should range throughout the Estimates, and then at the end to pass those Estimates? Is that the will of the committee? Agreed? [agreed]

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairperson, I would just like to ask a general question of the minister–she is a new minister to the portfolio–about just what her priorities are as the Minister of Environment for this province. She can discuss, perhaps, some of the challenges that she thinks she faces and we face as Manitobans, some of the problem areas, and maybe some of the success stories. She mentioned some of these, but, from her short tenure so far as the minister, maybe she can just tell us some of her priorities as the Minister of Environment.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I would answer that in two ways: first, of course, the priorities that I would hold would be mandated initially by cabinet and by government. So I have as my own priorities then assumed the priorities of government, which are reflected in the department.

Personally, my own personal feelings, you mentioned one item that is of high importance to you and it is also to me, and that is water, but, aside from those kinds of very tangible, natural things that you can touch and feel and look at and see, what I would really love to be able to do, if I could change anything, would be to change attitudes.

Maybe it is because I have come from the educational portfolio straight into this one, but I think all of us together have seen big changes in attitudes in last 20 years about environmental things. Twenty years ago, for example, my mother used to save her margarine containers and reuse and recycle them, and people used to tease her and kind of laugh at her because she was out of sync. Now that is common; people understand that it is important to do those things. She just did it because she was frugal, but there are deeper reasons for doing those things now or for avoiding having a plastic margarine container in the first instance, you know. So I see tremendous progress having been made in the way people approach recycling.

There are still a lot of areas in the environment that people have not yet grasped. People will still make jokes about climate change. They sort of do not take it that seriously. There are still a lot of issues, such as those that have implications for our world, for our planet, for us as human beings. I think most people when they become aware of them do opt in very quickly and very easily and very willingly to work to be part of a solution, instead of part of a problem, but it takes a lot of educating.

So, if I had one kind of personal goal, it would be to see an understanding of sustainable development really be grasped by the generation that is coming up and by those of us in my generation who were not raised with it as a natural way of thinking. I would like to see it become a natural way of thinking.

Humankind has always been part of a natural cycle, and it used to live in harmony with that natural cycle for generations and generations and centuries and centuries. Then it went through a period of generations and maybe a century or two where they forgot to live in harmony with the environment, started abusing it in the name of progress, and we now have some big problems to address.

In trying to correct them, I think that we went a route that was not sustainable. We went a route that was–some extremists almost saying that humankind should no longer be part of the natural cycle, that we should not do or use anything. We should never chop down a tree, for example. Do not chop down a tree, instead of realizing that humankind has always used trees, and there are ways to do it that will not deplete forests. There are ways to do it that will sustain the natural resource for future generations. That, of course, is the sustainable development initiative.

We need to build a capacity for our clientele, for our consumers, our people to further environmental stewardship on their own initiative, without having to be goaded or prodded or legislated by government, but that they see its worth and willingly do it on their own. We can do this by outreach programs to our clients. We can do it by education, and we can do it by videos, brochures, and this whole process that we are going through that the member was talking about this morning in his resolution of what the best process is, a one-stage process or a multistage process. All of that, whatever the process is, involves how the public participates, how the public expresses opinions, how the public gathers information, grows in knowledge and understanding, and makes decisions. I think, whichever process is decided upon, it has always got to include that component, and that would be part of something that I particularly value on a personal level.

I must indicate right off the bat how very much I appreciate the tone the member is bringing to this table because you indicated earlier your frustration in the heckling in the answers. I understand. Sometimes that is sent across because of the way in which questions are asked, or the heckling that comes from the other side. A lot of it sometimes is a response to what is being heard inherent in the question, and I can assure you that the way in which you are approaching this issue here, you will get returned back to you what you are giving me. I appreciate it because I am much happier with this cordial exchange than the exchange you mentioned earlier.

Maybe I will just leave it at that. That is my personal priority.

An Honourable Member: Damned by faint praise.

Mrs. McIntosh: The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says, damned by faint praise.

I mean this most sincerely. The critics control the atmosphere, and I have had the good fortune in the past to have had people like George Hickes, Neil Gaudry –

An Honourable Member: I am a good critic.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, and you were a very courteous critic. I have had others who have been very sarcastic and harsh and cruel and pointed in a very negative way, and they have elicited from us the response that they give. So I just wanted to say that because it is meant as a compliment, not faint praise. It is meant very sincerely.

Mr. Dewar: Thank you very much. Well, yes, we have always had good discussions here in Estimates, and I am sure we will today.

The reason I raised that earlier is, I mean, I do not mind being heckled. All of us are heckled. It is part of the job. It is just that the nature of that. Right away, because we raised an issue, it was: well, you know, you are against any type of development. It is difficult. We are dealing with some of these issues, and it says right in your State of the Environment Report for 1997 that Manitoba cannot continue to develop economically unless the environment is protected. Continued economic development is needed to pay for important environmental initiatives, and I agree with that. The needs of the present must be met without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, and attention must be paid to long-term effects of both environmental and economic decisions.

I think we can all agree on that. It is just that sometimes it is difficult to separate that type of responsible attitude and then the political attitude, on the other hand. Anyway, I know that in this particular critic's responsibility, every time there is a development that goes forward, there often is an environmental impact.

