LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, June 13, 1994
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(continued)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
The committee will be resuming consideration of the
Estimates of the Department of Environment.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 2.(a)(1) on
page 52.
Item 2.(a) Environmental Operations (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $4,157,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$1,054,000‑‑pass.
2.(b) Environmental Management (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $2,530,700.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to raise
some issues concerning the Red River and the contamination of the
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Absolutely.
Mr. Dewar: Thank you very much.
In 1989 the Minister of Environment announced that the City
of
I would ask the minister, what is the timetable that the
minister has and this department has to set out requiring the City of
Mr. Cummings: A very legitimate issue the member raises,
one that however I am sure will never be satisfied to, or be done quick enough
for, the satisfaction of most of the people downstream from the city. The process it has undertaken is to be
handled as we go through the licensing process.
Initially that required that the city begin to produce plans for
implementation of the additional treatment.
There has been a lot of work done as well. I guess it is not entirely unrelated‑‑well,
it certainly is related in terms of the water quality objectives, a number of
additional pieces of work have been undertaken around that. But the upgrades are to be handled as we go
through the licensing of the sewage treatment plants in the city.
I have to get an update here. We are presently meeting with the city on
those licensing issues in connection with their three main sewage treatment
plants. Of course we are going to talk
about water quality objectives and the broader issues that were discussed
there. That also has to do with
developing a long‑term capability of addressing some of the combined
sewer discharges.
Mr. Dewar: Are you suggesting that the city has not
submitted any plans yet to the minister's department?
Mr. Cummings: What they are doing is their environmental
impact assessments so that they can start doing some of the engineering. Now there has been some considerable upgrade
of their plants. It is not as though the
city has not been doing upgrades and spending dollars. I guess that is where I acknowledge that this
is going to take time and money to get it up to the level that would create
some satisfaction downstream.
But I have to say that I am not unhappy with the fact that
the city has been spending a fair bit of money on the improvement of their
plants. Frankly, the only other way to
get it going a whole lot faster would be for the province to come forward with
a considerable amount more money than is already being committed to the block
funding, some of which I suppose could ultimately go to environmental upgrades
that the city needs to do.
Mr. Dewar: You mentioned provincial financial
contributions. What is the current
contributions by the province? What
would be the required contributions?
Mr. Cummings: I was referring in the sense that the city's
funding is no longer specific as it was a few years ago. It is in fact block funding. That is about a hundred and some million
annually that the province contributes to the city as a share of assistance in
a number of capital projects and other responsibilities that the city
undertakes. Their long‑term
budgets have been presented as part of their effort to put forward their
capital program to substantiate their block funding. That is part of the input that we have to
have in order to get the timetable nailed down as to the implementation of
these upgrades.
Mr. Dewar: Does the minister have an estimate of what
the cost would be to disinfect the sewage that is currently being dumped into
the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers?
Mr. Cummings: I am sorry.
I did not catch the first part of the question. Do I have the authority to order it?
Mr. Dewar: That is a very good question, too. No. I
was wondering what would the cost be to the City of Winnipeg to disinfect the
waste that is currently being dumped into the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers.
Mr. Cummings: First of all, the disinfectant probably is
not the only thing that needs to be done, but it would be three times 13
million which is 39 million, plus we know that we are talking at potentially a
billion dollars for the revamping of the combined sewer system which should
eliminate the combined sewer outflows.
Mr. Dewar: Do you as minister have the authority to
order the City of Winnipeg to disinfect this waste?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Mr. Dewar: Will the minister be exercising that
authority in the near future?
* (2010)
Mr. Cummings: Well, that is what we are doing. It is nice to be able to say one has the
authority to do something. To get it
implemented and carried out in a practical manner so that the objectives can be
met at the same time as we are being responsible with the total development of
the infrastructure for the city, I guess, leads to the conclusion that this is
not something that we are contemplating being able to order an immediate relief
from.
Mr. Dewar: The disinfectant of the sewage, in your
opinion would that go a long ways to dealing with the problem of a fecal
coliform count in the Red?
Mr. Cummings: Well, that is part of what the debate is
about, and I have suggested to the city councillors at at least one of our
meetings, and actually probably a couple of years ago we had a lengthy
discussion on this, that they should be seizing the opportunity to look at some
imaginative alternatives in this area.
Ultraviolet treatment, I am told, can be quite expensive, but it can also
be an alternative that should be discussed in the overall view to what they may
want to do with the treatment of their outfalls. I do not express that with any other reason
than just to demonstrate that there are lots of things that they probably could
be examining beyond just additional chlorination because certainly there are
some people who are not satisfied that that is the way to go either.
That is part of what is precipitating the debate, but I
want to put on the record that, frankly, we have been pretty rigid with
discharges all across the province. We
simply have to work with the city to get this job done.
Mr. Dewar: How often is the water tested as it flows
through Selkirk in terms of the Red River?
Mr. Cummings: At least monthly and more often as decided.
Mr. Dewar: Thank you.
I was wondering if the minister could tell me, tell the residents of
Selkirk what type of pollutants are they finding in the Red River?
Mr. Cummings: The main or probably the evidence that we
find is fecal coliform and ammonia, and that varies widely, as I recall.
Mr. Dewar: When you said it varies widely, is that in
terms of quantity or time of the year?
Mr. Cummings: I suppose both, but I am particularly
referring to the fact that it would vary widely, depending on the combined
sewer outfalls when they hit.
Mr. Dewar: Well, what is the acceptable level of fecal
coliform and what is the current level?
Mr. Cummings: Normally testing should produce levels below
200 organisms per cubic metre, as opposed to occasionally after a rainfall you
might find up to 24,000 organisms.
Mr. Dewar: Well, what would be the average? You are saying acceptable levels are 200, but
after a rainfall it could get as high as 24,000. What do you think would be an average?
Mr. Cummings: Of course, one of the problems that we have
is that there is no such thing as an average here. In fact, in the dry weather you can have
additional problems with your river for other reasons, but combined sewer
outfall would probably not be one of the problems. So you unfortunately probably get a less than
attractive trade‑off there.
This is not a new problem, and it is one that, frankly, I
feel our government is taking more action to correct than any previous
government. I used to take great umbrage
at the Leader of the official opposition referring to what he considered was an
exemption for the City of Winnipeg.
There never was an exemption, and there is not now.
It is the same as what used to be sort of a standing joke
between the mayor of Brandon and myself, that was who was going to go to jail
first in terms of getting an upgrade of systems there. I suppose eventually those same stories will
be asked of the mayor of Winnipeg and whoever is the Minister of Environment.
Mr. Dewar: In the Clean Environment Commission, Water
Quality Objectives, recommendation No. 8, Warning System for High Coliform
Levels, the Minister of the Environment should research and develop an
appropriate high level, high fecal coliform level, public warning system for
operation during the recreation season.
Can the minister provide us with an update of his research and his
development of this very needed system?
Mr. Cummings: Well, there are about 13 different studies
that have been done that have a lot of information, partly of which covers some
of the questions that the member is asking.
I do not think that we have felt that the high level
warnings system has been operationalized because it did not feel that the
demand had‑‑we actually had probably a better than average year, I
suppose, the last couple of years, but that system is not in place.
Mr. Dewar: I would like to raise some issues about the
contamination of the Stony Mountain aquifer.
Can the minister give us a general status of that particular situation?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
That has been one of the rather unique situations that we have had to
deal with over the last few years.
Without going back over the long story of how we got to where we installed
an alternative water supply, one of the things that occurred in the early
examination of this problem was that the contaminant does behave in a rather
unusual way when it gets into water.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 1,1 trichloroethane and
trichloroethylene tend to gather in pockets and fissures in the ground water
and move somewhat unpredictably, so it led to the conclusion that you could not
easily remediate.
An alternative water supply was put in place, and a
strategy for containing any movement of the contamination in the area was to be
developed. That strategy is now being
put in place.
* (2020)
One aspect of it is to declare the area under the Sensitive
Area Regulations where we were able to take additional control over anyone who
might consider using a well, because wells drawing from areas that we may not
have anticipated might, inadvertently, draw the contaminant away. We knew where at least some of the
contaminant was, and Bristol is now undertaking to remediate that by pumping it
to aeration, and it can be removed through aeration.
I think we have approved the remedial plan that they
produced to attempt to do this, pretty simple situation in terms of their
aeration proposals, but one that will take some time and I guess a fair bit of
testing to determine whether it will actually provide the total cleanup that one
would want to have.
The problem there is simply, as I explained before, the
nature of the material and how it does or does not move in the aquifer. I am not an expert, but I am only repeating
what I was told in terms of how it may move more or less in a mass. We are talking small amounts, but it is still
a mass in terms of it going into a well and showing up somewhat unexpectedly, I
understand. It cannot be predicted
necessarily when it will move.
If I could go back one step further, perhaps it would be
correct to put on the record, there was always questions asked about why the
government became involved as one of the parties to provide an alternative
water supply. That had everything to do
with the fact that there were two sites that were contaminated or showed the
most contamination. One of them,
Bristol, clearly recognized it was their responsibility, but there was always a
site about five kilometres away that Bristol denied they had ever used that
particular material on their site.
(Mr. Gerry McAlpine,
Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
We could have gone to court, I suppose, and we would still
be there, and they would be attempting to prove that they had never used that
material and never had it on their site.
We would be attempting to prove that it was very close to what they had
used and, therefore, they should pay for the whole thing.
The compromise, in order to provide some comfort to the
people of the area, and that was really what it was, there were some wells that
were badly contaminated. There were a
number, however, that were below what was considered a dangerous level, but
nevertheless, people felt that it was an exposure and a risk that they had not
voluntarily undertaken and they wanted remediation from it.
So that explains why there was a three‑party
arrangement to deal with it. I would
rate this as a successful mediation of situation that needed to be dealt
with. There was a known polluter, there
was some orphan or unknown areas that needed to be responded to, and there was
a high level of concern in the community that had to be dealt with because‑‑and
I do not say this with anything other than respect‑‑but there was
an extremely high level of concern.
Unless something was done, and the first thing that was done was put in
the filters in order to try and reduce the risk immediately.
I would label it as a success. I would label it as a success also in the
other context, that Bristol was not an unwilling partner in the process. It has always been my philosophy that we are
better off to have an active cleanup and remediation going on than we are to be
wasting our time entirely in the courts.
Mr. Dewar: I believe the minister has made some effort
to answer my next question, and that is, of course, have you determined the
source of the contaminants? You
mentioned that Bristol has taken some responsibility for it, so they are
accepting some of that responsibility now then?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Our undertaking remediation, plus their undertaking to change their
activities at the site, so that they do not contribute again or further. So I am satisfied that the public was well
served even though, as I said, there was criticism of a tripartite type of
arrangement, but the fact that there was some material that might well have
ended up being listed as an orphan, I would think that the program was
successful.
It has been pointed out to me that in changing their method
of operation, Bristol has now reduced their solvent use by some 90 percent or
at least the material that, I take it, is the material that has to be disposed
of by 90 percent, as well as their in‑plant use. Where they got into trouble and caused the
contamination of the aquifer was, in fact, at their disposal site.
Mr. Dewar: Have you been able to identify all of the
sites, all of the wells that have been contaminated?
Mr. Cummings: Yes, we believe we have. There has been surveys, tests, ongoing tests
on a lot of them, we have some monitoring wells. No, I do not think we have missed anything.
Mr. Dewar: As the minister is aware, I have a number of
constituents just east of the centre of the contamination. Have any of these contaminants been found in
the St. Andrews‑West St. Paul area?
Have any of the contaminants been found in the Red River?
Mr. Cummings: Certainly not in the Red River. I think the best way to answer in terms of
what is going on in the wells, as I think I have the people here who have been
following this very closely, the area of contamination‑‑and Bristol
did a lot of the work in conjunction with the department and in conjunction
with consultants. What the remedial
process undertook to do was define the area where the pollution was. That was done via wells, via trying to
determine if it was moving anywhere.
That was how they came across that one that was first of all suggested
was a plume where that one site was that we were unable to with certainty
confirm what was in there.
In delineating that boundary, they have not found it
moving. So, therefore, it has not precipitated,
for a lack of a better term, a lot of testing in outlying areas because they
think they have defined the area in which it lies, and the testing is such that
they believe they could catch it if it were starting to move again. The movement seems to have stopped.
Mr. Dewar: I am pleased to hear that. Have you or has your department tested the
artesian wells in the Oak Hammock Marsh area?
Mr. Cummings: I cannot speak to the artesian wells that the
member refers to. I might not be able to
respond to that, but I am told that there have been more samples taken this
spring. While we do not have the results
all completed yet, we are pretty sure they are going to tell us that the contamination
area is the same as it was last year.
Mr. Dewar: Will the minister, when he gets those
results, pass them on to me so I can reassure my constituents that there is no
need for alarm in terms of the contamination of their water supply?
* (2030)
Mr. Cummings: In fact, I believe we can say that the
company and the department are prepared to go further than that. There has been an ongoing process of public
information availability. This will be
made available, and if it is deemed useful there will be a public discussion of
it in the affected area.
Mr. Dewar: What was the total bill to the province to
deal with this contamination, and has the department been able to recover any
of these costs?
Mr. Cummings: Well, that was what I was referring to
earlier when I said we had a tripartite agreement. The province did not undertake to recover for
the alternate water supply, as an example.
That was a three‑party, supported by all, by federal, provincial
and Bristol through PFRA program. It was
a rural water supply that was supplied, even though they had pre‑existing
water.
So that part was shared but not recovered. We have a capability of recovering a lot of
our departmental costs, but we have to verify and bill it. We do not anticipate‑‑at least I
remember the discussions when this was raised before, it is not likely, I do
not think, to be contentious because Bristol has agreed to it.
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I have a couple of
items I wanted to deal with before we pass this item. One relates to the household hazardous waste
program. You recall I had asked when we
were questioning in the area of the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management
Corporation about whether or not there would be a transfer of responsibility
from the corporation to the department for a household hazardous waste program
once the new corp. comes into being. I
am wondering if there is any planning going on in the department to assume this
program.
Mr. Cummings: As I indicated before, the Hazardous Waste
Corp. used to manage this out of their allocated loan authority from the
department and was presumably managed out of cash flow, but it could be argued
that it was to some extent rolled into their developmental costs.
For '94, the funding is still available through the
departmental Estimates in the appropriation for Manitoba Hazardous Waste
Corp. It is our intention‑‑and
I am told we already have a draft, we are working on drafting a contract‑‑to
have the department contract with the corp.
In this case, it would carry forward to the new corporation to manage
that program, at least in the short term.
Ms. McCormick: I also had some other questions when we were
last discussing the Hazardous Waste Corporation with respect to the polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons. Do you recall I
had asked whether or not there had been any concern raised with the department
that the Hazardous Waste Corporation was taking soils which were PAH
contaminated outside its licence? You
had indicated that you would determine within the department whether or not you
had received a complaint of this nature.
In fact, I went back to verify my information and was told
that the information is known to the department. So I was wondering if you have any plan to
scrutinize the corporation with respect to the kinds of soils that are being
taken for treatment and processing.
Mr. Cummings: I am not sure I can speak to the specifics of
the issue. I may be getting a note here
in a minute, but the longer‑term monitoring approach that we will have to
the corporation is already underway, and that we will have the capability in
that region to have a person who will not necessarily be dedicated just to that
corporation, but certainly will be dedicated with enough time to cover the
corporation and regulate them in terms of their operations.
Perhaps if the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) could
share any more detail with us, I do not know if we are checking in the wrong
place or with the wrong staff, but we have been unable to find any evidence of
the concern that you have raised.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, yes, I will go back
and find out if the person that has been speaking to me has not gone to the
right complaint department, but if that is the case, I will make sure to
forward it.
I note in the annual report‑‑
Mr. Cummings: Just if I might interject on that point,
certainly it is our policy that you do not have to go to any particular area of
a department to get your complaint dealt with, but perhaps we have not asked
the right people yet, but we would certainly appreciate any information and
follow up on it.
In fact, this is something that I pointed out earlier in
our discussions a week ago that you know it is now timely that people, the
public, begin to ask not how well is the corporation doing but how well are we
able to determine and regulate what they are doing, because they are now moving
into a new era and they will have to answer to the department the same as any
other corporation, and they have up to now except that they have had a
different relationship with the pubic than they will have from now on.
Ms. McCormick: The Hazardous Waste Corp.'s Annual Report
indicates that they processed 14,000 tonnes of hydrocarbon contaminated soil in
the year 1993. I was wondering if you
could give me any indication of how much is contracted for the first six months
of '94.
Mr. Cummings: I do not have the precise numbers. They are below prediction at the moment
though, I can tell you that.
Ms. McCormick: I guess that is what is causing some of us
concern is there may be a temptation to bring the numbers up to broaden the
amount of soil that they take. You are
saying it is not anywhere near what they had anticipated they would be doing
last year or what they did last year.
Mr. Cummings: Well, not necessarily what they had
anticipated, but what they had budgeted for.
They are running behind budget. I
am not sure if that is cyclical. I think
the member would acknowledge that soils going for treatment there, there may
well have been a backlog right at the start.
It is my anticipation that there likely is still some backlog out there,
and that the corporation is still competitive and certainly I do not have any
immediate concern that they will not be continuing to treat a significant
amount of soil.
Ms. McCormick: Another area of concern is with respect to
the PCBs. In the report it indicates
that there was about 2.5 million worth of money appropriated in the 1993 budget
year for the PCBs that were sent out of province. Can you tell me, with respect to the loads
that went, how many loads went in 1993 and how many went in 1994 before the
border closed?
Mr. Cummings: Let me answer that question in the reverse
order. The border did not close, nor I
suppose technically was it ever completely open. Alberta, I may be arguing over a split hair
here, was looking for soils to put into its incinerator to do a test‑burn,
and the member probably knows this better than I do, as I understand it, the
testing was that if they could get a quality burn on specified PCB materials,
they could get their licence approved; they would have passed their initial
start‑up tests.
Some of the material moved in December, the majority of it
did move in '94. I presume the member is
asking the difference between the calendar year, December, versus '94. If the member is asking that on the basis of
which direction is this taking the budget, because some of the money was
allocated in the year '93, some will be allocated in the year '94. There was, in fact, some detailed discussion
with the auditors as to what was the best way to appropriate it or to recognize
it as income. Some of it was recognized
up front and the balance was recognized in '94.
* (2040)
Unless the member has some other reason for asking the
question, I suppose it was entirely‑‑it was no different than on my
farm or any other business firstly where you recognize inventory at your
discretion in order to balance out your income and your expenditures, but the
business end of it was completed prior to the end of the year. I think it was November when we first had an
understanding that the material was going to move.
I am not normally that close to things the corporation
would do on a day‑to‑day basis, but this was an issue where Alberta
had indicated they would take materials from surrounding jurisdictions, and
that excluded Manitoba. So because
Manitoba was one of the ones who drove the presumed co‑operation between
all of the western jurisdictions in dealing with hazardous waste, tires, newsprint,
and all of the original co‑operative discussions that occurred, we were
somewhat offended that we were left out.
The result, however, was that Alberta found that the other
jurisdictions were not prepared to ship in the quantities or in the identified
quantities that they needed in order to be able to get their burn done, so the
minister in Alberta extended the opportunity to sell or to take the materials
to Manitoba. We were more than
adequately prepared.
Manitoba Hydro had the vast majority of it, and it was
stored, catalogued and categorized, and very easy to move. As I said in my opening remarks, we moved out
40 trailer loads of PCBs, and obviously the vast majority came from Winnipeg
and Manitoba Hydro, but there were quite a few school sites, private sites
where material was moved from, but they obviously would not amount to huge
volumes.
I guess the auditors agreed that sort of a 50‑50
breakdown of the total value of the material or of the sale‑‑the
profit was allowed to accrue on either side of the year‑end.
Ms. McCormick: I was trying to tie together three pieces of
information I found in the report. One
was that they began the shipments departing December 20, 1993. Another statement says that under the note on
revenue recognition: PCB management
revenue is recognized using a percentage‑of‑completion method. Then the third piece of information is the
$2,309,000 in the statement of operations and deficit.
I was concerned that the 1994 revenue projections were for,
is it simply a splitting of a completed $4 million‑plus deal, $4.2
million, and not another overestimation of revenue like it appears we got with
the contaminated soils issue. The whole
$4.2 million is for something that is packaged up and gone. It can certainly expect another $2.3 million
to show up in the '94 operating budget.
Mr. Cummings: That is correct. The dollars are not in question on this. I hope I did not mislead the member when we
were referring to the contaminated soils.
Was she implying that the figure that was included in the 1993 year of
treated soils was somehow wrong?
The only question we have that I understand is outstanding
between us at this point is whether or not the prediction on the amount of
contaminated soils be treated in the year '94 will come to fruition. Of course, that is a budgetary prediction,
and I acknowledge that, but the PCB sale was a $4.2 million sale, or very
close.
Ms. McCormick: I would like to move then from the corporation's
management of these soils to the question of the sites, which are likely to be
the originating sources.
I was looking at the 1993 State of the Environment Report,
and there is some discussion in the report on contaminated sites, headed
Identification is just the beginning. I
am wondering if you can give me any more information on the number of sites
that have been identified as contaminated sites to date?
Mr. Cummings: Our total number of sites on the registry are
a little over 400.
Ms. McCormick: Any idea how many of those would be petroleum
contaminated from fuel storage tanks?
Mr. Cummings: Ninety percent.
Ms. McCormick: Any idea how many of them are outside of the
Perimeter Highway?
Mr. Cummings: I do not think we have the precise split, but
I am told that likely the vast majority of them would be in the city.
Ms. McCormick: Any idea, then, whether the disproportionate
representation of urban sites is because the urban properties have come under
closer scrutiny or are more likely to be transacted in sales which would
require some kind of evaluation of the site, or whether fuel storage practices
in the city were historically less rigorous than those in the rural areas?
Mr. Cummings: Well, I was just checking with my deputy, but
I think his understanding of this is the same as I have, and that is, I do not
think you can say it had entirely to do with regulation or with operations.
It probably had something to do with the fact that I guess
this is something that is referenced quite often by people in the business,
that in the city of Winnipeg where there are some very, what could be valuable
properties that were at one time service stations‑‑the same as in
rural Manitoba where there are small towns today who may or may not even have a
service station but may have had two or three at one time in their life, and we
may not be aware of all of those, frankly.
We are doing, I think, a pretty aggressive job of identifying all of the
sites and gradually moving through and having them checked off. Obviously, more aggressive marketing of some
of what, as I said, can be quite valuable properties in the city will drive
them to examination and cleanup.
* (2050)
It does not mean that they are weeping sores sitting
there. It means that if they had been
closed down 20 years ago perhaps, and there is now some opportunity to put a
building over top of the site where there is contamination, they simply have to
remove it. That is all there is to it. So, yes, it is a combination.
Ms. McCormick: In terms of the department's planning
process, is there any anticipation that there might be an equivalent number to
the 400 currently identified remaining unidentified in rural Manitoba?
Mr. Cummings: This is very much a personal overview, but I
do not mind saying it. I know, as I said
earlier, I know darn well, there are lots of small communities who may only
have one or do not have any service stations any more that probably had two or
three at one point.
I would think that detailed examination of those sites
would probably find some contamination.
That is, in fact, something that is causing us a fair bit of regulatory
heartburn across rural Manitoba, because some of our opposition, including the
former Leader of the Liberal Party, used to take a few shots at our
decentralization program.
In fact, we have put regulators into rural Manitoba who are
now doing things that have not been done there for a while, including checking
potential sites of contamination and trying to get them, first of all, find
them and get them on the list, but then, secondly, check them for
contamination, if there is potential problems that can be deemed to be
there. One of the first potential
problems is if you are putting sewer and water into one of these communities,
chances of getting the contamination off a site into a newly excavated sewer
and water trench, first of all, causes problems to get in there, but that kind
of disturbance to the ground encourages it to move, and we have had a couple of
nasty surprises when we went to do improvements in some of these communities.
Ms. McCormick: Fortunately, a new day has dawned and I have
the portfolio now. So you will not hear
from me on that subject. I do want to
ask some more questions on your plans for contaminated site liability, but I am
prepared to wait and do that when we talk about the Legislation and
Intergovernmental Affairs section.
Mr. Cummings: I do not think the list of contaminated sites
is a secret. I would also indicate, I am
sure that some people have been questioning some of the processes that the
department is using, but I think it is only fair to acknowledge that it is
increasingly important that we do prioritization based on some risk analysis in
cleaning up some of these sites.
Let me choose a random area, town X, where there is known
to be a contaminated site, but it has been there for 20 years. In reviewing it for sale, it is identified,
and the owner may or may not be prepared to assume the responsibility that goes
with it, but at the same time you may well find that there are four more
service stations within a block that have been abandoned, none of the above of
which are contaminating any known aquifer or moving anywhere.
Some testing can help delineate the areas where they are at. But when you are talking at a half‑a‑million
dollar cleanup in a community that might only have 250 people, you have to look
at it in terms of, first of all, the risk to the environment; if that is
minimal, what is the risk to human lives and water supplies; and then devise a
strategy to deal with it based on that information, rather than simply ordering
a cleanup the instant contamination is found.
Ms. McCormick: I appreciate that just because you find one
does not necessarily mean that you have to order its cleanup, although I would
expect that the community should have some input into that decision if the
community feels that its water supply is at risk or there could be a land
transaction that could result in the sale of a property which was contaminated
without the purchaser being aware.
This actually prompts another interesting area for
consideration, and that is the concern that I have had for some time about the
credentialling of people who offer environmental advice. I know there was that terrible situation up
in Onanole where there was some difficulty with respect to analysis which
caused a site to be defined as contaminated, and then following some recalling
of their operating line for the company, it was subsequently found not to be
the case. Has the department, in terms
of its plans to make amendments to an act to deal with contaminated site
liability, given any consideration to determining who can in fact act as expert
with respect to the sampling and the evaluation of core samples?
Mr. Cummings: There are a couple of aspects to that, one
which I will deal with first while I am getting the answer to the second part,
and that is the installers. We are
certainly actively pursuing licensing installers. In fact, our most serious leaks lately have
been from new installations that were improperly done‑‑well, I say
most serious‑‑ones that caused the most trouble when they leaked.
The second part of your question about licensing, who may
or may not provide advice, I suppose one of the things we have found is there
is some terribly costly advice out there, and the public does not necessarily
know who they should be taking their advice from. There is an element of buyer beware. I am not sure government can protect a person
who is seeking consulting advice completely from being charged a significant
cost. We do not recommend but the
department does require qualified people, qualified meaning‑‑a
qualified consultant would be one with appropriate formal training, being able
to interpret analysis for action.
What we have done is undertake to compile a list of
qualified consultants. The department
cannot be seen to be recommending any one company. We make that list available to others. Obviously, I mentioned their formal education
or training, but also whether they have appropriate equipment, whether they
have had experience in doing it before.
On the other hand, you will never get experience if you do not get a
chance to get a job. So I suppose there
is an element of that has to be considered as well.
I am informed the department has developed and distributed
to consultants a standard procedure for investigating sampling and analysis of
sites, and we will not accept a report if the work is not done properly.
The case that the member refers to in Onanole was most
unfortunate, but it was also unique inasmuch as the original test work was
ordered not by us, but by Shell Canada in that case. The people who did the work were recognized
as quality people in the area, but it is a horrendous situation that the family
is caught in. However, when the
Department of Environment undertook to do the second test because they were not
willing or prepared to pay for any further testing, I suppose, to some extent,
we should have been acknowledged that we did in fact save them from what could
have been an even greater cost, which was going in and actually looking to find
the contamination that turned out not to be there.
* (2100)
There was a real reason to be conscientious about the
potential for contamination. It was not
that far from a well that supplied a school in the area, so it was not exactly
a remote and unimportant site.
Ms. McCormick: I was curious when you were reading from the
paper describing the guidelines which have gone out to consultants. Is it for a variety of contamination sources
or just for hydrocarbon contamination?
Mr. Cummings: I suppose you could say that these were
designed primarily for hydrocarbons, but my own thinking tells me that would
not be too much different from what would be required for a lot of other in‑soil
investigations. I should not say my
experience; my own understanding of it would be that.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I want to ask a couple of questions related
to activities at AECL. I am concerned
about the import of waste fuel bundles.
First of all, maybe you could get some clarifications on why we imported
waste fuel from Arkansas the last couple of years and where it came from,
specifically for research purposes at AECL.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
Mr. Cummings: Was the member inquiring about the regulatory
regime that is in place to deal with any movement of this type of a material,
because first of all, they are regulated federally. Under an agreement that we have today, they
must report to us what it is that they are doing, and they must justify that
the material is being brought in for research purposes. It is my understanding, and I am satisfied
that the material that was being brought in was being used to test their capability
on the hot side of it, as it were.
They have the capacity to deal with, to work with
radioactive material under highly controlled situations. The transportation of it is an extremely well
protected system from what I have seen of it.
I am not sure if there are other aspects of this that the member would
like to pursue, but certainly the volumes are very closely controlled and every
bit is accounted for in one way or another before the cycle is completed.
Ms. Cerilli: Is the department still keeping an inventory?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Ms. Cerilli: So the department has an inventory of all the
nuclear waste, all of the products that are being used at the AECL facility in
Pinawa.
Mr. Cummings: We do not keep it here in our Winnipeg
offices, it is kept at our regional office.
Ms. Cerilli: My concern is why are we having some kind of
a trade relationship or exchange in this kind of material with Arkansas, with
the United States.
Mr. Cummings: I am not sure that I can account for the
source of the material that AECL sought out.
I am satisfied however that the handling, the auditing and the tracking
of any material that comes in and how it is ultimately dealt with is quite
satisfactory. AECL is highly, highly
regulated. There are a fair number of
federal authorities that are onsite all the time with the sole responsibility
for regulating.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, August 1985, apparently there was an
inventory that was made public of 1,344 used fuel bundles; 562 additional bundles;
136 cans of nuclear waste; 1,801 litres of high‑level liquid waste from
reprocessing; six used cobalt from 60 cancer therapy machines; 676 cubic metres
of solid intermediate waste and 16,750 cubic metres of slow low‑level
waste.
That was provided to the public and one of the staff at the
regional office, I believe it was the director, had been keeping this
inventory. I believe she was then ill,
and since then this group has been trying to get information about the current
status of these kinds of hazardous wastes, and I am wondering if I could get
that information.
Mr. Cummings: I do not know why not. That is why we keep the inventory. If the member is implying or stating that she
thinks the inventory has fallen behind‑‑that director was ill for a
while, but I am not sure that has done anything to compromise the program. We get the information from AECL. We use their federal regulatory authorities
as they are responsible regulating people.
We do not intend to be the regulator, so this is a watching situation so
that we are abreast of what is going on.
Ms. Cerilli: Back then to my initial question, which is
related to the source of this kind of material:
How much of it is coming from outside of Canada?
Mr. Cummings: I cannot answer that question, but I repeat,
that does not imply that Pinawa is starting to become a repository for nuclear
waste from around North America. It is
all accounted for in the processes that they are operating over there. I have been to the underground laboratory,
and certainly, it is researching the capabilities of using that system for
storage of waste, but they will soon have it so much like Swiss cheese down
there that they sure will not be using that lab.
Ms. Cerilli: My questions, though, are pertaining to the
source of where this waste is coming from.
I am wondering if the minister, when he provides me the inventory
information, would also include with that any agreement with the United States
source and detail for me what the agreement is in the transport of this used
nuclear fuel to Pinawa. Would the
minister agree to do that?
* (2110)
Mr. Cummings: I do not have a problem with the inventory
reports. I do not think that I am in a
position to offer to table any agreements that they may have made with the
various jurisdictions, but I will certainly make sure that the inventory
material is available.
Ms. Cerilli: Is nuclear waste considered a good? We see a lot of billboards now with waste
being promoted as being a good that is being transported across borders. I am wondering if the minister has a
definition, if nuclear waste is considered a good.
Mr. Cummings: Does the member mean good as in commodity?
Ms. Cerilli: Yes. I
am talking about a good that can be traded, a commodity.
Mr. Cummings: Well, I think we have to recognize that what
we are talking about here is research material.
We have one of the best research laboratories in North America at
Pinawa. The expertise from Pinawa‑‑as
a matter of fact, a former schoolmate of mine is responsible for travelling to
a number of sites across North America, helping them with their waste
management using the expertise he gained working at that particular site.
I cannot claim any personal knowledge because of that except
that he seems quite hale and hearty.
Even the member, in her own questions, referenced the fact that some of
this was spent on X‑ray equipment and that type of material. There always seems to be this aura around
AECL and nuclear questions that arise, particularly from the concerned citizens
group and through the NDP caucus, that lead me to believe that they think that
there is another imminent Chernobyl at Pinawa.
I think it was her colleagues from a previous
administration that declared this a nuclear‑free zone. I know that had a tremendous impact on
international relations, but the fact is that this is a test facility that is
seeking information and knowledge that may or may not unlock some of the
secrets that need to be mastered if nuclear energy is ever going to develop the
potential that it has.
Nevertheless, the peaceful use of nuclear energy or
radioactive material is absolutely fantastic.
There are a lot of people who owe their lives and their entire futures
to the fact that radioactivity and the benefits that can flow from it through
medical uses are very dramatic and very beneficial. But it needs to be handled carefully, and
that is why we keep a watching position on Pinawa, but we do rely heavily on
federal authorities to make sure that it is being done correctly.
Ms. Cerilli: I hope the minister is not trying to suggest
that my concerns about the situation and the world in terms of nuclear energy
in misguided. I think concerns in these
areas are certainly well founded. I have
concerns about Canada's Candu program, I have concerns about Mr. Filmon's
promotion of reactors in Indonesia, I have concerns about the import of nuclear
waste in terms of NAFTA, and I have a lot of concerns about uranium mining in
Saskatchewan. I have a number of
concerns about the depleted uranium that was used in shells during the Gulf War
that is contaminating the Middle East and Iraq and Iran and destroying‑‑yes,
and I am concerned that some of that uranium came from Canada.
I think this is a very serious national issue, and I would
really like to have the minister's co‑operation to see that we are being
responsible. I think we have a history
in this country of not necessarily being responsible in what happens with our
Candu uranium program.
In terms of NAFTA, does the minister have any kind of
advice with respect to our authority under NAFTA to maintain autonomy in
jurisdictions that are provincial jurisdictions?