You were talking about, I think, and your feelings, that we live in a province that has been severely altered, in a country that has been severely altered–well, in Manitoba here, for example, the last hundred years, severely altered from what it was and from its natural state which existed for thousands of years. You know, the tall grass prairie was eliminated and the forests were eliminated. I know in my area where I was raised, just outside of Selkirk, it is known now as Oak Hammock Marsh, but even when I was younger it was significantly larger, but it was drained by my great-grandfather. In fact, one of the ditches that they use, they have a sign up there that says Dewar ditch. That is my claim to fame in the area, but it was an important habitat for waterfowl and it is again. I have known that area. I lived in that area all my life, and once again, it has become an important area for the breeding of waterfowl.

In one of your previous ministerial positions, you were the Minister of Education. Do you think the Education department in this province is doing a good enough job to emphasize environmental issues in our education system?

* (1530)

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it always was in the past, but we do now have a new sustainable development curriculum which was developed through the Round Table on Environment and Economy, which is now called the Round Table on Sustainable Development. That curriculum was developed by a committee. It took a couple of years to develop. Dr. Christine McDonald, who is an environmentalist, was very helpful. She has a Ph.D. in sustainable development; one of the first Ph.D.s in sus dev to become official.

As well, I am part of a group called Learning for a Sustainable Future, which has been just beginning to work with the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, and that curriculum is now available for schools and it is very good. We are trying very hard to help teachers become well trained in sustainable development as opposed to the old philosophy that I mentioned before where it was felt if you cared about the environment, you would teach people to never chop down a tree. We are trying to teach them how to work with their students to understand how you treat the environment, which does not mean never use it, but it just means you must use it wisely and always with a view that you will be able to renew your resources.

So there is training now available for teachers. So I think we are getting there. Are we doing the best job yet? No, I do not think so; I think we still have a way to go, but it is now being discussed at the national level with all ministers, which I think is a step in the right direction.

If I could just take a minute and I will do it very quickly, I had indicated my personal priorities, but staff has just made a really fast little point check. I said my priorities will become what the department and the government are mandated to do with my own personal priorities influencing it, of course, but just so you get a sense of some of the issues:

Livestock expansion is one where we have to make sure that that development is sustainable, and we know it is going to occur and must be done in a way that is environmentally friendly. The Maple Leaf plant that you mentioned, we make sure again that it is sustainable. Shoal Lake, Winnipeg's water quality protection is important. Pollution prevention, we are trying to work really hard now on preventative measures. We always have wanted that. We have always done that, but we need to get more active, because we can save ourselves a lot of problems in the future if we can prevent problems happening today. We are looking at the recycling of packaging, tires, oils, newspapers in greater numbers.

I would also like to see the multifamily–you had asked this before–dwellings get into the recycling in their–[interjection] Yes, they should be having that as well. There is money available for that, but it does take a will from the municipalities involved to participate also.

I will look forward, and the department is enthusiastic about the CCME harmonization, to working with other jurisdictions to make sure that we are all walking the same path, and that we are not working at cross-purposes to each other. We have a lot of initiatives underway there that we are working on.

Domtar, that final closure of that problem, which has been a long-standing problem out in Transcona, and we want to see that one concluded. They have started now the final stages of cleanup. I think they have begun this week to actually replace soil in the last remediation they have identified there as residential properties. That, hopefully over the course of this summer, will be tidied up, because that has been an ongoing thing. Then we look forward to that beautiful new remediated work done by Fort Whyte.

The department has indicated, as well, that livestock management, the regional waste disposal–I think I talked about that in my opening remarks–is a high priority as well. I think that about covers it.

The department also indicates in terms of what is being done in the schools from the Department of Environment. They have the SOE Report available at all school libraries now, which I did not realize. I learn things in Estimates also, and I am very pleased to hear that. The Science Teachers' Association is working with this department to promote sustainable development in the schools as well.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned the State of the Environment Report, and I have always enjoyed reading it. I have read the last three or four editions, and the most recent one, of course, I quoted from that today in my question, was in 1997.

As the minister has mentioned in her opening comments, there was an amendment to The Environment Act, and there will no longer be a State of the Environment Report but instead a sustainability report, I believe. That is fine. It is just that it seems to me we were expecting a State of the Environment Report this year. I always found it to be quite useful. As you mentioned, they are in some of the schools in the province. I assume all the schools have one. I know the libraries have them, and so on. It is unfortunate that perhaps it does not have a wider publication. I think it is a very useful document. I think it is very objective as well, and that is what I like about it.

So you mentioned something about there would be an interim sustainability report. Is that coming out this year or next year?

Mrs. McIntosh: That will come out in the year 2000. So that is next year, I guess. We are '99 now, so the year 2000.

Mr. Dewar: What will be the distribution of that report when it comes out? Is there any way to try to get a wider circulation of a very useful document? I am basing that upon what I have seen in the State of the Environment Report in past years.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, all of the people who got them before will get them again. I understand that 4,000 were going out, and we hope to increase the number beyond that, that are going out. As I say, the new report, the sustainable report, will be produced in the year 2000, and we hope the extra time between now and then will be used to develop a new set of sustainability indicators. We want it to be really current, so I do not know if that answers your question.

* (1540)

Mr. Dewar: As I look outside today, I see once again it is raining. I hope it is not raining in southwestern Manitoba where the producers there are facing a real challenge with the high water level. But I do want to ask some questions about that, and another one deals with the long-term effects of the flood in 1997.