Mr. Cummings: Well, as I have said a few times on the
record, Manitoba was very much in the lead in the discussion of the
environmental side agreement and the recognition that in fact provincial
autonomy does survive under certain aspects of the NAFTA agreement,
particularly in the environmental area.
That is why the penalties are structured the way they are, that if a
jurisdiction should be proven to be substantially in violation of exercising
their environment laws, or if they have a complaint brought against them, as I
understand the proposals that we saw last, that will accrue back to the jurisdiction,
i.e., the province, where the problem is deemed to occur.
So I really am impressed that the member continues to forge
forward on this particular line of questioning with her stating her belief
about the Candu reactor and presumably the slowpoke reactor, which is
considered one of the safest and most usable systems in the world, and at the
same time our NDP cousins in Saskatchewan are looking to open two open‑pit
mines without an environmental hearing.
So I suppose she is now going to disown the Romanow government because
they changed their stripes once they found out that there actually was some
economic spin‑off from the uranium mine.
Ms. Cerilli: My dissatisfaction with that is known within
my party.
Back to the NAFTA issue and the other question I was asking
with respect to nuclear waste, if AECL is successful and they go through this
process of, what do they call it, the term that is used, the Canadian Nuclear
Fuel Waste Management Program where they dispose of nuclear fuel waste in a deep
underground vault in intrusive igneous plutonic rock, which is in the Canadian
Shield.
So if they are successful with this program, could we be in
a position to be involved in trade in nuclear waste with the United
States? I have heard that all of their
current disposal sites are either tied up in litigation or are full, and they
are desperately looking for alternatives.
I think that a number of people are concerned about the implications for
Canada based on those kinds of situations.
* (2120)
It raises all sorts of questions in terms of
intergenerational rights and the kind of situation we are going to be leaving
for an incredible number of years. Does
the minister have any way he can explain the possibility in this area under
NAFTA?
Mr. Cummings: To begin with, the underground test facility
at Pinawa is just that. It is an
underground test and research facility.
There is no intention of massive intake and no capability of massive
intake and storage and waste in that facility.
Their responsibility is to examine‑‑
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: I just want to say on a point of order, I
said given that their testing goes forward as they hope and that this program
is accepted in the country, however many years down the road that may be. We may all be gone by then, but I just want
to clarify for the minister.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Cummings: The member is asking me what might happen
several generations down the road from when she and I have gone on to our just
reward. The fact is, as I was beginning
to state, that the facility is not being designed as a long‑term
permanent storage facility. It is being
designed to test the capability of that type of a granite rock structure as a
potential permanent storage site for nuclear waste. I suggest that the member would not be ill‑advised
to take the opportunity to sit down with some of the doctors at Pinawa and
review what it is that they are doing, because it attracts international
attention, people come from around the world to be able to do research there.
The lab, incidentally, it is no secret, it is under some
considerable pressure for funding today.
The present administration in Ottawa is not going to extend funding to
this laboratory beyond the next few years, other than to keep it in a very
minimal state of operation unless they can develop private sector funding
through doing research and lab work for contract.
That is why I referenced earlier that, in fact, some of the
people with the expertise from that facility are being contracted to and
through other national facilities of the Canadian nuclear program being
contracted by the Americans, in some cases, to help them with their waste, to
design systems for cleanup, capsulation, et cetera.
So I think the member can take some comfort in the way
NAFTA is designed that Manitoba is not going to become a nuclear dumping
ground, and in fact, I would hold some hope that in the long run the type of
expertise and knowledge that is being developed at Pinawa would continue to be
an asset to this province. The
capability for testing for other contaminants for dealing with other
environmental problems, using the knowledge and the equipment that is available
in relationship to the nuclear industry, has a very high degree of possibility
to aid research in other areas.
Ms. McCormick: I have just a couple of miscellaneous little
water issues I would like to deal with before we move on.
I had a letter from the Pembina Valley Protection
Association with respect to their concerns about vandalism to the riparian
culvert, aware of the Pelican Lake Diversion.
The correspondence I had with this group dated back to the
10th of May, at which time they expressed concern that they had not heard from
you with respect to a resolution of this issue.
Is this still an ongoing issue, or have you responded to the Pembina
Valley Protection Association?
Mr. Cummings: Yes, that issue did drag on longer than
perhaps it should have. We have
responded to them. I cannot remember the
contents of that letter.
Ms. McCormick: They had indicated to me that should they
hear from you they would report to me so I could clear it off my file, but your
belief is that they are now satisfied that the issue has been resolved to their
satisfaction?
Mr. Cummings: We will attempt to find the letter. If you will hold your question until a little
later, I will try and find the letter.
Ms. McCormick: The other water issue is a recent letter from
the Winnipeg Water Protection Group, again expressing concerns about the
Consolidated Professor Mines intention to operate their gold mine in the Shoal
Lake area. The last I understood was that
they were planning on doing the processing of this mining quite far away from
the water source, but it seems that this issue has come back again as recently
as the 7th of June.
The position being taken by the Water Protection Group in
the letter is that they would expect that there would be a full environmental
assessment of any gold mining initiative in the area, and the stated position
of the mine is to have the E.A. withdrawn.
Can you give us any additional information on that?
Mr. Cummings: Just a moment till I get the fact sheet here
to update myself. The issue is simply
ongoing. The problem is, as was raised
in the House not that long ago, that Ontario has been busy working with their
native bands that live in their area but assures us that they are striking an
arrangement to have a framework for discussion, not going beyond that,
frankly. Of course, it leaves us very
uncomfortable.
Interestingly enough, there have been a couple of
indications that Ontario is going to try and take this project off of its
environmental assessment list. I do not
think that has occurred yet, and that is in fact encouraging, although that
could come off pretty quickly I guess.
There certainly was a rumour circulating for a while that they were
considering taking it off that list.
That would be the most stringent environmental assessment that a mine,
any mine, in Ontario had ever been put through if they in fact were to continue
with that.
* (2130)
Moving the process site out of the basin, I suppose, does
lower the level of potential problems, but as before, I have said I would wait
and see before I would pass much comment on any design of the project, because
what we had hoped to have is a basin‑wide management plan. Of course, my conclusion is that Ontario
really does not want to have to deal with us, although my conversations with
Mr. Wildman recently have been much more cordial in this area, and he does want
to reopen the lines of communication. I
think, as we discussed before, he has had a very difficult winter and probably
reflects on the lack of communication that I have had with him. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to in any way
risk what is going on with Shoal Lake and the water quality there.
Really, not much is occurring that I can add to what
everybody knows about the process, except that we are still committed to the
basin‑wide management plan, and we still have the one ability to
demonstrate our commitment to putting that management plan in place. That is, quite simply, with about a week's
notice, I can gazette our Sensitive Area Regulations that we intend to
implement on the Manitoba side of the border, surrounding the lake, to
demonstrate that a regulatory regime for the protection of water quality can in
fact be put in place.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just want to follow
up on the minister's comment. What is
the status of the Sensitive Area Regulations?
Are you saying that they are done?
Are they the same regulations that are basically the one kilometre
border around the lake that does not go up into the tributaries that feed the
lake?
Mr. Cummings: I do not think one kilometre was the
criteria. The drainage area around the
lake was the criteria. These are the
same regulations that the member for Radisson dumped on from great heights,
which in my view do a rather adequate job of protecting the water quality, if
they were to be implemented in the same spirit and effort all the way around
the basin.
We withdrew them from proclamation because the native bands
asked us to in the interest of co‑operation with them. They felt they had some legitimate
concerns. They felt it was impinging on
their ability, their right to do certain things on their properties. They wanted to embark on further discussions
with Ontario.
I have always said that I would like this sort of thing
cleaned up and managed co‑operatively rather than on an ad hoc and an
adversarial agenda. So we withdrew them,
but I still indicate that those regs will demonstrate Manitoba's intention to
deal with this and would demand a reciprocal action from Ontario, except that I
would rather continue the negotiations than to follow that approach.
Ms. Cerilli: Does the minister now accept, I think, the
changes in the Ontario proposal to take the processing of the extracted
resources away from the lake? Is that
outside the scope of the Sensitive Area Regulations if they were applied in
Ontario? Does this proposal now satisfy
the department?
Mr. Cummings: No, because we do not have precise details.
Ms. Cerilli: Is the department, on behalf of the province,
now part of the Shoal Lake Working Group?
Mr. Cummings: I am sorry.
Would the member repeat the question, please?
Ms. Cerilli: I just asked if we are now part of the Shoal
Lake Working Group as the Province of Manitoba?
Mr. Cummings: I have been told three times that I will be
invited very shortly. It has not yet
occurred. The latest was two weeks ago.
Ms. Cerilli: But we are all set to participate in that,
sounds like it anyway.
Mr. Cummings: That is correct, but of course our first
approach to those meetings will be to determine precisely the nature of the
agreement that Ontario believes they have struck with their native
community. If it is of the nature that I
described earlier, then it is a framework for decision making, but it is not an
agreement on specific issues and therefore might be something that we can work
within.
Until I have seen it, and we have seen really nothing
because the natives, whether they have chosen to divide and conquer I do not
know, but the native groups have in their wisdom decided that they do not want
Manitoba at the table. In return for
that position, Ontario has said that they will only take the agreement so far
until they have Manitoba at the table.
Frankly, Manitoba's position is, of necessity, going to continue to be
very tough on any conditions around what might occur in that area until we see
something concrete, if you will, in terms of what is being proposed.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Ms. Cerilli: Part of the letter that I have from June 16,
1993, says that First Nations expect that Manitoba will either join the Ontario
First Nations Memorandum of Understanding or seek their own agreement with
First Nations. So there is still that
option that you would come to your own agreement with First Nations in that
area, even though, as I understand it, they are under federal
jurisdiction. Is that correct? I have never really been clear as to why they
are dealing just with Ontario, how that came to be.
Mr. Cummings: I think it is pretty clear. The Ontario government has taken a position
that it wants to empower the native communities there. My concern has always been, are they doing it
at the expense of Manitoba?
Ms. Cerilli: The other thing I have that related to this
is a letter from the minister sent to the Minister of Environment from December
15, 1992. I think this was when the heat
of this debate was going on. There were
four concerns that the minister had expressed in that letter. One of them maybe dealt with the mine shaft
being subject to a known amount of water seepage. Excessive precipitation will overflow the
closed circuits. I am wondering then,
there are two others, and I am wondering if you have some indication if those
have been addressed, the cyanide and the mercury levels.
Mr. Cummings: No, and we are still awaiting‑‑we
do not have the information from the company.
Ms. Cerilli: We are going to move on to talk about hog
lagoons and your favorite topic‑‑sewage lagoons, I should say, and
the incredible expansion of the hog industry in southern Manitoba.
I do not know if this issue consumes as much of the
minister's time as it consumes the time of the critics in this portfolio, but
maybe I can begin by asking the minister‑‑I have been trying to get
some information with respect to the scope of the expansion of this
industry. I am wondering if, especially
considering the minister's background, he would have that kind of information
and be willing to share it with the committee.
I think it will help us with this discussion, even though,
you know, it is not part of the Environment Estimates per se, but it certainly
is pertinent to the discussion.
Mr. Cummings: It is very pertinent to the discussion. The business side of the hog industry and the
agricultural portfolio in general recognizes an expansion opportunity, world
market opportunities that say that there could be a doubling of the hog
population in this province, and it could be adequately marketed.
The member should not run off and say that I said, there
will be a doubling of the hog population.
I said that there could be and it could be adequately marketed.
There is also a demand for beef, of course. The member will remember the debate we had last
Thursday on the Crow rate benefits, Western Grain Transportation and all of the
associated aspects of that part of our economy.
* (2140)
Being that we are centrally located, we have the highest
transportation costs anywhere probably in the North American continent to get
our product to market. We need to have
value‑added product. We cannot
continue to subsidize the production of wheat, subsidize the transportation of
it, and then subsidize the sale of it.
We need to have a product that we can market that has a
higher value, and one of the highest value products right now is PMU
production, frankly. It takes a lower
quality land out of production into livestock‑style production more
environmentally friendly inasmuch as the erosion possibilities of the land is
dramatically reduced. There is a market,
obviously a good market for the Premarin produced from the urine, and there is
also a good market for the livestock.
Taking that through to the hog industry, the capability of
producing here I think is very high. The
member asked what are the expansion figures that are occurring right now. I would think that optimistically we believe
if we were to fill the market demand we would need, as I mentioned, a doubling.
The exact figures I have not got for the proposed
development of facilities this summer. I
think we have about eight proposals in front of the department. The information was pulled together as a
result of questions that you had asked before, I believe.
Formal applications to date, only one in the R.M. of
Macdonald, approximately 20 inquiries, and since that does not always translate
into development, I suppose we are a little disappointed in terms of from the
economic point of view about whether or not some of the potential investors have
backed off, frankly, because of the very negative publicity that they have been
receiving.
In my own area there is a redevelopment of a large hog
enterprise, but it may ultimately‑‑it will be a larger production
unit after they have redeveloped their production facilities, but I am not
aware of a high number of new facilities going into place. That is troubling, given what I said earlier
about the world markets for grain and the need for higher value product if we
are paying the freight for it out of here, that it should be worth a lot
more. It should be worth $3 a pound
rather than $3 for 60 pounds going out; it is much easier to pay the freight.
I think we probably can produce the precise numbers. I am sure you do not want to get hung up on
just that number, so I would invite you to ask further questions.
Ms. Cerilli: I actually forgot I had this. Issues relating to value‑added
processing of agricultural products in Manitoba by the Rural Development
Institute was just issued April '94. It
talks about approximately 2,000 commercial hog producers currently operating in
Manitoba. They represent about 7 percent
of the hog producers in Canada.
One of the concerns and questions that I have is are these
farms getting too big? Are we exceeding
the caring capacity of the ecosystems that they are putting the waste
into? Are we already at the point where
before you brought in the regulations, and I am not going to get into dealing
with specifics of the regulations right now, but are we already in a situation
where we have allowed the expansion to occur?
That is why I wanted to get an indication of how many new
hog operations are there in Manitoba over the last four years and how much expansion
does that represent of how far we are going in this direction?
Mr. Cummings: Well, I think this is the kind of discussion
that we all welcome on both sides of the Chamber, because when I suggest that
there has not been a rapid expansion right in my local area, it just went
through one of the larger expansions in the last four or five years.
We have got other areas of the province, the municipality
of Rhineland, that general area, the larger sense, 30 percent of the hogs are
produced in this province, 35 percent of them are produced by Hutterian
Brethren.
Their expansion is ongoing although it is not any more
rapid than it was a couple of years ago.
So, no, we have not seen the expansion and then have to come back in
behind and regulate. What we have seen
is a growth that has been driven by very low grain prices and by a need to get
a higher value product coming off the farms.
Are we starting to exceed the ecological capacity of some
of the farmlands? I would say that you
could find examples where that might have occurred, but good farming practices
mean that that will get dealt with fairly quickly. Let me demonstrate by saying that I had a
person in my office on Saturday who has access to technology that can be
installed in large hog operations that would capture the biogas, that would use
biological activity to enhance the nitrogen capacity of the material, reduce
the volumes and have a guaranteed level of fertilizer content in the product
that is being removed to the field.
When you consider that that is being put in in a situation
in Alberta where everything has been done for 10 years to try to block the
development of a hog production facility in a particular neighbourhood, that
plus a lot of other known technologies that are available from Denmark and
other parts of Europe, I think we are in a pretty good position to take
advantage of known and developing technologies to deal with waste. What will force that is changes such as we
have made in our regulations. I am
continually impressed by the idea that industry is moving very quickly to stay
ahead of this.
We do not have a lot of examples, in my knowledge, where
there are operating facilities right now that have their neighbours anxiously
trying to shut them down. There is the
example of two or three new facilities that are being developed where there is
opposition. I acknowledge that,
acknowledge that that will or will not be proven to be an appropriate
investment, depending on how well they operate when they get up and get going,
but I know from my own experience and from what has been demonstrated over the
years that if you want a good safe operation, whether it is in hog production
or in any other agriculture endeavour, that you will probably find that the
willingness to put money into innovation and technology is very often made
available through the large operations because they, in fact have a little bit
more decent profit margin and they have a heck of a lot more at stake if for
any reason they should be shut down or start to lose money.
* (2150)
The very fact that we say we are prepared to regulate the
amount of nitrogen, for example, that is available on a given field that has
had hog waste put on it, or livestock waste of any kind put on it, indicates to
the industry that they are going to have to be more conscientious in their
application of their waste. It is over
application of the waste that will contaminate the aquifers, and that
contamination will occur from nitrates, particularly, and phosphates leaching
into the lower levels.
The positive aspect of that is that every gallon that goes
out there has a value for fertilizer purposes and you combine a better‑known
technology so they can verify and in fact enhance the value of the fertilizer,
i.e., the waste that they are putting on their fields. You will find that the industry will be
extremely imaginative in finding ways to transport it to other fields so that
they get the same nutrient buildup, if you will, or enhancement for their crop
production without overdoing it on a field.
So that takes care of one part of that.
There are numerous new approaches being made to the
application of manure. There is research
going on to enhance the smell reduction in the handling of waste. There is a very strong movement afoot to
develop better‑‑well, in fact, I think we have come through one of
the most progressive two decades in terms of developing feed and the genetic
capability of livestock for feed conversion.
The last 20 years, it seems, I do think there has ever been a more
dramatic change in the quality and capacity of the combination of feed and
genetics that are producing efficiently.