Manitobans rose to the challenge and were able to deal with that in a very successful manner, in a very successful way. But, as well, the high water had an impact, I am sure, upon different environmental situations. Maybe the minister can update us as to whether there has been any long-term impacts of that flooding.

Mrs. McIntosh: One thing we had found was that the ground water aquifer was contaminated quite badly in some spots, so we spent a lot of time and a lot of money disinfecting the aquifer, capping wells, and that work took about a year after the flood. It has been completed now and it has been very highly regarded. The work went well, and it is being looked at as a success story.

As well, for about 18 months after the flood, the department inspected around 5,000 basements for a whole series of problems: mold, moisture, those kinds of things that concrete basements might experience after a flood of this nature. That inspection took about 18 months after the flood was over. Those inspections were done by department personnel. Those were some of the activities that we were engaged in after the flood basically as a result of ground water aquifer contamination.

Mr. Dewar: The minister mentioned that there was an aquifer that was contaminated and it has since been remedied. Where was that aquifer located? In what area of the province?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mostly in and around Ritchot, south of the city of Winnipeg, in and around that area.

Mr. Dewar: Maybe the minister can tell us what were some of the contaminants that were found and at what levels. Will she assure all of us that these contaminants were removed from the aquifer and that the water in that area is now safe for drinking?

Mrs. McIntosh: I should, first of all, give the member assurance, the aquifer, the wells that had been contaminated are clean. They went back in some cases more than once as environmental experts to work on the problem. The problem was that there were wells that had been abandoned, that had been not in use for a long time. They were not properly capped. The flood waters came up and water got into these wells. They found that in some of them, there were fecal coliforms and other organic contaminants resulting from the normal organisms found in flood water. The flood water washed over the sewage lagoons, over farm fields, et cetera, and it contained pesticides as well as oil, gas, and so on. So that all had to be disinfected. The people could not drink the water then, obviously, for quite a while, while this was worked on. They checked it and checked it until it was clean again for drinking. As I say, it took about a year to correct. But those were the contaminants that were in the water at that time, and that was part of the flood cleanup that had to take place.

Mr. Dewar: I guess we could have expected that. All of us remember some of the concerns that were raised at that time. We heard, you know, there were estimates of the hundreds and hundreds of animal carcasses floating north up the river.

An Honourable Member: That was not true.

Mr. Dewar: Yes, and I am glad it was not true, but all of us were listening to the media reports out of the northern United States. We knew that these things were coming and I remember at the time, I believe, I raised it with the minister then. He said the fact that there was such high water volume diluted some of the contaminants that would be found there. Was there any sort of impact upon Lake Winnipeg, for example? Have you seen anything in terms of fishing? Every now and then the Department of Health has had to close down, I believe, Victoria Beach or Grand Beach or Winnipeg Beach, Patricia Beach, because of the high fecal coliform count in past years, generally because of excessive sewage from the city of Winnipeg. Have there been long-term impacts upon Lake Winnipeg?

* (1550)

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, ironically, in one of those delicious paradoxes that life gives us sometimes, because there was so much water, even though there was perhaps a greater level of contaminant in the water or greater abundance of contaminants in the water, there was so much water that it diluted it so that the water quality of the Red River was actually generally better in the 1997 flood than in other years, because it was so diluted. But the downside, of course, was there was such an abundance of water that we had the flood, which was not a pleasant experience. Staff informs me that since that, they do their regular beach monitoring and so on, or the powers that be that do the monitoring have not noticed any appreciable change in the waters and the beaches now in '99 or '98 than there were in '96 or '95 and the years prior to the flood. So it seems to be pretty much the same as it used to be and no significant difference one way or the other.

Mr. Dewar: All of us hope that the water levels in southwestern Manitoba drain away and that the producers in that area are able to get on their land and go about their business as they were able to do here in the Red River Valley after 1997. I believe most of the crops were planted, which was quite an achievement.

Will the minister's department be monitoring that area of the province to see if there are any impacts upon the aquifer in that area? I believe there may have been some other flooding. I am not certain if it was in the Swan River area or not. Are you doing regular monitoring of this because high water, as you say, overflows lagoons and it has, as you have mentioned, contaminated aquifers in the source of drinking water for Manitobans? Is your department going to be monitoring any environmental impacts and environmental effects of the high water in southwestern Manitoba?

Mrs. McIntosh: I indicate to my critic that we will respond as requested by local governments or individuals if there are problems that arise for which we are needed. What we are doing right now is we are actively being apprised of the situation, but we are not implementing any specific actions at present. We are following it, we are monitoring it, we are being apprised, and we are sort of on standby ready to initiate a response if required. The area that we are talking about is one I am quite familiar with. It is where my parents grew up, and I have lots of cousins and aunts and uncles and things in that area, and the one thing that is slightly different from that area and the Red is that we do not have the same kind of soil conditions for starters. We do not have as much water, although it is not good.

An Honourable Member: Usually they do not.

Mrs. McIntosh: No, that is okay. Usually they do not.

An Honourable Member: I thought it is a dry part of the province, is it not? Generally a dry part of the province in that area?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, there is good farmland, wheat, et cetera. What did I say? I said different soil conditions? I hope I have not said something inadvertently incorrect. The soil is different, yes.

We do not have the same impact being felt. Fortunately, we had the flood of the century. This is the last year of the century. I do not want another flood of the century. There are problems, absolutely. The member is quite correct and they may need help from the department, but at this point we do not anticipate the same degree of assistance being required for this water problem as we did in 1997 with the Red River flooding.