All of that means that these farmers are capable of reacting to
environmental regulation.
The question that needs to be answered is, how quickly do
you move in working with the industry? I
think the industry is prepared to start being self‑regulating inasmuch as
they can be requested to report the nitrogen fertilizer levels of the fields
that they are putting their waste on.
We are seeing companies, colonies, that are prepared to
invest $300,000 to a half a million dollars into waste‑handling
systems. They are prepared to invest
that kind of money; they are not going to do it in something that is going get
them shut down under violation of The Environment Act down the road. So I have a high level of confidence in where
I see the industry going.
I have a high degree of unease with some of what I call
fear tactics that are being used by some advocates who are clearly
opposed. They can dress up their
opposition in terms of concern for the environment; they can dress it up in
terms of concern for animal rights; but, in the end, it is an out‑and‑out
opposition to this type of development.
I maintain that the capability is there to respond to those
concerns if we can get the appropriate information into the hands of those who
count‑‑in other words, the neighbours of the appropriate hog
developments.
Ms. Cerilli: I am quite concerned by some of the
minister's comments. He just finished
saying that you do not deny that there has been a problem, and I think that a
lot of the people who are raising this issue are concerned about specific
areas. The regulations do not have
anything that deals with sensitive ground water hazard areas, the lagoon that
is going into the Delta Marsh area.
So this is tied up with the whole debate that is going on
with respect to sewage lagoons, but the mechanism for decision making, I think
is‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Cummings: The member is implying or made the statement
that there is a lagoon going into the Delta Marsh. There is a lagoon going on a farm that is
within a few kilometres of the marsh.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Bob Rose): The honourable
minister did not have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. Cerilli: The effluent from that will flow where?
Mr. Cummings: Well, the effluent is not going to flow
anywhere. I guess that is the concern
that I have about comments that are made by some of us who have not necessarily
taken the time to look at it.
You do not have to go to the most expensive operation in
the country; you do not have to go too far, however, to find some reasonably
well‑managed hog operations; and you do not pull the plug on a hog lagoon
and let it run anywhere. You have a
valuable asset in the lagoon. It is
waste manure which has an organic value for the improvement of the soil.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would really encourage the
member to pick up the phone and phone Manitoba Pork Inc., invite them over to
her office and sit down and talk about where they see the hog industry going in
relationship to regulation and in relationship to environmental protection and
really take an opportunity to look at the industry.
This is not the same as dealing with the effluent from a
town lagoon, where you are dealing with a situation where you are treating the
material before you are letting it out.
This is livestock waste that in appropriate quantities‑‑of
course, that is the issue; we are talking about large volumes‑‑is
very much considered a way of enhancing the organic content, the mulch within
the soil. It need not be a problem. It must be managed appropriately, but it need
not be a problem.
We have advanced quite a way in terms of the regulations
that are laid down for the disposal of livestock waste. Now the member constantly asks, what is our
ability to enforce? The first issue that
always comes up is, what is the structure of the lagoon? The lagoons are leaking is always the
accusation. Well, that is pretty darn
easy to deal with under new constructions, that you lay down the standards of
impermeability, and they are constructed to that level.
My level of distaste for this debate stems from the
discussion we had in the Oakville area about a human effluent lagoon that was
servicing seven families, and because there was a fight over the development of
the colony in that location, I know that we spent tens of thousands of dollars
of taxpayers' money testing that lagoon to prove that it was sound. The fact was there was so little going into
it that evaporation took care of the surplus.
* (2200)
It is a most distasteful product to have to deal with. Nobody likes to really get into the
discussion of‑‑and we all know the colloquialism with which we
refer to hog manure, but it need not be a problem if properly managed and
regulated, and I think we are embarked in the proper direction, if only some
rational voices would be brought to the argument.
I have several times had it argued to me that Quebec is a
shining example of what not to do in the pork industry and that we are about to
follow Quebec down the tube, for lack of a better analogy. The fact is we are far further advanced than
Quebec is in terms of development of systems for handling their waste. We are in good shape.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
Ms. Cerilli: I realize that the minister is one of the hog
experts, the head hog, but I would just let him know that a lot of the
information and concern that is raised with me does come from farmers. I have also written to Manitoba Pork, and I
have not received a response to letters I have sent to them.
I think, though, that some of the things that the minister
has just referenced are legitimate concerns, that when I look through these new
regulations, I wonder how this is going to be enforced? How was the determination made, and why was
it made at 100 metres from a surface water course?
How are we going to look at case by case when each proposal
comes forward? How is that decision
making going to happen, especially when there are so many municipalities
without development plans and all of the concern that that raises?
I am wondering if there is a requirement for the field that
the manure is spread on to be used for production. One of the requirements is that the nitrogen
content cannot exceed the requirement for‑‑
An Honourable Member: How much is that?
Ms. Cerilli: I imagine that that would vary, but I am
wondering if there is a requirement for the field that is used for the hog
manure to be used for production during the time that the manure is spread on
the field.
Mr. Cummings: Well, this is a little different approach to
regulation than what has been traditionally used in Manitoba. It is quite intentional to what we have done,
that is, state the regulations that the producer must conform to, but we have
stated it in such a way that they can then make adjustments to be sure that
they are living within those regulatory standards.
The amount of nitrogen that can be applied, that can be
found on a field or in a field as a result of hog waste application is a good
example of applying that method of environmental protection.
What it says is that 60 pounds of actual nitrogen for
annual crops or on light soils up to 225 pounds of actual for alfalfa. In fact, that is somewhat lower than what you
might find under normal production using artificial fertilizers. So these are not unreasonably selected
figures.
Now the other question about it being in crop, one of the
methods‑‑and the reason I point to the fact that larger operations
are not necessarily problematic is that they are sometimes prepared to invest
in equipment, because they have more opportunity to use it, and they have
better financing to put on a per tonne of available manure. They have a better cost base to spread it
over.
Injection of the manure into the soil at a four‑ or
five‑inch level is a very acceptable way of trapping the nutrients and
minimizing the amount of runoff, minimizing the amount of smell that goes with
the operation, and all of those things.
In fact, injection has been the agreed‑upon method for application
in the Delta Marsh hog operation.
While we are mentioning Delta Marsh, we should remember the
reason there is a marsh there is that there is a good clay content
underneath. That is what holds the water
from soaking away. The clay level is
there. So this is not an improper area to
have an operation, provided the surface water movements are controlled. It is unlikely, from the information I have
given, that there would be any possibility of ground water contamination from
that type of operation.
So a distance of 100 metres from a surface water course‑‑of
course, those figures were somewhat arbitrarily set, but they were set on the
basis of the knowledge that people who have been working in environmental
protection for a great length of time in discussion with the industry.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 100 metres is 300 feet, or a little
better. You can control with a fair
degree of certainty what is likely to happen in terms of construction. You are far enough away; presumably, the
elevation will be appropriate. I think
there is a reference to elevation as well.
Nevertheless, for construction of a lagoon that is
certainly a distance away, a distance that can be pointed to as an appropriate
setback. You do not have‑‑these
are not lagoons that discharge. Another
reason you want it a fair distance back is if somebody is trying to play games
and discharges, it is a heck of a lot easier to catch them if they are at least
that far back from a water course.
You tie that to the fact that we have required that there
must be significant capacity to store all the waste from the operation for I
believe it is one year, that you have a situation where the operator can then‑‑the
intention of that aspect is that the operator can then time whenever they would
apply the material to the field. They do
not have to do it when it is frozen.
The fact is, I had it pointed out to me by an operator just
this week that application of manure to frozen ground early on in the winter
season is a lot less likely to‑‑you will lose the fertilizer
benefit, but you will not end up with a polluting field nearly as likely as you
will if you apply the material very early in the spring before all the frost
has come out of the soil, so conscientious management of the waste within the
regulations that are set down here.
The overall statement, of course, that there will not be a
pollution result directly from the application of the waste means that a
regulator, if they find evidence of violation, will be able to find or take
whatever other appropriate actions are deemed necessary.
Ms. Cerilli: In a different vein, we talked earlier about
the increase in this industry and the ongoing expansion I think the minister
and the government hope to see.
I think we would also expect that there would be an
increase in the number of processing jobs.
The Swift's plant is in my constituency, and I have talked to residents
there who say there has not been an increase in the processing jobs and, in
fact, that they have laid off inspectors.
There are often layoffs in the processing side of this industry, so I am
concerned what is happening.
Are we seeing an increase in export of pigs for breeding
purposes or other pigs that are not slaughtered? Can the minister explain the situation?
Mr. Cummings: The member raises a good point, and I think
it is well worth spending a little bit of time on this, because the creation of
job opportunity is very important.
This is not just a discussion about opportunities in rural
Manitoba. It is not just a discussion
about environmental protection. It is a
discussion about where we will take the future of this province in a very real
sense because agricultural production is a big part of the provincial national
product, if you will.
The development of jobs‑‑and I had the figure
in front of me here not very long ago. I
think we are talking about 100 jobs for every 500‑sow production facility
that is put into place. I will find the
figure. The job creation also includes
the marketing of the feed and the production of the feed. I think I am out on the numbers, actually,
but certainly the processing and marketing is very important.
* (2210)
The member raises an aspect that I am sure she had not
perhaps totally thought about, and that is that this raises the issue of
marketing. A lot of Manitoba hogs are
being slaughtered out of province, and that has a lot to do with the demand for
our hogs. They are very good quality
hogs, but they are, in fact, being marketed by our own marketing board on
occasion outside of the province.
The hog plant in my hometown, which is Neepawa, is short of
hogs. The killing plants here in
Winnipeg, by and large, need more hogs.
In fact, they will tell you that they need a new facility perhaps to be
built in the province, but they want the efficiencies of size to go with the
increased production in hogs. We should
be doing everything we can. In fact, we
are, but it has a lot to do with the approach that some of the farm community
is taking to the marketing of their hogs as to what is the most appropriate
method of marketing. Should it be
Manitoba first?
Excuse me, I have the figures here now that have been
worked out as to what the normal job ratio would be from an increase in hog
production. The Chatfield operation, for
example, would probably produce 20,000 weanlings per year. Ultimate spin‑off benefits, by the time
that was completed, could be as much as 100 jobs. So I am‑‑basis of 6,000, six jobs
per 1,000, until you go‑‑that is right onsite, but when you take it
through to the final spin‑off jobs with the feed and the processing and
the trucking, you can indicate that those are the numbers that would come to
pass.
Now, first of all, we would have to recognize that in the
killing industry right now, a lot of them are on an a per‑hour
basis. They are not getting a 40‑hour
week or even a 36‑hour week, and that is one of the problems they are
having in that industry. So some of that
capacity is not going to show directly in a job, but what it will mean is the
person who already has a job will get more hours. I would be the first to acknowledge that in
terms of there is excess capacity that can be gobbled up without that first
bulge of additional jobs.
The development of the industry also means that Manitoba is
going to have to make gains in the next year to 18 months in the number of hogs
that are available to be killed in this province, or we are in danger of being
overtaken by Alberta and, to some extent, Saskatchewan. The member asked very early on, what is the increase
in hog production? The fact is,
Saskatchewan in the near term is outstripping us in their percentage of growth
in hog production. They were behind us
to begin with, but they are rapidly increasing their hog production.
I have to go back to my original premise that if there is
any place in North America where hog production should be able to expand
without creating environmental problems and without creating a lot of planning
problems, surely it is in western Canada somewhere, given the relatively small
population and the high number of acres that we have in agricultural
production.
Ms. Cerilli: To bring this back around to the obvious
environmental concern, especially given what the minister has just said, I
think we have potentially some of the worst kind of economic development you
could have if we have the marketing difficulties that the minister
explained. Well, but I also have heard
that pigs or hogs are being exported, by‑passing the marketing
board. I have discussed this with our Ag
critic, and she says she has also raised the issue.
Now, what ends up happening is we have a very small number
of farmers making a whole lot of money, especially when they are vertically
integrated with the feed companies, and we have a whole lot of other people
with threatened water, if not contaminated water, and the smell that is
disrupting community life and the lack of diversified jobs, so the line
goes: We are getting the manure but not
the benefit.
The minister wants to clarify that this is not so. With some of the points that I have raised, I
think that there is a real need for some strong intervention.
Mr. Cummings: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are
wandering now into an area that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) could
have the figures at his fingertips much more accurately and quickly than I
have. I did not say that the producers
were by‑passing the marketing board.
The marketing board itself is shipping the hogs out of the province
without them being slaughtered here locally.
So that in itself raises another dimension to the discussion.
The marketing board, when the plants here choose not to bid
enough for the hogs, the marketing board ships them out of the province. So I guess I was speaking assuming that the
member was comfortable with that knowledge, but that in fact is one of the
issues that will be dealt with over the next period of time.
I have been a strong supporter of the marketing board in
Manitoba. It is not a production‑limiting
board. It is a marketing board, but it
does control all of the hogs and how they are marketed and can, by its own
volition, choose to market them other than through a local slaughtering
plant. That, I am confident, can be
dealt with in the long run if we are able to increase our production and
increase our capability of slaughter here in the province. As I started to say in my last answer, if we
do not make that move in the next 18 months, we will probably lose the hog
slaughtering capacity to Alberta, the same as we did in the cattle industry.
The cattle industry‑‑there is now a huge plant
built by Cargill, very efficient plant, but the reason that it is located in
Alberta, probably part of it is at least that the largest number of finished
stock are there. They got the largest
number of finished livestock or cattle there because they had a feed subsidy
program up to $17 a tonne and higher for supplementing the feed costs of
finishing cattle.
We cannot afford to lose the hog industry to Alberta and/or
Saskatchewan in the next short while, or Winnipeg, which at one time was billed
as the Chicago of the North, will simply be the little city on the forks.
Ms. Cerilli: I was going to ask questions about the amount
of subsidy going to this industry as well, but I am going to see if the member
for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) wants to get into the discussion. I know that she has also been dealing with a
number of the people from rural areas, the number of farmers from different
communities and different groups that are springing up over the province that
are trying to keep up with the increase in this industry.
I hope that the minister does take seriously the concerns
that are being raised. I will pass the
chance to get into the debate to the member for Osborne.
* (2220)
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just as a beginning
point, I think this Farm Practices Guidelines produced by the Department of
Agriculture is worth commending. I am a
big fan of plain language information, and this is an excellent document. I think, that being said though, there are
some lapses or gaps between some of the issues that are raised and, in fact,
when you get to the regulation section, the ways that they are addressed.
For example, the first section sets out the importance of
water pollution as an environmental and health concern and goes on to make the
statement that Manitoba Environment has responsibility to prevent pollution, to
detect pollution if it has occurred and to take legal action to correct the
problem. You know, that is right up
front in the first section, and it is unequivocal.
However, when you get a little further on into the how‑to,
I think it does break down just a bit.
One of the areas that I wanted to sort of focus on was the issue that
was raised in the House when we were talking about the regulation dealing with
siting.
It seems to me that this is one area where the regulation
is weak, that it says that you can pretty well go anywhere and that the
guideline raises those areas which might be inappropriate, but the regulation
itself, when you get to the schedule in terms of 5 and 6, Siting and
Construction Requirements for Earth and Storage Facilities, it does not deal a
lot with the geophysical characteristics of the area. It seems to rely very heavily on there being
an informed local government district who is very well aware of the geophysical
conditions in their area and who is going to make good decisions about where
they allow these things to go.
It also says that the minister may vary any requirement of
the regulation. Here is the essence of
my question to you. If you identify one
of these operations which is requesting a permit in an area where there is not
sufficient local planning control, is it possible that you could, knowing the
geophysical characteristics of the area, deny the permit or put on more
stringent requirements on that operation?
Mr. Cummings: The reason to add the catchall, if you will,
for the building to vary the regulations was to acknowledge specific concerns
that might not have been addressed and in fact require something more than what
at first glance the regulation might have been prepared to allow. Sensitive areas would be the one that would
immediately come to mind.
Ms. McCormick: So your response indicates that you would
vary the requirements up as opposed to down, using that section.
Mr. Cummings: Yes, but also part of the answer did not
provide for your first question, as well as that I think we cannot always act
paternally towards the local government.
Local government has been very adamant about how they want to at all
times retain the right to virtually veto a development because their argument,
which I have to acknowledge has more than some small amount of importance to
it, is that if it is sited in an area where it is unwanted, unaccepted and
distrusted, it will probably never be successful.
We have examples of that in the city where poor planning
has led to conflicts that have just never gone away. So municipal authority has attempted to keep
their right to, through planning, make a decision. Now, in unorganized territory or in areas
where there is no planning by‑law, then the citizens have, by not having
a by‑law, made the decision that they are an agricultural area. The siting guidelines then come into play to
help in decision making as to an appropriate location.
You might argue that guidelines under those circumstances
could be flaunted, but the bottom line is if they appear before the Farm
Practices Board for any reason under that process, they will not be seen to
have opened up with a proper approach, and no amount of sound management will
save them from ongoing examination. I
hesitate to use the word "harassment", but that is virtually what it
could amount to if they are not properly sited.
Even in the unorganized areas, that is something that they are going to
have to be acknowledging when they meet with either the municipality or an
advisory group.
In fact, Chatfield, as I understand it‑‑and I
suppose we do not need to discuss them specifically‑‑but they
altered their proposal after the initial reaction of the community, in their
reaction to the initial advice from the department, advisory board. So it did work even though the community is
still not really happy with the location.