Mr. Dewar: We have to raise an issue, then, related to water testing, and as the minister, I am sure, is aware, at one time rural Manitobans, if they wanted to get their drinking water tested, it was free. Now they have to pay around $27, and fees for other tests have risen as well. General chemical tests went from $32 to now $102. What happened, of course, was the testing was privatized. I know that rural residents have concerns about having to pay the fee for something so basic as safe drinking water. Does the minister have a comment on that?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, if I could just very quickly indicate an additional point in response to your previous question, just to indicate that the Department of Environment has offices throughout Manitoba, as you know, not just here in Winnipeg. We have the main regional office in Brandon. We have suboffices in Virden and Killarney, Killarney being in that area that we are talking about. So we do have some good representation in the southwest corner of the province. If local governments require support, we have people sort of onsite, so to speak. In fact, we have 18 offices all together.

* (1600)

There is a charge now for water testing. If it was thought that there was a threat to health in a region, the department could step in and do testing without having people bring them samples and charge them for that, if they thought there was a concern. But in answer to your direct question which I will answer directly, we have had hard decisions to make in government. You know, lately in the House, the majority of questions have been on health care and concerns there. We do a lot of talking about the federal cuts to transfers for health and so on, and the fact is that over time we have had to make tough choices in order to free up money to backfill money for health. We have had to start looking for places to generate that revenue so that we can afford to sustain systems like the health care system. That meant that sometimes we have had to do things like implement fees for water testing.

The other part of that, of course, is that the majority of people now are on a piped water system, and the water there is tested by the municipalities. We know, of course, we still do have people on wells in Manitoba, but more and more they are on piped water systems. So, where they do have wells, the testing is available, albeit at a cost, and I regret the cost. I wish we could provide it without cost, but it is one of those difficult choices that was made throughout the years in order to ensure that some very high priorities did not go faulting. So maybe there will come a time again when that fee can be lifted or when water testing becomes such that it does not need to be sent to a laboratory, maybe other ways of testing that evolve as technology and science increase in their improvements.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, the minister said in her answer that it was an effort to raise some revenues, and I understand that. It is regrettable that it was a basic water test, that there is now a charge, and I know that there are different levels of testing. You can get your water tested for irrigation, for example, if you are considering expanding or setting up an operation that requires irrigation from the aquifer. I can understand that. I guess it is just that I have a difficult time understanding why something so basic as water, clean drinking water–which is again a bit of a health issue, you know, if you drink water that is not safe, you will get ill. Does the minister then in terms of this follow-up issue, does she have any record as to whether the increased fees, in some cases new fees, are acting as a deterrent for Manitobans getting their water tested?

Mrs. McIntosh: If the member would accept my coming back tomorrow with an answer that I do not have, statistics–we can get them; I just do not have them here–that might lead to a conclusion for an answer to that question. But I will acquire the information and bring it back to the member, probably not today because we are getting close to the end of the day but bring it back for a next session. I just have to indicate in terms of cost recovery or a lot of things that were provided in quotations, free, no direct cost recovery or user fee or those things. There is now an attempt to gain as much cost recovery as is reasonable in order to contain expenses, in order to contain costs, and that, I think, is done in areas where it is felt it is affordable for the consumer, and if it is not affordable for the consumer then it may be something that–[interjection] Do you want to take a break?

An Honourable Member: No, no break, keep going.

Mrs. McIntosh: It is just sort of the whole philosophy of cost recovery where it seems reasonable to assume the consumer is able to allow government to recover the cost, that those are the areas where we will seek to accomplish that, but if it is determined that it is not a reasonable thing, then I would expect that in most instances we would take a second look at that and see if this is causing difficulty for people, which is not our intent. We do not wish to do that. We are just trying to contain costs.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, it is nice to see you in the Chair.

So I think in your answer, you are saying at this point you do not know if the increase or new fees are acting as a deterrent or not, but as well though you are prepared to see if there could be a fee structure which could be brought in that would be acceptable for Manitobans. Again, I think there are different categories of testing for your water. It is basic, just a general test to test whether it is drinkable, and then there are other tests to see what types of minerals it may have in it, and whether it is suitable for irrigation and so on.

I know I went through this, but I was prepared because I actually had it tested for something, you know for a full test, so it was about a hundred dollars. But I think just a general test for Manitobans, that there should be something done to allow them to have their basic water tested, at least at a fee that would not prohibit Manitobans from using that test.

I guess my question is so she is prepared to look at this and to see whether or not there can be something done to maybe put a limit or to see if there can be something done to lower these tests or provide a subsidy to certain affected areas. You are dealing with an area, you mentioned southern Manitoba or in the Red River Valley where we are faced with that flooding, or in southwestern Manitoba where they are faced with potential damage to the aquifer. I know of an issue just north of Winnipeg, in the Rockwood area, where–we will get into that as well, I am sure, with a propellant plant. It was discovered that the aquifer in that area was contaminated by cleaning solvents and the individuals in that area had to have their water tested, and I am sure it is ongoing testing. I just hope that she is prepared to look at developing a fee structure that would allow those types of cases.

* (1610)

Mrs. McIntosh: I hope that is what we have now. When I say I do not have the information here to know, has the number of requests for water testing changed and if it has changed is it because of the fee structure, which was what the member had asked earlier. I do not have the answer now because we need to look at the numbers. Are there more? Are there fewer? What is the reason if there are more or fewer? I guess my sense is that I do not think we have had a lot of complaints, have we, from people? Just checking with staff because being new, I do not want to say something I am not sure of. But I understand from staff that this has not been a subject of complaint from the public in a generic sense. If it is not a problem, then the cost recovery is extremely beneficial to government to help us with our desire to make sure that the money we have is there for health, et cetera.

If, in examining it, it is discovered that it is a problem, well, then, of course, as minister, I want to ensure that if people are testing the water, particularly for drinking purposes, I want an incentive for them to be able to test their water, so that would be something in that situation then that I would certainly review.

But where water is contaminated by an industrial accident or as a result of industrial action, our department ensures that citizens have water tested at the cost to the polluter, not to the citizen. Or where no polluter is identified initially, the department will cover the costs with the emergency response fund, so there are situations where the citizen is not charged for the water test and hopefully they would cover the situations where a need was identified that was in the interests of all best to have addressed right away without worry about whether or not the fee could be met.

Mr. Dewar: Could we just take a couple of minutes break, a five-minute break?

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Rocan): Sure.

________

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The committee is back to order.

Mr. Denis Rocan (Gladstone): With the indulgence of the committee, we have had a brief discussion with the minister and the opposition critic, and there appears to be a willingness, by unanimous consent of this committee, to shut this committee down, this section, at 5:30. I wonder if you would want to canvass the membership to see if there is a willingness to call it six o'clock at 5:30.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to call it six o'clock at 5:30? [Agreed]

Mr. Dewar: It is amazing what we can do sometime, is it not?

When I was talking about the aquifer in my preamble to my last question, I raised the issue of the contamination in probably the early '90s in the Stony Mountain area, Rockwood area, and I do not know if it is in this State of the Environment Report, but there has been progress in past ones. I guess the contamination occurred probably in early '90s, '91, '92, because I know it was a '93 report. It is an area that, part of it, the aquifer is under part of my political constituency, obviously any kind of a concern like this I think is important to all Manitobans. What had happened, I believe the propellant plant, the Rockwood propellant plant, employees of the plant would unfortunately discharge some cleaning solvents directly onto the soil which found its way into the aquifer and there was a great deal of contamination at that time.

I would like if the minister could provide me with an update of that situation. As well, I raised with your predecessor the fact that there are in that area artesian wells where local residents would go and use that as a source of their drinking water. I think it should be a concern to all of us to make sure that the water in that area is safe to drink. Maybe if she could just provide me with an update of that situation, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: The Bristol Aerospace Rockwood contamination issue was resolved with the Bristol people putting in a piped distribution system, so it was put in for all the local residents and the aquifer was cleaned up, but I do not think it is being used for drinking because they all have the piped-in water now. But the monitoring continues on an ongoing basis by Bristol. That is the commitment they have made in terms of the aquifer. I do not know about the ability of being able to drink the aquifer water. I know it is not being used for drinking water because of the piped-in system.

Mr. Dewar: What is the source of the piped water? I believe it is Stony Mountain, maybe Stonewall, and does the minister see a day when the residents, if they choose, could go back to the well water? Maybe they do not want to but if you are indicating now that it is all safe to drink, then perhaps some of the residents would be interested in going back. I remember that situation well, and I remember the fact that Bristol was, I believe, forced to contribute to a pipeline. But it was not just them. I believe the province and the federal government as well provided financial assistance to provide the water to the residents. First question would be: does she see a time when the area residents, if they choose, could go back to the well water for their source of drinking water?

* (1630)

Mrs. McIntosh: In discussion with staff, they indicate that the contamination has been confined to that small little area and that it is continually removed so the plumes that were going out are not going out anymore. However, they would not recommend that people resume drinking that water, either out of an abundance of caution or because it is not certain at this point how quickly that cleansing process will take place. Bristol has stopped the contami-nation at source, so no more is going in. There is still that little concern about a small plume existing around that one spot. Bristol's cleanup is to pump and clean up contamination in the aquifer, but it is a slow process. It requires continuous monitoring to ensure that it does not spread. It has not, but it is always under watch to make sure of that. So the future is unclear at this point. We do not think it is likely that people would go back to drinking that water, and we would not recommend that they do.

Mr. Dewar: I do not know if they want to or not. I probably would agree with you that there is probably no interest in that. But the source of their water now is, I believe, Stonewall or Stony Mountain.

In terms of that whole issue now, as you mentioned, there has been an incredible capital cost to deal with it in terms of the pipes that were laid and the pump and so on that is needed and the plumbing adjustments that need to be done to each of the homes to accommodate this new source of water. As you mentioned, there has been over the years–I received a packet from the minister–was it last year or the year before?–of the number of sites that they have test drilled, and there were many, which I appreciate and commend the government on doing them, but that is again a cost probably borne by the taxpayer of this province.

Does the minister have any idea of the cost of this type of action, pollution and remediation upon the taxpayers of the province, and have they been able to recover any of those costs from Bristol Aerospace?