Ms. McCormick: I understand what you are saying then is that
the paternalistic intervention that you are saying you would prefer not to
involve yourself in would not be in the area of expecting a hostile community
to accept a facility, but, in fact, to challenge an operation inappropriately
being sited in a potentially friendly community, that the concern would be
where you, for example, know from your own department information that you have
potentially porous soil conditions that you would, in fact, intervene to
challenge the siting in an area that is unsuitable.
Mr. Cummings: We are talking about two separate
approaches. One is under the farm
practices act and one is under the livestock regulation. At least, I believe we are following two
separate approaches.
Within the regulation, it is fairly specific about the
storage area. Water rights legislation
comes into play, even though it is not directly referred to here, if they are
withdrawing a certain volume. In fact,
the application of manure on porous soil does not mean that you are
automatically going to have a leaching into the soil if it is applied at the
kinds of levels that are recommended here, that is, in fact, regulated.
It might mean that they would have to get more land or
change their cropping practices because the general statement, the prevention
of pollution of surface water‑‑under both provisions, livestock
wastes shall only be applied in a manner that prevents pollution of surface
water, ground water or soil and does not escape from the boundary of the
farm. That is a pretty general
prohibition, but it does leave the operator to his own devices as to how he
might achieve that.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, I was
specifically at this point questioning the siting and construction of the storage
facilities, not the application of the manure on the fields.
One of the things that has been raised as a concern with me
that I would like to have you address, the general construction requirements
make reference to a requirement which may be placed on the constructer to place
a plastic liner acceptable to the director to recognize that the soil
conditions may be porous and cause leaching into the water table.
* (2230)
One of the concerns that has been raised‑‑and I
would like your comment on it‑‑is that there is a requirement for
periodic desludging of these lagoons, that over the course of time, there is a
necessity to get rid of whatever cannot be incorporated into the field. During that process of desludging, which
occurs every so often in terms of years, there is a potential for the earth‑moving
equipment that is used to‑‑maybe it is not earth‑moving
equipment, but the equipment that is used to conduct this desludging operation
has the potential to break through plastic liners, and then once that is done,
you have a real problem.
Has this been given any thought with respect to inspection
following the desludging operation?
Mr. Cummings: Well, with livestock lagoons and the systems
that are used presently, and I would think with future systems as well,
desludging is likely not to be a problem as it is with a large lagoon that
covers acres, as in a town or village or city, because the material is
deliberately agitated during the removal.
That is one of the problems. It
stinks the whole neighbourhood out if it happens to be at the wrong time.
Is it contemplated?
No, I guess it is not because I would not expect that it would
occur. Generally speaking, this can be
managed or is managed in such a way that pumps create enough agitation that you
are not likely to require desludging in the long run. It can occur, and, of course, the general
prohibition against allowances for leaking could lean to testing. I suppose there is always an opportunity for
the kind of thing you are talking about to occur. I do not think it is one we anticipate in the
regulations.
Ms. McCormick: The specific requirement is fairly
general. It says a plastic liner
acceptable to the director must be installed.
Is there any place in the regulation with respect to the sort of mil
thickness or whatever would be considered to be acceptable to the director
where you are requiring a liner?
Mr. Cummings: No, because what is anticipated here is that
the proponent would have to satisfy the director that they were going to put in
a liner of sufficient strength and durability that it would not be in danger of
rupturing.
Again, I say we wrote the regulations very
specifically. This is not an accident
that it was not referred to, because the conditions might vary such that the
regulation that would suggest a certain type of liner in one place might not be
suitable in another. I cannot think of a
precise example, but I presume that is the reason we have it, so there is some
discretion on the part of the director.
Ms. McCormick: Another concern that has been raised is the
size of these operations.
I note in the regulation, when you are talking about animal
units, the potential goes up in excess of 40,000, 40,000‑plus with
respect to the weanlings. Is there a
number that is considered to be simply too big in terms of the department's
approval process?
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Cummings: No. I
would suggest that the restricting factor is the amount of suitable
agricultural land for disposal of the waste.
Of course, we have had a demonstration of how that can create an issue
in the Interlake. It is interesting in
the discussion in the Interlake debate about whether or not applying hog manure
to that land can be managed. There are
lots of examples of some pretty large cattle farms in that area which have
their cattle in a confined area and they do not have them on cement and they do
not have them on poly‑lined yards and the opportunity for contamination of
the ground water from those sites is every bit as real as it is in the case of
hog operation and the distribution of the material on the surface of a 50‑acre
plot or 150‑acre plot of alfalfa.
So, while the hog industry might be the focus of this‑‑that
is why these regulations are written the way they are‑‑I think
there were people who were swept up in the issue of a large hog operation
coming in who maybe had not thought about the fact that‑‑it seems
to me four hog units equal one livestock unit, which is the equivalent of one
adult cow. I am stretching my memory
here. It has been a while.
My point is that there are intensive livestock operations
in existence that have not attracted the kind of attention that these hog
operations have, but some of them nevertheless have similar potentials to
pollute the ground water.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, one of the
other areas that I was really intrigued by was the soil monitoring, soil
sampling procedure, which is the beginning.
Appendix F says: monitoring soil
nitrate, and then says: Why is
monitoring necessary? It goes on and
outlines quite a comprehensive monitoring regime, but it goes from the initial
introduction of why it is necessary to describing a monitoring program and the
first statement starts that it is recommended.
I went back into the regulation looking for some evidence
that there was some kind of regulatory requirement for this soil monitoring and
the argument is made further along that if you are getting good results on your
soil monitoring, then it would give you clear indication or at least some
positive indication that excessive nitrogen or nitrate leaching would not be as
great a concern with respect to ground water contamination.
Am I correct in understanding that the monitoring that is
described as necessary is still only recommended by the guideline and not
something that can be enforced?
Mr. Cummings: It can be enforced, but it would be enforced
through the nitrogen requirements. The
recommendation would follow the Farm Practices Guidelines that you are
referring to there.
I understand your point, but I guess there are different
ways of imposing it. We have chosen to
do it from the lower end of the scale, I suppose, working back, depending on
how you view this. By setting the limits
to do a test on the content, the nitrogen content in the soil, is not
particularly difficult or complicated.
To set up an ongoing monitoring program may not be much
more than having the local fertilizer dealer do tests with a probe that is
capable of going to several different depths.
It is not necessarily a real complicated, well‑monitoring type of
process. So we catch it by saying that
they must not exceed certain levels. In
order to know what they are, they have to do testing. The elaborateness of that testing, I guess,
is not prescribed.
* (2240)
Ms. McCormick: So you are saying that the requirement for
the nitrogen testing is not in this regulation but in some other regulation?
Mr. Cummings: Well, let me quote what I have in front of me
here: Livestock waste supplied to land
must be at a rate not to exceed crop nitrogen requirements. Recommended rates are set out in the Farm
Practices Guidelines documents, ranging from 60 pounds of actual end per acre
for annual crops in light soils to 225 pounds of nitrogen per acre on alfalfa
fields.
So what we have is the ability under the regulation, a
matter that is regulated, to say that it shall not exceed, but the guidelines
lay out what the procedure would be for setting up a monitoring program and the
reasons that you are referring to there, which, I think, do a pretty good job
of explaining what they should do.
Ms. McCormick: One of the things I wondered which would
perhaps strengthen the regulation, and again we do not get the opportunity to
have input into the discussion as we would if it was an act, but I note that
there is a permitting process which applies to the construction of the storage
facility or the lagoon, but no equivalent permitting process when we are
talking about field storage. It sort of
stops being a permitting process and is simply what looks like a permissible
section of the regulation.
Given what you have just said, that it is in that process
of the‑‑in terms of allowable application onto land where the rate
of application should not exceed the amounts necessary to meet crop nitrogen
requirements, that in fact becomes the point at which the monitoring activity
would verify that the livestock waste is being properly incorporated.
Then it goes on to say that you cannot cause pollution or
surface of ground water or soil, but in absence of a requirement or some kind
of enforceable mechanism for requiring these excellent soil testing activities,
it seems to me that many farmers, being like small‑business people‑‑I
mean, I have never been a farmer, but I have a small‑business person's
abhorrence to record keeping and to these kinds of onerous things that it seems
is a waste of my time sometimes to do.
How is the department going to ensure that these objectives
of not contaminating surface ground water or soil are going to be met?
Mr. Cummings: An example of a large operation would be that
they could be asked for fertilizer, for something as simple as a record of soil
tests having been done by either themselves or their local fertilizer supplier,
which would more than likely be the case.
If they cannot supply them or if they seem inadequate when they are
presented, then they could order tests.
That would be a very simple way of doing it. It would be as a response to the fact that
there is a large operation there, and we should do a random test on what is
occurring. That would be one way of enforcing
and ensuring.
I do not have the answer in the sense of field storage. Field storage, you are probably talking about
something that is set up for composting purposes, probably, or you are talking
about more of a dry waste, or it would not be field storage. You cannot pile up liquid waste.
The opportunity there for ground water pollution is
probably significant if it is sitting in an area that is inappropriate. Yes, at this point, that is not something
that is required permitting. It is not
something that occurs in great amounts.
I think it would normally occur from feedlot operations where if under
spring conditions, things were getting wet and the lot was becoming
unacceptable. They might take a
bulldozer and move it, but that is not likely to be there permanently.
I cannot think of too many other situations where this
would become a situation‑‑dairy farms where they have a
concentrated number of stock in one area and they are using a stacker, a
mechanical stacker. Generally, they are
set up so that they retain their liquids.
That would be an example of where maybe there needs to be something
further thought of in that area.
Originally when we looked at this area, we thought of this as composting
primarily, not as long‑term storage.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I think that is an
area, particularly as climatic conditions can change. I mean, you can get the stuff on dry, and
then it can start raining the way it did last summer, and you have yourself a
bit of a problem.
The other area that I was somewhat concerned about‑‑and
actually you ventured into this, and I would just like to pursue it a little
further. You talked about a large hog
operation giving cause for the department to want to ask for monitoring
activity to occur.
I am interpreting your remark to say that this would be
proactive rather than reactive. You are
not envisioning a complaint‑driven system. You are not envisioning a system where people
have to come and say, prove to me that this is safe, as opposed to a system
which would say because of the size of the location or the nature of the
operation, the department has reasonable and probable grounds to request
monitoring to go on, and then you would have the strength of the regulation to
require the kinds of monitoring activities that are currently outlined in the
regulation.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
Mr. Cummings: The member is correct. I think it would be a combination of
complaint‑driven and random sampling.
When I say large, generally speaking, the larger volume
areas would be the ones where you would anticipate there might be a problem,
because perhaps they are storing larger amounts of a lagoon or whatever.
This is one of the things we have done with
decentralization. We have people in the
regions. We have Department of
Agriculture staff who are pretty cognizant of where the operations are. We also have much better knowledge of where
some of the sensitive areas are in terms of locations. I think all of that adds up to allowing us to
be able to get a monitoring program in place.
It has been pointed out to me that the director, if this is a new
operation and there is a permit required, he can as a condition of the permit,
if he has reason to believe it would be the right thing to do, require
monitoring and add that to the condition of the permit.
* (2250)
Ms. McCormick: Actually, this is better news than I had
anticipated getting tonight. Are you
saying that in the permitting process which is really for, as I read it, the
construction of the storage facility, that you could also extend the permit
conditions to a requirement which would satisfy the transfer of the waste to
the agricultural land?
Mr. Cummings: I think so, but would you explain that a
little bit further?
Ms. McCormick: Yes.
Actually, when I first read this, I was quite‑‑as I
described with the concerns with respect to the liners‑‑satisfied
that there was sufficient protection with the permitting process in the siting
and the construction of the lagoons, but when I got down to the sections on
field storage and transportation and application of the waste, it seemed to get
quite weak. I did not see that the
permitting process went that far.
To believe that permitting conditions could be extended to
place conditions on the transfer of the waste to the agricultural land, that
assurance would go a long way to making me a bigger fan of this regulation than
I am now.
Mr. Cummings: Well, I am not going to give her a team shirt
yet. When the member refers to being
able to regulate the transportation, does she mean the application?
[interjection] Okay, the application.
I am looking at the precise wording under transportation
and application of waste. We have, in
fact, an example right now of where we have conditioned the application of the
material to the soil, but that is in conjunction with the R.M. of Portage la
Prairie. The R.M., in fact, and the
proponent agreed to use injection methods to handle it.
So that was a specific agreement. I guess we did not regulate it, but it was an
agreement that was struck while we were at the table. That was before these regs were actually in
place. It was a tripartite approach, and
Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture were all at the table along with
the municipality, and that was a condition that was agreed to by the parties at
that time.
Ms. McCormick: Given that condition is agreed to, it would
take the form of some kind of contractual agreement between the land use
approval process and the operator. What
would happen? Who would enforce it, and
what would be enforced if there was, in fact, a breach of the agreement?
Mr. Cummings: I think the agreement that I referenced would
not be one we would enforce from an environmental point of view. It was agreed to under the conditions of
their Planning Act. Because we all
recognized the importance of the Delta area and wanted to make sure that this
was not a problem, they would have to enforce it as a condition of their
planning agreement which really extends into an operating agreement, which is
not unusual for a planning area to be able to do that. They can restrict, under their Planning Act,
location and land use.
Ms. McCormick: Yes, actually, that answer brings me full
circle, back to my original concern that some of these operations may wind up
in LGDs without a planning process in place, and then I was looking for the
assurance that the department could place on the operations the necessary
restrictions, and saw the regulation as somewhat weak when it came to‑‑stronger
when you can regulate the siting and the operation of the storage lagoons, but
weaker when it would attempt to regulate the incorporation of the waste on the
surrounding land.
So I will leave it with you, and I am just happy to have
the opportunity to get the clarification as far as we have gone tonight. I would like to see that either the
permitting process extended or some kind of de facto powers given to the
department to insist on some kind of monitoring that could alert people to
problems before they actually manifested as ground water contamination.
Mr. Cummings: I think we are talking about two things, one
of which we have a better handle on, by the member's own definition, than the
other. In terms of requiring monitoring
to demonstrate what is happening, I think we have the capability to do that
through the regulation that talks about the amount of nitrogen for production
purposes, as an example, that is allowed in the field. If a soil sample shows up that there is
nitrogen three feet down to the equivalent of 30 pounds to the acre, first of
all, you have problems if you know it is getting down that far, so the
director, I think, under those circumstances‑‑I am getting an
affirmative nod‑‑could impose additional monitoring and conditions
on the application of liquid waste or any other waste to that field or could
perhaps require that application be stopped to that field and an alternative
found.
The second part of that, in terms of mandating the precise
method of application, I see this as being able to be‑‑and we had
some considerable discussion about this‑‑mandated still through the
other requirement, and the director may have to correct me here, but under the
prohibition against application: shall
only be applied in the manner that prevents pollution of surface water, ground
water, or soil and does not escape from the boundary of the farm.
A good example is one well‑known operation in south
central Manitoba that farms some very hilly land, and they will have to
exercise some considerable caution how they apply their waste. Presumably working them in or injecting them
will be their best way of controlling surface runoff, which they could very
likely have a problem with under the wrong conditions. That, I think, could cause them to be in
violation, which ultimately would mean that once you are in violation that
conditions could be put forward on the operation. It is not as strong, perhaps, or as direct as
the member was seeking, but the ultimate hammer is still ours under The
Environment Act.
Ms. McCormick: I am prepared to wrap up on this area now
just with a concern that I worry about the hammer, which is only used after the
fact and not before the fact, but I am willing to give it a rest now and we can
move on to another area.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Are we ready to pass this item? We are dealing with 2.(b) Environmental
Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,530,700.
Ms. Cerilli: We spent quite a bit of time on that
area. I wanted to also try and deal a
little bit with some of the issues around sewage lagoons specifically‑‑I
guess, the human waste lagoons. One of
the requests that has been made is for there to be a study on the effectiveness
of the earthen sewage lagoons in Manitoba.
Can the minister clarify the nature of this study? I think he has indicated that there is some
work being done on this. I do not know
if it is in keeping with what the concerned citizens are asking for. I do not think it is, but can the minister
clarify what kind of research is going to be done in this area? I know that there is a request for 10 to 15
lagoons to be used to do a sampling and comparison. Is that happening?
* (2300)
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member is
correct. There are 15 lagoons that are
going to be monitored quite closely this year in response to some of the issues
that have been raised, and I guess we will have a better look at it when summer
is over.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the other issues related to this is
the public's ability to have assurance on leakage and testing. What exists currently if someone is concerned
and they want to have access to information regarding discharge and water
quality before discharge and that kind of thing? I know that I made the request, I think, last
time we were in Estimates, and I would have liked to have the experience of
going and seeing how that is done and then observing once they allow a lagoon
to be released. I have never had the
opportunity to witness such an operation.
These are some of the concerns that are being raised with me in terms of
the operation of the lagoons as well.
The access that the public has to information in terms of‑‑
Mr. Cummings: If the request is, if there is a suspicion
the lagoon is leaking, what happens and what information can be made available
to the public, we had an example of Teulon, I believe it is, where they had a
large saline patch appearing as a result of a lagoon that was seeping. I do not think there is any reason why
information that is gathered is not made available. Generally, it would be done by collecting the
data from test wells. That is what
happened at Carberry to attempt to check if there was pollution going from the
old lagoon, but in terms of information, there is certainly no attempt or need
to contain information. The regional
office responsible for a particular lagoon is probably the best source of
information.