Mrs. McIntosh: I do not have the exact figures, but I can tell you that the town itself, Stony Mountain, had contributed towards the piped-in system. The Bristol company contributed substantially more. In fact, the townsite had contemplated bringing in piped-in water and, with Bristol's contribution, they were able to achieve that at considerably less cost than it would have cost them had they not had Bristol there, like it would have cost them more than they ended up paying to get the water. That was sort of the up side of the problem that they experienced. The province contributed as well. Because it was back in '90-91 or whenever it was, we do not have the figures here. We could get them if the member wants, but I am not sure if you were looking for just sort of the percentage of the breakdown or the actual dollar figures. But Bristol did contribute the lion's share there in that particular situation.

Mr. Dewar: I thank the minister for that answer.

In terms of the artisan wells in that area, and those wells were the source and continue to be the source of fresh water for the Oak Hammock Marsh area, have they discovered any of the solvents in the Oak Hammock March itself, or again in these artisan wells? I have raised it with the minister the last couple of years, and I do not know if he ever came back with an answer saying whether or not they are actually tested. So I will raise it with you again this year.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, no, they have not noticed anything like that in the area of the Oak Hammock Marsh, and I guess that is the short answer. They do not believe there was any contamination near the marsh. They did test beyond it, but the department does not feel there is any in that marsh area itself.

Mr. Dewar: Well, I am relieved to hear that. I know I have family members in that area, and my father and mother, they have not been able to drink their water for years and they have lived there for a long, long time. Well, my family has lived there for a long time. I know my sister's water has a fecal coliform count, a very high one in it, and my father's water is very rusty. The cause is obviously not this, but it is a general statement about the quality of our ground water and it is a concern I have. I assume that one time, at least in terms of my sister's situation, it was animal waste I believe that caused that problem.

Are you seeing more of this across the province where the quality of drinking water is put in jeopardy, well, not put in jeopardy, but the quality is being decreased in terms of drinking water across this province, or was this just something that I have witnessed maybe just in our local area?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the staff has not noticed any particular change. Nothing seems to be different in a general sense than it has been before. But, having said that, Environment in terms of setting its own priorities, this is one area where they have been putting some initiative, and they have recruited, not long ago, a hydro geologist in Contaminated Sites Program and have just advertised for a soils/ground water expert for the environmental quality section. So they are adding staff to deal with those kinds of issues in a proactive way to ensure that, if problems like that do come up, we are right on top of them and are able to deal with them effectively.

* (1640)

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairperson, I could not help but notice, and I took great pleasure in seeing that there was more money allocated this year for the department, an 8.8 percent increase. That, of course, is why I so readily supported your budget, Madam Minister, because I noticed that line and–

An Honourable Member: And it caught your attention.

Mr. Dewar: It caught my attention immediately. Maybe you could tell me and just enlighten the committee as to where that increase is headed. It looks to me like you are using it to–and maybe you mentioned some of this in your opening comments about some additional inspectors, and so on. Maybe you could just expand upon that please.

Mrs. McIntosh: Sure. We have six new inspectors in the livestock initiative and $60,000 in operating costs for travel. We have one new staff in the North to address water quality in northern communities. So those are the seven new positions. Livestock initiative, of course, as we expand, it is important that we have inspection there. In the North, sometimes the water treatment plants are not able to be kept up for various reasons. So we thought it was important to have water quality inspectors up there.

Mr. Dewar: Will the minister tell us where these inspectors will be located?

Mrs. McIntosh: We really do have one in Selkirk. I was not just teasing. In the livestock initiative, the one that I talked about, where we have six new inspectors, there are two in Steinbach, one in Selkirk, one in Brandon, one in Portage and one in Winnipeg. The water quality expert will be located in The Pas.

Mr. Dewar: So you mentioned the water quality expert that is going into the North. Is that because you are experiencing, or your department is finding, that there have been some additional problems up there associated with water quality?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the northern position is to inspect and provide professional assistance in the operation of water treatment plants for drinking and waste water plants. It is to be housed in The Pas, and it will be working closely with smaller northern communities and with their local governments. So they will be sort of a resident expert to assist making sure that the treatment plants and the waste water plants are in good operation, an assist to the local population who may not have within their own local staffing some of the expertise that is required scientifically for some of these purposes.

Mr. Dewar: So this individual would be visiting some of the remote communities, one would assume. I had the opportunity to visit some of these communities, and it was quite an eye opener definitely to see the conditions that Manitobans live under in these remote areas: lack of indoor plumbing, lack of running water, and so on. So will this person be visiting these areas, and will this individual be reporting back to the minister?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, this individual will be travelling around, visiting different locales in the North, not reporting back directly to me, but ultimately anything that happens in the department is accessible to the minister. This is an area of interest. I am interested in it for several reasons. My sister and her husband now live away up North in the Yukon, and they live in a remote community three hours north of Whitehorse, so they are quite far north. They have some of these same characteristics in the little village in which they live, so I am interested in her letters and watching here to see how the jurisdictions compare as they begin to deal with basic necessities such as clean water, proper disposal of waste, how they acquire it for their dwellings. It kind of piques my interest.

* (1650)

Mr. Dewar: I would like to follow up on an issue that I was raising today in Question Period, and that is, there has been a fairly alarming increase in terms of the transport-related environmental accidents between '91 to '95, which is the most recent data that I have. What has been the trend since '95 to now in terms of transport-related environmental accidents? Maybe she could as well make a comment about that and let us know the cause of these accidents and what, if anything, she is able to do or is doing to put a stop to that, or at least to get the number reduced. There has been a 70 percent increase between '91 and '95, which, I think, is quite high.