If the member is asking, do we do ongoing monitoring of
every lagoon to see if it is seeping or leaking, then the answer is probably
no. Although I heard her ask about what
happens during the time of discharge, of course, the answer there is that the
material to be discharged must meet test standards that we have predetermined. Their discharge dates are ones that our
regulators agree to. They do not have to
have our approval to discharge, but they must meet the standards that we have
indicated within their licence. I guess
they would have to have proof of those tests, but, obviously, that implies that
there is a certain amount of self‑regulation that goes on.
Ms. Cerilli: Part of the concern expressed to me is that
the municipalities that are doing the discharging‑‑you know, we
have both heard the complaints that the samples are not taken from the top and
the sludge goes from the bottom, and all these kinds of concerns about the
design of the lagoons, but also just that there is not careful monitoring to
see what the composition of the waste is prior to its being released. You know that is a concern.
I guess, as the minister must be aware by now, I am big on
the public's right to know and having the public get that information as they
request it, so what I am asking is the availability of that and the process
that the public has to go through to get information about when the sewage
lagoon in their area is going to be discharged, what the levels it is supposed
to meet are, how they can find out if it has met those levels‑‑that
kind of thing?
Mr. Cummings: The kind of thing that the member is talking
about is exactly what we will be doing in pulling together the information from
these additional tests that are being done this summer to give us some idea of
whether the violations, or whether the discharge programs are what we think
they are, or what our critics think they are, I suppose.
An example of where an awful lot of fear and loathing was
spread, yet was never verified‑‑in fact, quite the contrary was
proven‑‑was the Dunnottar situation. The most unfortunate occurrence of where the
family was flooded out by a discharge from Dunnottar lagoon, but in testing the
material, there was never any doubt about whether or not the material was
within the proper guidelines acceptable for discharge. The fact was that it picked up contaminants
as it went down the ditch and into the farmer's yard, not that it carried the
contaminants in with it. So, to that
extent, and that is the only good news in relationship to that situation, I
acknowledge that, but at least the testing that was done there had to acknowledge
that it was not an illegal discharge in the sense that what was being
discharged contained something other than what we knew about.
Ms. Cerilli: I want to ask a couple of questions related
to Ayerst. The minister is chuckling,
and he knows that this is an issue that struck at my female sensibilities, if
you will. I find that the whole issue,
when I look at it in the big picture, quite offensive, from the initial
agricultural side of the operation up to the final product and how it is
marketed. I wonder if the minister can
just comment and see if he understands the issues that I was raising from a
sustainable development point of view with respect to this industry, the entire
industry from the agricultural side to the pharmaceutical side and to the women's
health side.
* (2310)
I appreciate what the government is saying with this
pharmaceutical being authorized under the federal authorities and whatnot, but
we see over and over again in women's health that women are used as guinea pigs
in the third world to test out pharmaceuticals that are then prescribed in the
developed world, in the industrialized world.
When I discuss this issue with women who are from countries like India
and southeast Asia, they are quite concerned.
It is related to the same issue and it is related to
Norplant, which is yet another new chemical that is being prescribed to women
as a pharmaceutical for contraception that has not been tested in Canada and
yet was going to be prescribed in Winnipeg.
They were going to offer it to 500 women through the Health Sciences
Centre for free, and I think that was shown to be not such a good idea.
When we look at the pharmaceutical industry and the amount
of profits there are there, the amount of chemicals that are introduced from the
manufacturing into the environment, I do not think we can say that there is not
cause for concern. So I want the
minister to comment on the issue of demand‑side management in the
pharmaceutical and chemical industry and if he understood the approach that I
was taking and if he has any comments on my view of this whole issue.
Mr. Cummings: I think there are a couple of issues that we
need to clarify right at the start. The
one is that the member has, I think, fairly clearly stated that she has an
abhorrent view of pharmaceuticals, whether they are from a natural source or
whether they are from an artificial source if they are being used for certain
reasons, whether it be for birth control or whether it be for estrogen
replacement, et cetera. If we agree that
she does not like the chemicals, whether they are naturally occurring or
whether they are artificially produced, then the second part of the debate becomes
the question of whether or not the PMU herd is appropriately managed and
whether or not the plant is appropriately controlled from the environmental
point of view. I guess those are three
main issues, as I see it.
First of all, I think that there are always questions
raised about pharmaceuticals, but there are countless situations, including
serious bone degeneration in females‑‑and I have close personal
knowledge of some people who suffer from that.
If they had had opportunity and early diagnosis, they would be living a
much healthier lifestyle now because they would not have had the bone
degeneration that they have. It is not
unusual to women, but it is most debilitating when it occurs. It is preventable, to some extent. I am not a doctor, but I know that is the
case. There are therapies and treatments
that are available, specifically to the PMU industry.
I would invite the member and I will personally drive her
to some of the pastures in my area that have some of the best‑looking
horse herds that you would ever want to lay eyes on, and they are just recently
turned out to pasture from the PMU operations.
These are not abused livestock.
Ayerst has a very tight livestock management control. The member probably has an inherent dislike
for large industry, but Ayerst has a grip on the throat of its operators. If they are not managing their horse herds
appropriately, they do not have a contract, and they are broke. They are out of business. They are finished. There is not a second chance.
So appropriate measures are taken to the point where some
of this stock is pampered beyond belief.
Others, of course‑‑you do not always have the most quiet and
co‑operative stock in every situation.
In the processing of the urine, there has been a lot of
money and I think research done to show that the urine can be appropriately
managed so that it is not an environmental problem when it is disposed of.
There are probably several hundreds of millions of dollars
that are being invested right now, and I am going to put on the record a story
of a farm family that came to see me about three weeks ago, both in their
thirties, who have just invested in a PMU operation and came to see me about a
couple of problems. One was related to
their financing, but flowing from that, the second problem and the even greater
one is that they have invested every penny of their life savings. They have mortgaged every acre of their land
to build a barn that cost them in excess of $100,000 and stock it with the best
stock that they could afford, and they now feel that their quota is likely to
be cut back because of the agenda of some people who believe that production of
Premarin or any drug from a naturally occurring source, which is in the
pregnant mare urine, is an inappropriate production technique for a drug.
Their request to me was, what can you do to assure the
public and to give us some comfort that we are not going to be bankrupt by the
time we are 38 years old?
They have risked the family farm. They have risked their entire future. These are the peak earning years of their
working lives. This is a young woman who
spent five years prior to this working in a PMU operation. She certainly has no qualms about the work
she is doing. She enjoys working with
the livestock and has every bit of intelligence and capability to manage this
herd to its optimum. Their horses are
pampered, believe me.
Well, the member is a little uneasy and said okay. Now, just hold it a minute. These are the types of situations that arise
when I believe there is inappropriate and downright false information put on
the record about how Premarin is being produced from this industry. So I would only encourage the member to look
at this from a long‑range and appropriate viewpoint.
We do not have a situation where we are pillaging and
plundering or where we are creating a situation where animal rights people have
cause to believe that livestock is being abused. This is such a sensitive operation that any
kind of abuse would probably have a direct negative impact, and certainly, if it
led to a situation where the herd was not being well managed, Ayerst has the
capability of pulling their contract.
So there is a double‑barreled shotgun loaded from a
financial point of view at the heads of the operators out there right now. They are extremely concerned about the fact
that there are professionals in the States who have never been anywhere within
a thousand miles of a PMU operation who believe that these animals are abused,
that they are crippled, that their foals are killed at birth.
I do not know whether there is anybody of Belgian descent
in this room or not, but horse meat is a highly regarded source of protein in a
Belgian community. Does that mean that
it is wrong for them to use horse meat where the rest of us use pork and beef? I think not, but that enters into the
discussion, as well, because certainly, material that the member's name has
been associated with and the animal rights movement indicates that the mares
and their foals are separated and that the foals are destroyed. Nothing could be further from the truth.
So I am glad to have the opportunity to put those thoughts
on the record, but I really think that more importantly, that the member would
be willing to take a step back and reconsider what has been a rather strident
position that she has taken in relationship to this industry.
* (2320)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Just to be on the safe side, the honourable
minister did use the word "false" statement. I am not actually sure exactly how he had used
it, but just to be on the safe side, it does show up as parliamentary and
unparliamentary, but I would appreciate it if the honourable minister would
remove those words from the record.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think that was
about three minutes back, but I will certainly‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I did not want to stop you at that
point. Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, the question I asked was not with
respect to the animal rights side of the issue or the horse side of the
issue. It was with respect to the
women's health side of the issue, and we are talking in the frame of
sustainability here. With respect to the
pamphlet that went out with my name on it, they did not have permission to use
my name, and the issues that they raised were not the issues that I was mostly
concerned about.
The issues I am concerned about is the carrying capacity of
the Assiniboine River to handle the ammonia. [interjection] Well, now the
minister is interrupting me, but I will continue on. The concerns I am hearing are that we have
known for a long time that ammonia is a threat to that river, that there are a
number of accumulative impacts that should be considered here.
The larger issue which I was initially raising though was
the whole issue of women being involved in the decision making of this product,
and that I think in an environmental assessment, there would have been a chance
to have some of these issues aired. I
think we need to have the debate with respect to this product, and we can see
that there is an overproduction because of an overprescription of the
medication.
The line is that menopause is not a disease or an illness,
and it concerns me greatly when we tie our economy into industries that could
be threatening the health of women. We
are looking for a niche market and we found one, but unfortunately, it is in an
area, I think, that has not been thoroughly considered in terms of the justice of
the way that this was‑‑I think when the minister often uses the
term fearmongering and when women are not oftentimes given full information of
how some of the side effects of aging can be addressed without using often for
undetermined periods of time this kind of a product which has definitely had a
link with cancer and does continue to have a lesser link with cancer. Those are the kinds of issues that really
bothered me about the way this assessment was handled.
I have questions about why the proponent switched from
being Ayerst to the City of Brandon. I
have heard some explanation for that, but that is one of the questions I
have. I have some concerns about the
follow‑up hearing that we are awaiting in terms of the environmental
assessment on this industry.
The minister and the government can continue to play
politics with this issue. I know that
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has sent out yet another letter with my
name on it, damning me across the province for trying to destroy agriculture in
Manitoba. That is certainly not my
intention, but I also think there are legitimate concerns, and it is my role
here to raise them.
The issue that a lot of women in the women's health
community or women's health educators' organizations are talking about is that
they need to have some funding to deal with education for women with respect to
the product that is being manufactured in this province, when you consider the
huge amount of public funds that was infused into this industry and that a lot
of the material that will be produced to market the product will not deal with
some of the more gentle alternatives, more preventative kinds of alternatives
that women could use to deal with declines in estrogen as they age, and I hope
that the minister would be able to deal with his cabinet and caucus colleagues
on the politics that is being played.
I have met with the producers from the association, and
they agree that the way that the government took this on and started playing
politics with it is not the intention that I had. My intention was to get some information out
to some organizations that I knew had been concerned about this, particularly
environment and health organizations. I
was not pleased at all with the approach that the animal rights group took on
this. I am not advocating just attacking
the industry and shutting it down. I
would like to see the proper environmental assessment done so that all of the
issues related to this industry are going to be examined and addressed and that
we are going to have a fair hearing for all those who have concerns on both
sides.
I appreciate the stories that the minister is saying with
respect to the families that have invested into the industry. I know there is a concern that if women do
start to choose alternative methods for dealing with their menopause, that the
industry is going to be compromised, or there will be some setback, but I do
not apologize for putting the health of women at the forefront of public
policy.
Mr. Cummings: I do not at all disagree with the member when
she says that women have a right to be involved in the decision of what drugs
they may take or how they may want to deal with their health in certain phases
of their life, but they must be able to make that decision with the information
fairly in front of them.
There are organizations out there‑‑the animal
rights organization with which the member's name was attached has taken upon
itself to write to medical professionals across North America indicating that
the drug is produced from the urine of mares that are kept under deplorable
conditions, that their foals are maltreated and all of those other
accusations. So they are not making a
decision based on knowledge about what it might do to their bodies, plus or
minus; they are only making a decision based on the recommendation of their
doctor who says that this drug is being produced as a result of abuse of
livestock or animals. That is the part
that I find so extremely offensive.
Health and Welfare controls the licensing of drugs, and the
same thing in the United States. In
fact, there is a very large amount of information that says that an
artificially‑created drug is not nearly as safe as one that is created
from natural sources, which is the one that the member has embroiled herself in
the debate around.
The reason that the City of Brandon is the proponent in
terms of improving the waste disposal facility is that it is, in fact, their
waste disposal facility. They are
accepting certain waste from the Ayerst plant, the ammonia content of which was
high. Ayerst did not build the sewage
treatment system; the City of Brandon did.
Ayerst is required to meet certain standards. They remove some of the components and truck
it away rather than discharge it into the city sewage system. Some of it is actually lagooned separately, I
guess, so there is certainly no sinister plot or no behind‑the‑scenes
action that requires anything other than an open discussion about the
development of the lagoon and the sewage treatment facilities.
It is a straightforward industrial development in which the
City of Winnipeg is involved all the time.
Every time they expand their treatment facilities here, they are not
only treating human effluent; they are treating some of the waste that is being
generated by industries. Brandon is no
different.
* (2330)
Ms. McCormick: I would like to take us back quickly to a
couple of questions on the sewage lagoons.
You said that there are 14 of them now which are under scrutiny.
Mr. Cummings: Fifteen.
Ms. McCormick: Fifteen.
These are the human waste lagoons.
In '92 the Clean Environment Commission had suggested that the issue of
these lagoons should be the subject of a study best guided by an advisory
steering body and so on. Is the current
scrutiny as rigorous as some kind of a scientific study, or is it just an
intradepartmental activity?
Mr. Cummings: My immediate reaction is that this will,
first of all, be data collection, more intensive monitoring of the discharges,
but I guess, to context this, this does flow from the conference that was held
here last winter on lagoons and their operational requirements. That was not just a response to the CEC; that
was really part of an ongoing process the department has been involved in.
What happened there is that we were able to get at least
the first cut of information that was available and some connections in terms
of sharing information. That is also
following on that, that I understand an offer was made to some of those who
have been complaining the province had not responded to the recommendations of
the commission.
To become involved in the studies, I am not sure much has
evolved from that up to this point; nevertheless, the process is going forward.
Ms. McCormick: I think that is sufficient for now. Perhaps we can move on to‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(b) Environmental Management (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,530,700‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $2,334,600‑‑pass.
2.(c) Legislation and Intergovernmental Affairs (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $167,900.
Ms. McCormick: Yes.
There are just a couple of things I wanted to ask in this section. You referenced earlier that there was an
initiative which would be dealing with swimming pools, but in the context in
which you told us about this, you had said it was in response to the death of
the person, so I got the interpretation that it was a safety issue as opposed
to an issue of water quality in the pools.
Can you explain to me what your intention is?
Mr. Cummings: It covers the full spectrum. We do inspect under public health, but I
think there is‑‑and I have not just seen the regulations recently,
but, when you are inspecting for water quality and health issues, they
certainly should be able to inspect and enforce regulations on the other side
as well and not have a double inspection.
I will just get a little bit more information from the
department. Yes. It is as I explained it, plus, specifically,
whirlpools are included now and they were not before.
Ms. McCormick: That is very good news. Those were the words I had written down here,
"spas and whirlpools," because I have friends who believe that the
likelihood of picking up anything mean and nasty in a swimming pool is nothing
by comparison to what you could get‑‑so you are going to be dealing
with water quality and the presence of mean and nasty things in whirlpool water
as well?
Mr. Cummings: Yes, and the safety aspects of them at the
same time, properly operating equipment, that sort of thing.
Ms. McCormick: When can we anticipate these regulations to
come forward?
Mr. Cummings: The draft is out for consultation, so I think
we were anticipating having it done by now, frankly, but it is coming. That could be another six weeks.
Ms. McCormick: With respect to the mechanisms or methods of
controlling the growth of organisms in whirlpool water, are you looking at
alternatives to chemical control? Are
you looking at ozonization or other kinds of ways of keeping these problems
from occurring?
Mr. Cummings: Our collective memories cannot answer the
question. We certainly allow ozonization
in private pools, but I do not know about public ones. I know it is encouraged in private ones,
frankly.
Ms. McCormick: I think that is one of the things I would
hope to find when the regulation comes forward, because we are trying to
discourage the use of chlorinating compounds as there are better
alternatives. I think that from a
sustainable development perspective it might be a good idea to take another
look at that regulation and make sure that it is encouraged.
Ms. Cerilli: While we are talking about chlorine,
especially related to the issue that we just talked about, is the City of
Winnipeg using more chlorine in Winnipeg's drinking water?
Mr. Cummings: Chlorination is in direct proportion to the requirements
of the water that they are bringing in, and I would have no reason to believe
those requirements would have gone up right now. It would be higher during algae bloom than
now.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are not aware that for any
reason they would have increased their application rate of chlorine recently.
Ms. Cerilli: Sorry, I missed the last part of that answer.
Mr. Cummings: We are not aware that they would have
increased their application rates of chlorine recently at all.
Ms. Cerilli: So, over the last period of years, the
minister is not aware or does not think that‑‑which is it?‑‑the
City of Winnipeg is increasing its chlorination of water from Shoal Lake.