Mrs. McIntosh: I am interested in the stats the member has brought forward, you know in terms of why. That is a different question I understand, and there could be several reasons for it. But just an indication from staff here that the large increase in transportation-related accidents in 1991 to 1995 may have resulted–we have results: from increased product handling, 41 out of 44 versus 95 over 124.

In 1995 the department increased staff in the Dangerous Goods section and fully implemented Sections 8 and 10 of The Dangerous Goods Act. I think that, of course, would assist us in identifying farm accidents, et cetera, that may have been overlooked before.

Products being transported received more stringent regulatory requirements and also there was a reorganization in 1990, and the regional organization is, I believe, now tracking accidents better. So that is a partial answer, and I think staff may have some additional information for me here.

The reporting mechanisms, if the member looks on page 143, just one page over from where he is looking–if you look at the number of hazardous waste manifests, shipping documents received, there is a very strong mandate or insistence now on improved reporting procedures. That does not necessarily mean there have been more or incredibly more problems there; it is just that there is a much more intense need to record and report properly on them.

* (1700)

The department has increased its training commitment in environmental accident response over the last four years, so we are now working with the RCMP, working with Transport Canada to increase our efficiency in being able to track and respond to accidents. So it is back to that question. I do not know if there have been more accidents per se. There may have been, but there is also definitely an increased reporting ability and it may be a combination of both, I do not know. If you look at the top of page 143, there is a little note there under Trend where it says: "Annual increase in quantities transported reflect an increase in generators and wastes added to the tracking system rather than increased quantities of hazardous waste being generated. This is evident by the number of registration forms received." So I just draw that to your attention.

Mr. Dewar: Well, has your department noticed any type of a trend between '95 and now in terms of this?

Mrs. McIntosh: Since 1993, we have seen a reduction in major transport accidents. That is to say that it was 1993 that there was a last major train derailment, and there has not been a major trucking incident in the last five years. So I would give some credit to the department, although Serge has just said we cannot necessarily take credit ourselves, but I think maybe they can take some credit because they have been improving their training and reporting and so on. But, anyhow, whoever was responsible, it is good news as opposed to not good news.

Mr. Dewar: Thank you very much for that answer. In terms of the other aspect of my question today, it dealt with the transport of the MOX fuel and mixed oxide fuel from this potential that test bundles can be shipped from the United States to Chalk River, and it could go through the town of Morris. I have a number of letters here from town officials who do not want this material shipped through Morris in any quantity. That is from Conrad Nicholson, who is the chief administrative officer for the town of Morris. Then he gets a letter back from Ralph Goodale, and they write another letter, again I will quote from their letter: However, you seem to have missed our main concern. We are opposed to one of the proposed routes from southern United States which enters Canada at the Pembina border crossing. We do not want MOX fuel passing through the town of Morris in any way.

I have a letter that was sent to your Premier (Mr. Filmon). In the House you sort of questioned my timing, and perhaps it would have been better to have raised this before, but I remember somebody once said that probably would not have been the best time to raise it. The second best time to have raised it is now. Do you know who said that?

An Honourable Member: Who?

Mr. Dewar: It was your Premier who said that. I remember once he said that in a quote in the House, and I thought that it was a very good quote and one that I kept in my little file ever since. So anyway, getting back to the issue, in the letter that the Premier sent back to Ms. Jarman, who lives in Morris, quote: Since this matter follows under the jurisdiction of the Honourable Linda McIntosh, Minister of Environment, I have taken the liberty of referring a copy of your correspondence to the minister for attention. Have you had a chance to read her letter? Have you had any type of decision made as to what you are going to say when you respond to it?

* (1710)

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, that letter has been sent to my office by the Premier (Mr. Filmon). It was a very well articulated letter. The writer's concern was for the transport route, which is very close to her home and not that far from her son's school. I agree that she raised some valid concerns, particularly being a mom and having been involved with schools, I understood her point. She did not ask for anything specific of me in her letter. It contained good proposals, good ideas for the federal jurisdiction which were alternative proposals to deal with plutonium to the federal government. I think she showed good research, that she had done her homework in terms of looking into this subject area and not just responding viscerally but rather intellectually to the issue.

So she will be getting a response from me very shortly and, along with her, I will wait for the answers from the federal government to her proposals because that is the jurisdiction that needs to deal with them. I appreciate being copied on these initiatives, but I think if I were to indicate that whole issue on plutonium or nuclear waste or the transportation of those kinds of goods, it is not likely that it would be coming through that route. I appreciate that is not her main point. She is saying, if the route does go past her house, this is what she would be concerned about and what she would propose. It is not the best direct route through to Chalk River, so that is why we do not anticipate it would come there.

Having said that, we also do know that there are some very, very stringent regulations on the transport of these types of materials that have to be followed nationally. If there are better ways of doing it, then by all means, better ways of doing it should be explored and implemented, but getting material to Chalk River is high on our priority list.

As I indicated today, we want that nuclear waste to move from Pinawa and sent to Chalk River because it is one thing to have it here in Manitoba if there is a large component of scientists actively working with it daily, but the–I realize this is a different topic, but it is sort of all related–federal government's plan of just kind of leaving it all in Pinawa and having a small cadre of scientists there just to kind of monitor and watchdog on it is not our idea of proper disposal. Proper disposal of that kind of waste needs to occur in a place like Chalk River.

But more than that, there is an ability here to take that material and get rid of it in a productive way, use it in other ways that are useful, sort of the ultimate in recycling, and not then be having to store it because it is being used up as fuel or some other way. So there is research going on at Chalk River as to how to recycle, if you want. I do not know if you talk about recycling nuclear waste, but they have research looking at how to do that, and I think it is good to get it there so that that research can take place because I certainly do not want to add to the world's supply of nuclear waste. I would like to see the world's supply of it reduced, recycled, reused in some way so that it is not having to be stored anywhere. We certainly do not want it stored here.

So, if we do not want it stored here, that means that there might be occasions when it has to be transported through Manitoba in some ways. I guess the only thing I can say in response to that is that, given that there are high standards for mobility, if such waste has to come through here because the eventual goal is to get rid of it or to safely dispose of it, then Manitoba would do its share of insisting upon the ultimate in terms of precautions to safely see it through. Having said that, of course if it goes another route, we would be very happy.

But, it is certainly, when people like this writer send in correspondence with effort having been made, as it was in her correspondence, to be part of the solution, then her correspondence or correspondence like that should be taken very seriously because out of those explorations sometimes comes some good ideas. It is amazing. I think the member is fully aware how awesome it is that on occasion you get letters from the public that end up actually changing directions of caucuses, governments, oppositions. The public can make a dramatic difference, so everything that looks like it has promise is seriously considered. In this case, the ones that really have to seriously consider any good proposals would be the federal government.

Mr. Dewar: In fact, Ms. Jarman, in her letter, does get quite specific. I will quote: which brings me to my main question, Mr. Filmon, where do you stand on this matter, and are you prepared to take a stand and formally go on record on the issue of MOX fuels?

So she is quite specific. She is asking your government's position on this issue. I do not know exactly the act, but I believe there was an act passed in the early '80s. I thought it dealt with nuclear weapon propellant, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe your staff can enlighten us. I want to know, I guess, if there is a law currently on Manitoba's books which would prohibit this.

Mrs. McIntosh: There was an act passed in 1987. I do not know if this is what it is called, but it dealt with high-level radioactive waste. That was at the time the underground research laboratory was developed by Atomic Energy of Canada in the Lac du Bonnet area, and it was to prohibit the underground storage of high-level waste in Manitoba, so it dealt with storage, not transportation. It is one of the reasons that we are saying that if the federal government is pulling out now with AECL, that they need to take their garbage with them. They cannot leave it here to be stored because we do not have permanent safe storage for final disposal. It is not an end destination.

* (1720)

Having said that the standards for transporting this type of material are extremely high in Canada, also, part of that is that insistence on how the stuff is packaged as it is being moved through. We had concerns; there was thought not long ago there might be some material coming in from the North, like through the waters to the north from Russia, et cetera, that we did not have comfort around in terms of the packaging. So that type of stuff we do not want coming through if it is not going to be properly packaged. It has to meet standards laid down by the federal government, or we do not want it on our highways, but we do have minute quantities of material, not this particular material necessarily, but nuclear waste, although I just want to make a little correction. The staff has pointed out to me this particular material is not necessarily waste; it is fuel, but the concerns about it coming through are the same.

So, if the material meets the standards, if it is properly packaged, if it is complying with all that it must, and it needs to come through here in order to be properly disposed of so that it is not left in an unsafe condition that is not long-term or permanent storage, then we will support it going through, and we will work to ensure that our efforts see it gets safely through the province. Plutonium in minute quantities is used to provide power in pacemakers for heart patients, and it is in Manitoba now for this kind of purpose, I mentioned today, medical purposes, et cetera. Very minute quantities. So we take extreme caution whenever we hear–those are buzzwords, you know, put up the red flag and you move very cautiously.

Having said that, I can quite understand the concerns in the letter from Ms. Jarman. What I am reading in concerns such as hers and other citizens and indeed in the questions from my friend the critic is that it is just a concern that these matters be taken as seriously as they need to be because they can never be talked about or have planning surrounding them in a frivolous way at all. They have to be treated with the utmost caution and seriousness. Concerns from citizens need to be well examined when they are raised in this way.

Mr. Dewar: To move on, I have a number of issues to cover, and our time is short today.

I wanted to get into the whole issue of hog production and water quality and the plant in Brandon and so on. We have had a debate about this in the House, but maybe I will leave that because it is going to be, I think, a lengthy discussion. I would rather just, now that we are talking about water–and it deals with, I have to get back to my notes. I know it was raised last year about the Devils Lake diversion, and it was proposed by the Americans. They had to find a way to alleviate the high water volume in Devils Lake. It was a proposal at the time, of course, to introduce the water into our watershed and into the Red River and eventually, of course, into Hudson Bay. Maybe you could just provide me with an update in terms of this, if you know if it is still happening, or just a general update as to what is going on in terms of the Devils Lake diversion–in one minute.

Mrs. McIntosh: I am just going to give a quick answer because I know we are nearly out of time and I did not want to not give an answer before the clock ran out.

We are actively involved. We have talked or been in discussions with authorities south of the border in North Dakota, with Canadian and American authorities. We do not wish to see biota organisms from Devils Lake coming into the Red River, introducing some new organisms that are not there by nature which might do some harm, which would not be in the natural scheme of things. That is where we are on that for a quick update. If you need more detail–

An Honourable Member: Okay, we could follow up next time.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes. That is the short answer.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to now call it six o'clock? [agreed]

The time being six o'clock, committee rise.