Mr. Cummings: We do not directly regulate it. It would be regulated under the Department of
Health. I guess my statement is not
necessarily correct in relationship to the algae bloom, but we still‑‑well,
the best we can answer the question is that we do not know, but we do not think
there has been any reason for change.
* (2340)
Ms. Cerilli: Will the minister and his staff get back to
me with that information, please? Do you
know with respect to the proposal at Deacon for reservoirs, when that is to go
through and we would start storing the water for a period of time, a longer
period of time, I think, it would be, or flowing the water through the
reservoirs, if that would require an increase in chlorine treatment for
Winnipeg's drinking water?
Mr. Cummings: I would not think that the regime would
change much, as the operating proposals that I have seen would indicate that
they fill when they can from low‑demand periods and would withdraw during
high‑demand periods. There might
be some change there. We can probably,
by getting the information about the chlorine use, get some idea of whether
that has an impact.
Ms. Cerilli: How up to speed is the government's
Department of Health and Department of Environment on following new research on
the relationship between organochlorines and cancer? I have seen a couple of reports that are
looking at links, particularly with breast cancer and other cancers like that,
between chlorinated drinking water, especially if it is being chlorinated
because of algae blooms and any relationship with cancer.
Mr. Cummings: The member asked how up to date are we? We are quite current inasmuch as we are part
of the national group that is working on guidelines for Canadian drinking water
standards, including chlorination, so we do not necessarily have the expertise
resident in the department. We are kept
current on the most current national debate.
Ms. Cerilli: Is there any kind of national system going on
that is doing research on this right now in Canada to look at the various major
water supplies in the country?
Mr. Cummings: The group that I referred to is monitoring
the results of some research that is going on, but they are not specifically
directing any themselves.
Ms. Cerilli: I wonder if I can ask one more question
related to this? Would the minister
support the notion that some of the dollars that are spent on cancer treatment
should be changed to looking at the causes of cancer related to environmental
contamination?
Mr. Cummings: I do not think that I am very well equipped
to address the manner in which dollars are being directed for research into
cancer. Prevention is certainly very
much part of the overall scene, but I do not think I am prepared to comment
beyond that.
Ms. Cerilli: I do not want to ask any more questions in
this area. It is getting late. We have 13 minutes to go.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(c) Legislation and Intergovernmental
Affairs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $167,900‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $95,300‑‑pass.
(d) Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation
$1,700,000.
Ms. Cerilli: I want to ask one question. The money that goes to the Hazardous Waste
Management Corporation, what justification does the minister have for the way
that it is shown in the Department of Environment Estimates? Is it money that is appropriated to the
department, and then what is the process for flowing it through to the
corporation?
Mr. Cummings: A legitimate question, because this thing
pops up, you know, one lump every year, but the fact is it is mandated under
The Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act that it be reflected.
There is an aspect to this that I do not think members
maybe appreciate as much as they might, and that is that the corporation has to
reflect its interest costs on the accumulative money that it has spent for
development. Therefore, in many
respects, the government gets almost all of this money back, or gets it
acknowledged back in the form of a future debt that the corporation has. Portions of it also are written off within
the Department of Finance. But these
dollars really are just accounted for here, so in the overall picture there is
no million and a half dollars or $2 million floating out there unattributed to
anyone.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
2.(e) Joint Environmental Assessment Review $56,500.
Ms. Cerilli: Again, just a similar budget kind of related
question. This area has declined
dramatically, or this division in the department has declined significantly. I am wondering what would happen if there was
a proposal to come forward that was determined‑‑a proposal that
currently did exist that was determined to acquire a joint assessment. How would this budget line be dealt with?
Mr. Cummings: Generally speaking, you know fairly well down
the road or far ahead of the actual fact if there is potential for a joint
program. But there is enough money here
to start the process. I suppose if we
had another Conawapa show up between now and September 1, we would be faced
with a demand for supplementary funding, but that is pretty unlikely.
Ms. Cerilli: I just was reminded of one of the questions I
wanted to ask with Ayerst, and that is, it, in my view, has two triggers under
federal legislation. It is on a
navigable river, which is under federal jurisdiction, and it has federal money
invested. So I would like some
clarification about how the process occurred for it to be screened out of the
federal loop and what were the justifications for its being screened out.
Mr. Cummings: The Navigable Waters Act has more to do with
putting a structure in the river.
Therefore, that would not have caught it, I guess. In terms of the other side, it seems to me
that there is a federal screening process which requires that they are
satisfied that a process has been undertaken that answers their questions and
they are able to screen it out. It is
their decision, not ours, in that respect.
This is long enough back I cannot remember precisely how
this one may have been dealt with, but, as I just described, it would be an
appropriate process and does happen, where they are satisfied that the
questions‑‑this is why you sometimes do not see the federal screen‑out
completed until our process is done.
That probably means that they have determined that there are no impacts
that cannot be mitigated through the licensing process.
* (2350)
Ms. Cerilli: Has the federal screening been completed on
this project?
Mr. Cummings: On Ayerst?
A long time ago.
Ms. Cerilli: So what was done to satisfy them that their
concerns would be dealt with?
Mr. Cummings: We are talking three years ago here. I am not sure that I can recall the
discussion‑‑[interjection] Well, I am sorry, two, two and a
half. I am not sure that I can recall
the precise matters. The discharges
obviously would be the environmental impact that would have to be dealt
with. I cannot think of others. Therefore, the process of the development and
improvement of the sewage treatment capacity was likely what answered their
questions, and I am going very much by memory here.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass?
Ms. Cerilli: I seem to recall that there was approximately
a three‑week turnaround on when the proposal went in and when the
authorization was approved. Is that
correct? Does the minister not think
that is a pretty short time given the large amount of public money in the
project?
Mr. Cummings: I have no idea if that was three weeks or
three months. I would have to go back
and check, but the member by asking the question in that sense is implying that
something was shortened or abridged. I
remember that this was a pretty straightforward process, but it did break down
for some considerable time in the discussion of details on the exact type of
treatment facility that was going to be put in.
I think the member's perception of how the process was
handled might have something to do that we have both have forgotten until I have
been reminded here that this was a staged licence.
Ms. Cerilli: I think it was August 1992 that the proposal
came forward. Can the minister clarify
what the stages of the licences were?
Mr. Cummings: Now the first stage was only to put in
necessary equipment in the lagoon and was not an elaborate improvement. The second stage will be the one where there
will be a lot more work undertaken.
The staged licence was only in the sense that the first
stage was a minimum amount of work in terms of putting equipment in the lagoon
itself. The second stage was where there
was a much more expansion.
Ms. Cerilli: I have no more questions on this area.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
Item 2.(f) Alcohol Beverage Container Recycling Program
$300,000‑‑shall the item pass?
The item is accordingly passed.
Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Cummings: Perhaps I can pre‑empt the member's
question. This line reflects the actual
cost of running the collection system that the Manitoba Liquor Commission
contracts with MSDR. I guess the small
figure reflects that it has not been collecting the volumes that we think they
should be.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass?
Ms. Cerilli: Did it increase over last year at all? We had this discussion last year.
Mr. Cummings: I cannot say whether they increased or
decreased over last year. The fact is
they did not use their full allocation last year, so this is considered to be a
more accurate reflection of what they will use.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
Resolution 31.2:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$12,396,100 for Environment for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1995.
We will now move on to 3. Clean Environment Commission (a)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $269,600.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I had a
question. I note that the public
hearings for the CEC anticipate a review of the Asissippi Park Ski Hill proposal. This has been strangely silent since
Louisiana‑Pacific knocked it off the pages of the newspaper. Is it still anticipated that this project is
going to go ahead?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Ms. McCormick: Have you a sense of the timing for the
hearings?
Mr. Cummings: Not precisely, although the latest word I
have heard is that they are working diligently and would like me to believe
that they will have their information forwarded to us in early July.
As soon as they complete a couple of more studies that they
were required to do, they should be getting closer to having what we
require. The date could be anywhere, but
in a very general sense, they anticipate bringing it forward in mid‑summer,
I guess is the best way to describe it.
Ms. McCormick: Given that there was a commitment prior to
the federal election of a fairly significant amount of federal money going into
this, is it anticipated that there would be a joint federal‑provincial
review process?
Mr. Cummings: No, and Mr. Axworthy early on wrote a letter
saying that because there was federal money, that he was anticipating a review,
but he did not specify a joint review, nor is one anticipated. There has been indication since then that
federal money has been withdrawn, so there may not even be a federal trigger.
* (0000)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being twelve o'clock, what is the
will of committee?
Mr. Cummings: Another five minutes and we will be done?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Okay, we will carry on for a little while.
Ms. McCormick: I think I have had answers to all my
questions in these areas.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
Item 3.(b) Other Expenditures $182,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 31.3:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$451,600 for Environment for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1995.
Item 4. International Institute for Sustainable Development
$1,375,000.
Ms. Cerilli: This is the year for the institute to have to
enter into a new agreement for funding.
What is the government recommending for a new agreement for funding the
institute?
Mr. Cummings: I do not think I am going to say or I could
say what the government is recommending.
All along, we have recommended that the institute do everything it can
to get private‑sector funding.
They cannot likely expect to have as much support from the public sector
as they have had up till now in terms of a percentage‑‑at least in
terms of a percentage of their total budget.
My understanding is they are negotiating with the
responsible federal authorities.
Certainly, one thing I think we did is, with their approval, we have
held back on a bit of their cash flow, so they will not be without some
resources in the coming year, the balance of the agreement that we have with
them. My last conversation with Mr.
Hansen indicated that they were having some luck, but I do not have a report
from the last board meeting, and I am not sure that it would be all that
relevant at this time.
Ms. Cerilli: So what the minister is saying is he is not
prepared or able to say right now what the government is going to do in terms
of financial support for the institute?
Mr. Cummings: I am unable to say. I am not saying that we are not supportive of
the institute or that we would not be supporting it. I am just unable to say what form that might
take or how much.
Ms. Cerilli: Are you able to tell us the kind of private
financing they have secured, generally?
Mr. Cummings: Specifically, no, although I meant it in the
sense that they have been able to secure contracts for work they are
undertaking jointly and on behalf of some private‑sector
developments. I am told they have raised
about a million dollars this last year in that respect, also that CEDA and
Environment Canada are both part of the negotiations for the ongoing funding of
the institute.
We are pretty proud of them and some of the achievements that
they have started to demonstrate around the world, some accomplishment. I think it is a matter of all of the parties
and the institute being able to come to an understanding as to where they will
take the next phase, but certainly, I cannot give you any kind of definite
answer at this date.
Ms. Cerilli: Does the provincial government promote this
in its various meetings with the different provincial governments in
Canada? It would be nice if we had other
provincial governments taking an interest financially. Is this something that the minister promotes
in his role with the other Canadian Ministers of Environment? Are we going to see some other provinces
involved in this institution?
Mr. Cummings: We promote it all the time. The institute has undertaken to do some work
on the national scale with the round table.
They were doing some work for the Projet. They were doing some work for a number of
international connections, and the only thing is, in its early stages, as we
promoted it to other jurisdictions, I think there was some local pride involved
that it was here and not in some of the other jurisdictions. There was never any hostility, but there was‑‑I
had the opportunity to report regularly at the ministers' meetings on what
progress the institute was making, but I do not think I was ever able to
leverage any work for them.
Ms. Cerilli: I guess over the years I have had a chance to
get to know some of the people there, and I think that there are some good
people that are on the staff there.
There have been some good people on staff there. I still have a concern though that I think a
lot of people in Manitoba do‑‑given the amount of money that we
have put into this institute‑‑that they are not more present on
Manitoba‑related issues or talking about the kinds of issues occurring in
Manitoba that are having an effect internationally.
Does the minister see that this is going to change so that
this organization will have more of a profile amongst Manitobans who are active
on environment and development issues and I think gain some more exposure and
presence locally? I think a lot of
people still do not really have a sense how to use their services or what they
will offer or, you know, they are in some ways critical of them, and I think
that there is some work that could be done locally here. Maybe the minister does not see that as a
role for this organization.
Mr. Cummings: I do not think they can become too local or
too provincial in their outlook. They
would lose credibility internationally if they were not careful on how they let
that role unfold. I know that there are
a lot of efforts made by the institute to be well known and to be more visible
locally, and they are both provincially, nationally and internationally. I think they have had some successes
recently.
I would be certainly aware that the institute would be open
to any suggestions or comments in terms of what else they might become involved
in. At the national level, Mr. Hansen is
now on a national round table, a direct appointment. He serves on a multitude of boards
internationally, and they were intended as a vehicle to provide sustainable
development analysis and information and co‑ordination, and they have
gradually built up their repertoire, I guess is the best way to describe it.
Ms. Cerilli: Why are they having such a hard time getting
financial investment from other provinces or the private sector?
Mr. Cummings: I am not sure that they are having such a
hard time. I would not want to describe
it in that sense. They have got a lot of
connections through contractual arrangements where they are working with
national and international organizations.
* (0010)
Why are they not getting more from other provinces? I suppose it has got something to do with the
fact that they have not seen where at the same time they are able to get some
immediate expertise in areas that are current to them right at this
moment. I do not think it is any sign of
lack of capacity or respect for their capabilities. Generally speaking, we do not as provinces
put money into institutions in other provinces.
I would usually look to the federal authorities for that.
Ms. Cerilli: One more question. Is there a guarantee for financial support
from the federal government around the same level?
Mr. Cummings: Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my comment was not correct. Apparently, the federal authorities, while
they have not guaranteed, they have certainly indicated quite recently their
willingness to be involved and I welcome that.
I do not, by the way, sit on the board, so if I appear to
be answering from a little bit of distance, that is one of the reasons. We do have representatives from Manitoba on
the board.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass?
Ms. McCormick: It does not relate to this line, but I just
wanted to put a last concern in before we finish up. I had indicated that I had another package of
stuff from the person concerned about lead in the drinking water in these pumps
which appear to be being dumped on the Canadian market.
There is some new information in here which I would like to
pass on, including a couple of press clippings and indication that this has
been raised in the legislatures in both Ontario and Prince Edward Island, and there
is also a newspaper clipping indicating that the Canadian government is aware
of the potential dangers posed by the pumps and has notified provincial
governments. So I would like to add this
information to the collection and have the minister harass the staff, follow up
on it.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Will you table it then?
Ms. McCormick: Yes, please.
And that is it for me.
Mr. Cummings: A question earlier about Pelican Lake
Enhancement Program. We did reply on May
5. I think our letters crossed in the
mail. The salient points were that,
historically, downstream interests have not been adversely affected in the long
term by temporary elimination of minimum flows.
Presently Lorne and Louise who achieved an elevation of 4.0‑‑I
cannot table this; I will copy it to the member.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass‑‑pass.
Resolution 31.4:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$1,375,000 for Environment for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1995.
At this time we ask the staff to leave as we revert back to
item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 31.1:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$1,498,400 for Environment for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1995.
This concludes the Department of Environment. Committee rise.
* (2000)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND TOURISM
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism. I understand that this section of Committee
of Supply has passed all resolutions and items with the exception of item 1.(a)
which is the Minister's Salary.
I need clarification before we continue. I am not sure if it is the intent of the
committee to ask questions on this topic beyond the actual minister's salary,
and if that is the case, then we would need some understanding of same so that
I could invite the minister's staff into the Chamber, because normal practice
does not allow ministerial staff in the Chamber at the time discussion takes
place on item 1.(a).
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):
Madam Chairperson, it is not my intention to have staff come in as it is
not the normal practice during ministerial salaries. So any questions that may go broader than my
actual salary or some issue, I am quite prepared to get that information for
members if I do not have it available to them here.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Madam Chairperson, there were two broad areas
I wanted to canvass with the minister.
The first was regarding the Immigrant Investor Fund and the second is
with regard to the interprovincial trade barriers. So those are two areas. I have no idea as to how much time it will
take, and I appreciate that some of the questions may involve searching for
detailed answers that the minister may not be able to provide today, but I do
not know that. So let us give it a go.
First of all, I want to canvass with the minister whether
the minister or his department have concluded with regard to the Immigrant
Investor Fund, that they have a responsibility to protect the interests of the
investors.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, even though it is not a
provincial program and that it is very much between the investors and the
people who are handling the investment basically, there is a provincial
responsibility as it comes to the assessment of the projects of which are to be
invested in as it relates to the economic activities of the province. It is my understanding the general practice
has been that a review has taken place, and the federal government look for
that review to take place and then act basically upon that.
However, we believe that it was in the interests of the
investors, particularly as it related to the Lakeview properties group, that we
put forward to the federal government a communication asking them three
points: basically a continued freeze on
the fund, but asked for a court‑directed solution; the investors have
representation on the board; and that a review be done of the investments made
on behalf of the investors. Those were
the positions we put forward. We have
also communicated our concern to the trust company as it relates to our
concerns.
So the member in asking his question, do we have a
responsibility, basically, as I said, it is a federal program. We are not particularly mandated in any
way. It is my understanding, in some of the
reviews that have taken place, that it was the former administration that took
the jurisdiction of the province away by not having the investment reviewed by
the Public Securities Commission.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that the role of the
province, among other things, was to review and to assure all of the interested
parties, including the province of Manitoba, the people of Manitoba, that there
were economic benefits to the projects, and that the province's conclusion as
to whether or not their economic benefits would certainly have an impact on
what happened down the road with the approval process.
I note from the Crewson report of December 30, '92, where
they concluded, and this is I think the fundamental aspect of this report. It says:
Our review has indicated a general lack of hard economic analysis
documentation on specific investment proposals outside of the information
provided by the promoters. In addition,
we found a general lack of analysis of the economic impact on the respective
industry sectors which a proposed investment would have.
So given that that is the essential finding, I think, by
the Crewson report on the role of the provincial government, it concluded that
the provincial government did not fulfill its function; that is, to review the
economic benefits. The province relied
on information provided by the promoters.
It failed, it appears, to do what it was mandated by law explicitly to
do.
My question for the minister is, as a result of that
finding and as a result of the fundamental requirement that was imposed on the
provincial government, what action is the province going to do beyond
suggesting to the federal government that there be three conditions before the
money is released? I mean surely there
was some contingency plan in mind by the minister in the event that the federal
government did release the funding.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, I want the member to be
conscious of the fact that again it is a federal program. Number two, it was this government, I believe
the only one in Canada, that called for a review by an auditor, did a complete
audit of the activities that were being carried out. It was the party of which he sits, when they were
in the government, that passed a regulation that removed the instrument which
the province had to do a more thorough approval, that being the Securities
Commission, from playing a role in it. I
am not unconscious of the issue which the member has raised. I am not sure, I think it is debatable as to
the economic benefits that have been derived from some of the investments that
have been made.
I think there was a fair analysis done by the Department of
Industry, Trade and Tourism, and at that particular time when it was done and
decisions were made, it was expected that economic benefits would flow. I think there have been circumstances which
have developed subsequent to that that the Crewson report is reporting on, and
again, I had no reason to do anything but say that the Crewson report was put
in action because of the concerns that the province had, otherwise we would not
have done so.
I think if the member would note as to how we have carried
out the protection of the investors and the actions on behalf of the people of
Manitoba compared to what happened in any other jurisdiction in Canada, we have
taken the most responsible action.
Mr. Mackintosh: I refer over the last number of years to
inaction by the provincial government where, for example, in one of the funds,
monies were apparently appropriated for something other than the project, a
situation where the offering memoranda was false, a situation where monies were
paid out without any security and where there was a conflict of interest
apparently, and there was no action by the province in dealing with those
specific problems and threats to both the taxpayers of Manitoba perhaps and
certainly to the investors and to the reputation of the province and Canada as
a whole.
I would say in response to the minister's argument that
this was a federal program, it was, in fact, a federal and provincial program,
and that the program would not have gone ahead in Manitoba if not for the role
of the Manitoba government. That is the
basic fact here.
The Immigrant Investor Program was promulgated and promoted
by two levels of government in concert, and the province has a very significant
role. It is one that I have some concern
as to the risk of liability on the part of the taxpayers of Manitoba as a result
of certain problems that have occurred.
I am just wondering if the minister is aware of any claim or pending
claim against the Province of Manitoba in respect to the Immigrant Investor
Program.
* (2010)
Mr. Downey: No, Madam Chair, I am not aware of any
proposed claim, but I think it might be helpful for the member opposite and for
the people of Manitoba to understand some of the actions that were taken prior
to this government getting into office.
I will refer to a news release of June 27, 1986, which I think is
important to read into the record, so if the member wants to do his homework
and his research, this might be helpful as to who took what action as it
relates to the protection of investors and the people of Manitoba.
The headline says:
Relax. Securities rules for
certain offerings. Then another heading
says: Provide for exemptions from
commission review. Consumer and
Corporate Affairs Minister Al Mackling has announced a new regulation designed
to facilitate the raising of capital from certain classes of investors in Manitoba's
securities market. Mr. Mackling said the
effect of the regulation passed under provisions of The Securities Act will be
to allow private placements and limited offerings to these investors to proceed
without any prior vetting of the proposed offerings by the Manitoba Securities
Commission.
Generally the exemptions from such vetting will apply where
the securities issues are dealing with sophisticated or volume purchasers who
by reason of their means and previous experience normally do not require the
assistance of the Securities Commission or the protection of The Securities
Act, the minister explained. Also, they
would apply where the purchasers have a pre‑existing special relationship
with the issuers, such as relatives, close friends, or business
associates. The regulation is also being
implemented to bring Manitoba in line with securities regulations already in
force in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.
The new rules, said Mr. Mackling, by reducing regulatory
constraints, will make it easier and less costly to raise capital among these
classes of purchasers. They are designed
to simplify the legitimate raising of capital in Manitoba's securities market,
while at the same time maintaining an acceptable level of investor protection.
The minister said the amended regulation will change the
way these securities are handled. The
affected investors will now assume the responsibility of checking securities
information before purchasing‑‑pretty much leaves that with the
investor; takes it away from provincial responsibility‑‑with the
investor before purchasing. The
Securities Commission will no longer review these securities marketed only to
sophisticated investors, thereby reducing the commission's protective role in
these cases.
Despite the increased risk resulting from this reduced
review role, exemption of these classes of transactions is expected to
strengthen the securities industry and the economy of Manitoba, said Mr.
Mackling. Special forms to be filed with
the Securities Commission have been devised in which parties to securities
transactions exempted from review declare their eligibility for exemption and
their understanding of the process.
So I think there was action taken by the former
administration which I think is important for all members to understand. So the basic answer to the question was, I am
not aware of any action being taken against the province at this time.
Point of Order
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): If a document is referred to, can I ask that
it be tabled so I could see that document.
Madam Chairperson: You certainly may. Indeed, that is a point of order, with the
willingness of the minister to comply.
Is the minister willing to table that document?
Mr. Downey: For these Estimates, I would be more than
pleased to have a copy of it released. I
would like that back, please.
Madam Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister, and the
honourable member for The Maples will indeed receive a copy of that document.
* * *
Mr. Mackintosh: What happens with regard to a Securities
Commission application I do not think is relevant. What is relevant here is what was the
responsibility of the province under the Immigrant Investor Program as designed
by law, and Crewson said there was a general lack of analysis of the economic
impact, and that was the role of the province.
I mean, the province cannot get around that.
I just wonder if the minister or staff of the department
has had contact with the investors, particularly of the Winnipeg Renaissance
Project, whether the minister has had contact since the federal government
announced that the fund freeze will be lifted.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, I am of the understanding
that there have been some discussions that have taken place, particularly with
legal representation of some of the investors, not all, but some of the
investors have been in discussion with the department.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering if the minister would advise
whether the meeting with investors was with a view to reaching a settlement as
to what would happen with the funds and the investment.
Mr. Downey: This is subject to further clarification, but
my understanding was that the general text of the meetings was to request that
continued freeze of the funds be kept in place because of the lack of
confidence by the investors to allow them to be released. I believe that was the general text of what
was discussed.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister advise whether the meetings
are still ongoing and whether there will be further meetings in the future to
deal with the funds?
Mr. Downey: Yes, I can see no reason why meetings would
not continue to go on and discussions would continue to take place between the
department and representation from the investors. I am sure they will have the ability to
continue dialogue and discussion with the provincial representation.
Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister or the department given
instructions to counsel of the department to initiate those proceedings and to lead
in trying to find a solution to this problem?
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, the member is asking for
us to‑‑if he is asking us to take some form of legal action, the
answer is, no, we have not taken any form of legal action. Is there an intent to try and work with the
investors to try to resolve this issue?
The answer is yes; there have been discussions and dialogues to see how
we can best accomplish security and investment for those investors through some
dialogue and considering the protection of their funds and also looking at what
are some viable economic activities that fall within the guidelines that would
help generate economic activity in the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just following what the minister said at the
end of his comments, is the government looking at some alternative investment
for the investors of the Winnipeg Renaissance project?
Mr. Downey: Again, Madam Chairperson, that is up to those
people who have the funds and who are in control of them to bring forward proposals
that could be, in fact, considered.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering if the government is looking
at the Winnipeg Renaissance project and attempting to‑‑what action
it is taking to attempt to prevent that project from proceeding. Has it, in fact, looked to see whether there
is economic benefit to Manitobans in light of recent developments, particularly
insights into the nature of the investment and perhaps changes in the
hospitality industry in Manitoba and in Winnipeg in particular?
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, as I understand how it
works, if there is a major change in the project, there will have to be an
assessment made by the department as to the economic benefits, and as well when
a major change takes place as it relates to an investment, the investors have
to be in agreement with the change as well.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister be taking the position
that there is a change, a significant or major change, with regard to the
Winnipeg Renaissance project, and is the department prepared to re‑examine
the economic impact of that project?
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, I think I have laid out
for the member what the government's position and the department's position
is. An assessment would have to be made
as to the economic impact and what it would in fact do; and, secondly, as it
relates to an approval of a change in a major project, then the investors would
have to be in agreement with that change as well. That is my understanding of the process.
* (2020)
Mr. Mackintosh: The minister uses the word "would"
sort of in a hypothetical sense, and I really want to know, with this specific
project, whether the staff, the department or the minister is seeking a re‑evaluation
of the Winnipeg Renaissance project.
Mr. Downey: Yes, Madam Chairperson, I have indicated what
the process is, and it is my understanding, and I would further check for the
member, that that would, in fact, take place and could be taking place in a
short period of time. I do not want to
leave the impression that it is an automatic approval, but an assessment has to
be made for any change in a project, regardless of the project. Whichever one that he would be referring to,
there would be an assessment made as to the economic benefit, and because of
the major change that is being proposed, the investors would also have to be in
compliance with that change.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering if the minister or any
departmental officials have met with the federal government since the federal
government announced that it would be lifting its freeze on the funds for the
Renaissance project.
Mr. Downey: We have communicated by letter to the federal
government. We have had a reply from the
federal government. I would have to do a
check with my deputy minister as to what discussions have taken place with the
federal government. I know there have
been some discussions at different periods of time. I think the federal government continues to
get the message from us in one way or another of what our position is. What discussions have taken place on a formal
basis, I would have to get that information.
I would suspect discussions have taken place, but that is subject to
further confirmation.
Mr. Mackintosh: The provincial conditions that the minister
has outlined appear to be relatively modest, I think, given recommendations set
out in the Crewson report, for example.
I am surprised that the federal government has not acknowledged that
that is the way to go and has nonetheless announced that the freeze would be
lifted. I am wondering if the minister
is aware of how that decision was made by the federal government in the absence
of taking into consideration Manitoba's request.
Mr. Downey: I guess, Madam Chairperson, I cannot explain
why the federal government did what they did.
I am somewhat surprised, to be quite honest, that they did not do more
of a review before the decision was made.
I referred earlier in Question Period today, and I have a Hansard which
refers to comments that Mr. Axworthy had made as it relates to calling for the
previous federal government to do a complete investigation of the total
Immigrant Investor Program.
Why, once achieving the responsibility of government, that
now is not being carried out, I cannot answer for that. Again, I guess our concerns are that with the
release of the funds, without the courts having been involved and some answers
given, then one could see actions which are not in the best interests of the
investors and the integrity of the program.
So again, I cannot answer for the federal minister. I cannot answer for the federal government,
but I am somewhat surprised that they would call for it in opposition, and then
when achieving government, have more or less proceeded on the same path as what
they were critical of when they were in opposition.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware whether this federal
decision rested with one particular official or what level of decision making
this was? Were there any federal
ministers who were involved in this?
Mr. Downey: No, Madam Chairperson, I am just aware that I
have received a letter from the federal minister which communicated the message
to me, and as I indicated earlier, I am prepared to make that letter public as
it relates to that decision.
Mr. Mackintosh: It would be appreciated if the minister would
table that letter for the House.
Has the minister or the department or counsel for the
department‑‑I understand from the Estimates of the Attorney General
that Taylor McCaffrey has been retained by the department to assist in this
issue. I am just wondering if there has
been any consideration of what role the government of Manitoba has in trying to
get the money paid into court itself.
Mr. Downey: I am not sure of the question. Maybe the member could repeat it. I guess he is asking, do we have a legal
instrument that could force that to happen? [interjection] I do not believe we
have any way of legally forcing that to happen.
Again, I will check further, but I am led to believe, I have been told
that I do not believe we have any legal grounds to force that to happen.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that there is an ongoing RCMP
investigation into the Bison Fund which is a separate fund from the Winnipeg
Renaissance fund. Since that investigation
began, I understand that there has been an affidavit filed in the Court of
Queen's Bench by Mr. Bryan Dudek, who was a principal of Bison Fund or may
continue to be a principal of the Bison Fund.
In there, certain allegations are made under oath as to the
involvement of Lakeview interests in the Bison Fund, both in promoting it and
then in receiving a benefit from the Bison Fund.
It is my understanding that although the RCMP investigation
is looking at the documents of many different parties, Lakeview is not one of
them, the number of Lakeview companies involved in the Bison Fund.
I am wondering if the minister has considered this issue
and, if not, if he would consider this and make a request of the RCMP that in
their review, their investigation of the Bison Fund, that they include in that
an investigation of the Lakeview interests.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, I cannot confirm or deny what
the member has put on the record at this particular time but will check and
will also take into consideration what he has suggested.
I would be reluctant at this particular time to put any
more on the record as it relates to this whole ongoing event, and will take
seriously the issues which he has asked and put on the record.
Mr. Mackintosh: I just want to review briefly the role of the
department in giving approvals, very questionable approvals over the course of
the Immigrant Investor Program and, particularly, those approvals that are
identified in the Crewson reports as really coming down to a general lack of
analysis of the economic impact of the projects.
I am wondering in particular with the Winnipeg Renaissance
project if the minister is aware of what study the department conducted as to
the viability of the Winnipeg Renaissance project, its impact on the hotel
industry and jobs in Winnipeg and Manitoba in general.
Mr. Downey: I would have to check with the department to
see what specific reviews and/or work was done as it related to that project.
Mr. Mackintosh: I think the minister will find that the
comments in the Crewson report will be supported in that there was none or very
little analysis. My question is, there
are officials, obviously, in the department who are responsible for reviewing
the economic impact, economic results of the projects, and I use the Winnipeg
Renaissance as one example.
I would like to know what assurances the minister can give
to this House that there have been changes within the department to ensure that
the people who are to be protected by the department will be protected in the
future.
Mr. Downey: Well, I am not sure what the member is asking
me for, if he is asking me to go on a head hunt, to go on a witch hunt, to
carry out some kind of retribution, or what is he really asking me to do? I can assure him that I think many lessons
have been learned by many people, hopefully at the federal government level,
hopefully within some of the actions that have been carried on and the
difficulties that have arisen.
* (2030)
Again, I want to remind him, it was this government that
called for the audit of the program. I
am not aware of it happening in any other province. I am not aware of the federal government
carrying it on.
Again, I go back to the reference that I made to the
government that is now in office. The
Liberal government that is now there, when they were opposition, called for a
complete inquiry, but now that they are in office have, for some reason,
changed their position or their desire to do so. I guess we will leave it up to either the
Liberal Party in the House to explain as to why the position has changed at the
federal government or maybe we can get some explanation from them.
Again, the member is asking me to carry out some kind of
retribution as it relates to work that was done. I would have to do a little bit more work to
see whether or not‑‑I do not think there would be any intentional
misleading or that kind of activity done within the department. I do not think professional people within the
system would intentionally carry out that kind of activity, but I would further
inquire as to the specifics of the question.
Mr. Mackintosh: I think the minister has rightly interpreted
my question. We have a department of the
government which, according to Crewson, did not do its essential duty. I am concerned that there was a sloppiness
exhibited during the course of this review.
I am relying on Crewson in making that observation.
I just want to be assured that there has been a review of
the functions and the role of the department in administering the Immigrant
Investor Fund to ensure that the problems do not spill over into other programs
and program deliveries of the department.
Mr. Downey: I think it is somewhat unfair for the member
for St. Johns to now come and say that particular work was not done by the
Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
First of all, Madam Chair, it was a federal government
program that did not require provincial investigation or review. Secondly, which is probably more pertinent to
this whole debate, a government party of which he now sits, when they were in
government, took the authority away from the Securities Commission, which would
have been the normal process that it would have had to go through to give some
protection to the investors.
So he is now sitting here saying that we should prosecute
somebody that works within I, T and T, Industry, Trade and Tourism, for some
kind of inaction or some kind of misappropriate or inappropriate work being
carried out as it relates to this program.
I do not accept that. I think he
should look in the mirror. He should
phone Al Mackling and say: Al, you
wronged again; your mistakes continue to haunt the NDP party in this House.
So I will check. I
think a lot of lessons have been learned by the federal people; hopefully, they
have been learned. I cannot point out
any particular individual who intentionally did not do their work within the
Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
Mr. Mackintosh: If the minister disagrees with Crewson's
observations that the provincial government is charged with the responsibility
of determining economic benefit and impact for each proposed investment
undertaken in Manitoba‑‑that is in quotes‑‑then the
minister should put it on the record.
But that is both the law, the regulation and the observation of the
Crewson report.
I think there is an obligation on the part of the minister
and the government in general to ensure that there is a review of the handling
of this matter by the department.
I would like to ask the minister, what is his view of what
is going to happen next here? Does the
minister have a sense as to what will come of the funds? Have there been discussions, for example,
today with regard to the monies now held in escrow?
Mr. Downey: I believe I have answered that question as it
relates to where it is at within the department.
Mr. Mackintosh: The Crewson report, its final report, had on
page 25 made several recommendations if the Renaissance project was allowed to
continue. I am wondering if the minister
would undertake to review those recommendations and do whatever is necessary in
the event the project is allowed to continue.
Mr. Downey: