Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Environment. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 31.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 62 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Last Thursday we were just at the very end of our discussion. I raised the issue of the potential diversion of Devils Lake into our watershed, and the minister was answering the question but did not have enough time to complete it, I believe. Maybe she could just continue with that now.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): I thank my colleague for being patient because we are a few minutes late starting, and I appreciate him taking the time for us to settle some things we were working on.

In answer to his question, I started to indicate when we closed off last time we do not want to see those waters infiltrating the Red River waters because there is a possibility they could be bringing with them things in the water that we do not want to see in the Red River water. So, to that end, we are working with authorities at all levels, from officials through to the political levels internationally and nationally. The federal government in Canada has taken the same position that we have taken, and so their support is very much appreciated. We are working to ensure that we do not have those waters infiltrating our waters or waters coming into Manitoba through the Red River from Devils Lake.

Mr. Dewar: Do you know if the Premier has raised this issue with the governor of North Dakota or South Dakota, as the case may be?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, he has raised it, and they have discussed it.

Mr. Dewar: Just on another issue. I heard just over the lunch hour, just a sketchy media report, regarding a pesticide spill in Winnipeg and understand that three litres of this pesticide was spilled out of, I guess, a container of 10 litres. Again, it was just sketchy in the media, and maybe you can update us today and, as well, reassure Manitobans that both the safety of those workers who work in this plant and the environment in the immediate area of the spill is not compromised at all.

* (1500)

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am not overly familiar with the incident, but my staff has informed me that there was a spill, indeed, over this weekend at Day & Ross, which is a–[interjection]This morning, was it, I am sorry. We have emergency spill regulations under The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act, and they provide very strict requirements for handling pesticides and other dangerous goods. We will be able to provide the member with more full details later this afternoon as information comes in. We did have our responder team out, I understand, right away as soon as we were notified, to comply with the regulations that are spelled out for spills of this nature.

So if the member would like, we can bring back additional information as the day goes on, and with his permission we will just interject when the information comes and provide it when it arrives, if that is all right. Okay.

Mr. Dewar: I thank the minister for that, and I look forward to her providing us with that detail.

I will talk a bit about recycling initiatives and so on. I know last year the government announced a program to help remove some used oil from the waste stream or recycle it and treat it. Can you provide us with an update as to how that program is succeeding? I hope it is succeeding so far.

Mrs. McIntosh: We have, in terms of the waste oil program, facts and figures. In 1998, we collected 10.9 million litres of used oil, which is up significantly from the 6.3 million litres in 1997. So it is quite a jump. The used oil filters collected in 1998 were 1 million, up from an estimated 200,000 in 1997. The used oil containers collected in 1998, we collected 90,000 kilograms, and there was really nothing to speak of in 1997. It was negligible. Currently there are 17 ecocentres and three private depots operating, up from about six approved depots in 1998, and four new centres are in the approval stages. We have discussions underway, well advanced actually, in Portage and Brandon for ecocentres there. On the used oil, that is the data that I have here on the used oil program.

Mr. Dewar: In terms of the collection depots, how many are there now in Manitoba?

Mrs. McIntosh: There are 17 ecocentres and three private depots, and that is compared to six that we had last year, so six approved last year and about 20 this year.

Mr. Dewar: As members know, when you purchase oil or you purchase an oil filter, there is a levy attached to fund the program, similar to the Product Stewardship Program. Can the minister indicate the amount of revenue generated by that and how that revenue is being used?

Mrs. McIntosh: It is around $2.5 million, that is, the revenue that comes in to run those now about 20 depots and, as I say, two under discussion for Brandon and Portage. I have the 1990 annual report called Making Every Drop Count from the Manitoba Association for Resource Recovery Corporation. I would be pleased to table that for the member's use. I think I just have the one copy here right now, but I could get other copies. If you would like, I could leave this for you. I am supposed to, every time I table something, table three others. So do we have extras around that we could get?

Mr. Chairperson: Just three in total you have to table.

Mrs. McIntosh: We will table that then for the member's benefit, but I would be pleased to answer any other questions he has right now.

Mr. Dewar: The minister indicated there is the receipt of about $2.5 million in revenue. How much of that is used to fund the program?

Mrs. McIntosh: Last year they spent just under $2 million, so it leaves about $500,000. To be exact, the revenue coming in was $2,434,953. The expenses were $1,856,853. I rounded them off in my answers, but those are the specifics.

Mr. Dewar: Well, what is the program's plan to use that additional revenue? Is it to be set aside in case of problems in the years to come, or are there specific designs on that extra revenue?

Mrs. McIntosh: They submit a three-year plan to my office, to the minister, which is approved by the minister. It is expected that, as the years progress, expenses and revenues will become fairly equal, that they will balance each other out. In the first few years of the program, it is likely that you might find a difference on one side of the ledger from the other as they get going. Experience and increased use should see these two lines balance out so there will not be such a difference. That is what we expect to see within the next year or two.

Mr. Dewar: The oil is collected in these different collection depots. How is that then treated? Is there a company that has contracted out to do that? If so, where is it done?

* (1510)

Mrs. McIntosh: In answer to your question, the collectors of the oil are paid. That would be like the ecocentres or other collectors that collect the oil and demonstrate that they have an approved end use for the product, that is, an end use that is approved of by the department. Then that is also paid for. You will see a variety of suitable end uses that are approved and currently being utilized. There will maybe be new ones introduced as people begin to study how used oil can be effectively recycled and disposed of in ways that make it useful as opposed to harmful. So those are the two places money goes.

The payment goes to the collector. It is one single payment that goes to the collector, but those are the two. They are to be collecting and have an approved end use for the material that they collect.

Mr. Dewar: The City of Selkirk, they have a collection depot, which is basically a large drum which meets the environmental standards. So the City of Selkirk then can if they choose use that oil in a responsible way within the community, or can they sell that oil to a company that would then recover and reuse that oil? Those are the kinds of questions I am interested in having an answer to.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes to both your questions. There are many ways that that used oil can be properly utilized and the department will approve the end use, what they are going to do with it, and then give the collector money that can then be used to do whatever they need to do with the oil to make it suitable for that use. Then they can distribute it however is deemed most feasible and reasonable.

Mr. Dewar: Then they are paid some type of a contribution initially as well. So they are paid to collect it and then if they are able to recover some revenue from, say, the sale of it, they can use that or keep that. I guess the program has been in operation now for about a year. How are communities, how are these collection depots doing financially?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we do not have access to the communities', municipalities', profits or revenues on this. What we can tell you is that they report back that they are very pleased with the program, and they feel it is working positively. We see the end figures on the amount of used oil collected and properly dispersed or dispersed in an environmentally friendly way, which is our concern.

I am sorry, I do not have the answer to the question as to how the municipality is doing except to say that they have given us positive feedback, that they feel it is working well for them–whatever they mean by that. We know the oil is being treated properly, which is what our concern is.

Mr. Dewar: So the oil is recovered. Now, is the oil, the filter, is that recovered? As well, the metal container, is that as well recovered?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, it is. Just to add a little bit in terms of the uses of the oil, some is recycled, some is re-refined, and some is burned. Those are the three main categories but, yes, to your answer on the filters.

Mr. Dewar: Is there is a government representative on the board of this program? If so, who is that individual?

Mrs. McIntosh: There is no government representative on that board.

Mr. Dewar: Is there a representative from your department on that board?

Mrs. McIntosh: The board itself is a private board set up by industry. We do not have a representative on it, but we do have a liaison with the board through the department. The department liases with the general manager and the working of the program through the board but not as a member of the board. The liaison is there, but we are not board members. We are not voting members.

Mr. Dewar: Can the minister tell us what exactly is the levy that is placed upon a container of oil, say, a litre of oil and upon an oil filter and in terms of the cash amount?

Mrs. McIntosh: It is 10 cents for a litre of oil and 50 cents for most of the commonly utilized filters.

Mr. Dewar: Does the minister know if the public then pays the provincial sales tax and the goods and services tax on top of this levy, on this levy, like they do with the Manitoba Product Stewardship 2-cent levy?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, they do.

Mr. Dewar: Well, where does that money go? Is it going to government revenues, or is it part of that money used to assist the program as it is with the Product Stewardship Corporation?

Mrs. McIntosh: The money right now that the member is referring to is sequestered. It is held with the Sustainable Development Fund, and it is yet to be determined whether that money will go back into the program or be used for some other purpose. What is clear right now is that it is not being used for general revenue, which is why it is being held in the sustainable development area pending decisions on the proper disposition of it and how to use it best to continue meeting the aims of the program and programs like it.

Mr. Dewar: When you say it is placed into a fund, which fund is that? Is that the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund or the Product Stewardship Corporation? Where is that money going? That, I would imagine, is only the provincial sales tax. I would assume the federal GST goes to the federal government, does it not?

* (1520)

Mrs. McIntosh: The provincial tax money is held in a subaccount of the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund, and the GST money does ultimately wind its way to Ottawa. It goes there over our objections because we do not feel, and I think the member would probably concur, that on items like this we should be having to collect the GST on this kind of initiative. We have made that case, in the meantime, while we argue that the niceties of that point, the GST is still being collected and forwarded to Ottawa, and the rest, the provincial money, is being held in the Sustainable Development Fund, not put into general revenue.

Mr. Dewar: Can you tell me how much is in that fund? How much has been generated by about a year of operation so far? How much money was generated in terms of the PST on top of this 10-cent-per-litre and 50-cent-per-filter levy?

Mrs. McIntosh: The expectation is that it will be coming in at around $200,000 PST annually.

Mr. Dewar: In terms of the Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation, I do not have the most recent annual report. This one ends the 31st of March, 1997. At that time, it stated that the surplus in that account was $5.7 million, and that was the end of 1997. Here we are two years later, and maybe you can tell us the current surplus in that fund.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, it looks around–well, to be specific, $6,700,904. Again we have this book with this wonderful cover, which distracted me for a moment from the question, called Putting the Pieces Together. It is the annual report for the MPSC, the Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation, which, again, if the member would like, I would be pleased to table for him so he can have it to peruse. But that is the answer, and I will get other copies and table it.

Mr. Dewar: I want to thank the minister for that. What plans does she have for that surplus? I know we have discussed this with her in Question Period in years gone by in terms of the multifamily dwellings here in the city of Winnipeg that do not receive recycling services. I realize it is a lot having to do with the city of Winnipeg. Do you have a plan for that surplus? I notice there has been quite an increase in terms of advertising and promotion, even in the 1997 report. I am looking here. Marketing and education, I assume that is the advertising budget, is $185,000. That is part of the increase, part of the surpluses obviously going into those types of areas, but what other plans do you have in terms of this corporation, in terms of providing recycling initiatives to Manitobans? How else are you going to use this money?

Mrs. McIntosh: The revenue is in balance pretty well with the expenses, so the surplus is not likely to increase in size. There is a good surplus there now, not likely to increase because now revenues and expenses are pretty well in balance.

The corporation is one of those arm's lengthy ones from government so we do not tell it what to do, but a general rule of thumb that we encourage for nonprofit organizations, if they can, keep a year's expenses in surplus. That is sort of a rule of thumb, and that is roughly the size of their surplus now, would be a year's expenses which seem to be in surplus. But the corporation, of course, is continuing to encourage increased tonnage collected, and as they do that, for example as they begin to move into multifamily dwellings which, I think, you were asking about not long ago, apartments in Winnipeg and so on, as municipalities, just using that for example, the City of Winnipeg starts to move into collection in apartment buildings or blue boxes, et cetera, you will see then their surplus start to decrease in size because they will be using it.

* (1530)

The surplus is there. It is a contingency to take care of market shocks and so on if there suddenly is a year, for some reason, where the amount collected sharply decreases or sharply increases or has some other strange anomaly thing start to happen. That surplus is a contingency. It will decrease in size as they move to collect increased tonnage and, in the meantime, it does appear to be roughly the equivalent of a year's expenses and that is something that is seen to be prudent by most observers.

Could I just interject? I had said that as we got more details on the Day & Ross thing, the member was wanting to know. We have an update. Is it okay to give it to you now? Three litres of Parathion, which is a commercial grade pesticide, moderately toxic, was spilled at 9:55 a.m. today at Day and Ross warehouse, the name of the firm. Eleven people were taken to hospitals, three hospitals to be specific: Health Sciences Centre, Seven Oaks, and Grace. Some have since been released, I am not sure if all.

The full response team included Manitoba Environment, City of Winnipeg police force, City of Winnipeg Fire Department including the Hazardous Materials and provincial Workplace Safety and Health. The bulk of the cleanup was done by the City of Winnipeg Hazardous Materials. The residual cleanup was done by Manitoba Environment and the commercial hazardous waste company at Miller Environmental. Inspection during the cleanup was done by Don Labossiere of Manitoba Environment. It is indicating full compliance on packaging standards and transportation of dangerous goods requirements. It indicated no noncompliance. It was compliant. It appeared to be accidental. Manitoba Environment concluded cleanup operations at Day & Ross at 2:30 p.m. today. So that is an update as of within the last hour.

Mr. Dewar: I thank the minister for that update. In terms of the Product Stewardship Corporation, you mentioned the revenues and some of the intentions, some of the goals and so on. There are some recycling programs in the province that are having some trouble, I believe. I mention Killarney and Neepawa. Either they were shut down or they were considering shutting down because of, I guess, the low prices in terms of recyclables and products that they were able to take out of the waste stream and are having difficulties finding either markets for or the low price. Are you seeing more and more of this now across the province in terms of municipalities who are having some problems in terms of their recycling initiatives?

Mrs. McIntosh: No, we have not noticed any particular problems. We have about 140 municipalities that are participating. We have had about half a dozen from that number that have been having some difficulty. What we have been doing is working with them as a department to try to help them. Some of them just were not aware of the cost that would be involved in their getting assistance there to come to a better understanding of what might be involved and what needs to be done. Some, like Neepawa, which I believe the member mentioned, were doing some excellent work, and they are back in business. I think they were using people with mental problems to provide them with meaningful employment, and so there were some other factors involved with the recycling. I believe Neepawa is back utilizing their program again. So they have little hurdles that they overcome.

I would imagine that with about 140 municipalities we are probably always going to have five or six that will be experiencing some difficulty, that require the assistance of the department from time to time. We see that as part of our role to go, when problems are identified, and try to help get things back on course for those municipalities.

We do not see that number increasing. It seems to be a handful at any given time.

* (1540)

Mr. Dewar: What support does the program offer to municipalities to help them find markets or new markets for their collected recyclables, and are those markets within the province? I know in Selkirk they have onsite at the collection depot a Pine Falls paper mill truck, so clearly that is where their market would be for recyclable paper products. What about other things, the different plastics and other containers that are collected? Just give me the general idea, your feelings in terms of the support that is offered to R.M.s to help them find markets, and basically what are those markets?

Mrs. McIntosh: The Manitoba Product Stewardship Program and others are always looking for new markets, new enterprises that want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. We have seen success there in Brandon and other areas, but it is an ongoing task, and they are always looking.

Mr. Dewar: Oh, good. I am glad to hear that. The minister is aware there was a situation that was dealt with by the Saskatchewan government, and that is the fact they have a collection system for containers. There were certain Manitobans who were taking advantage of that and taking their collected recyclables across into Saskatchewan and actually were making money at it. Quite the enterprising individuals, but the Saskatchewan government passed legislation that would require tough penalties for–what do they call it–out-of-province bootleggers.

Have you, Madam Minister, or the government, looked at a deposit system for certain containers, for certain types of recyclables?

Mrs. McIntosh: We have a different approach here as the member knows. Saskatchewan is charging I think it is 10 cents, is it, whatever. They are charging a fair amount for their deposit. Their program is very expensive.

Ours comes in about $2 million less than the Saskatchewan program, and because it is multimaterial, we are picking up newspapers and plastics and so on. We have seven different categories, I think, that we collect as opposed to just the cans, and as a result we are able to recycle a substantial percentage of waste material more effectively than the Saskatchewan program can with being limited to just one product. I am just going to check with staff here, was it 95 percent or 90 percent of materials were recycled successively?

Ninety-five percent of Manitobans have access to recycling, which is a really good result of the endeavours we have been undertaking. We have seen a substantial increase in the amount of material that is being reclaimed, reused, recycled and not just added to garbage lying around the province, so that is the basic reason we have not gone into that.

We figure the Saskatchewan program is twice as expensive as ours and collects only about one-third the amount of material that we collect.

Mr. Dewar: That was interesting. As you said, I am sure in terms of total volume of material that is removed from the waste stream, the 2-cent levy here in Manitoba that funds this program is probably more successful, but in terms of the specific pop cans or alcohol bottles, which program in your opinion–and your research I am sure would tell you this–which program is more successful?

I know they have a collection system and deposit system in Alberta as well. So I realize in terms of the volume, I am sure the Manitoba program does, because as you say we collect a wider range of recyclables, but in terms specifically, it is 10 cents per pop can and it is about 40 cents, I believe, on an alcohol bottle, which of course someone would recover when they take the product back to a collection depot in Saskatchewan and Alberta,. But I was just wondering, in terms of containers, aluminum cans and glass containers, which program do you think is more effective, the deposit one or the one that we have here in Manitoba?

* (1550)

Mrs. McIntosh: Right now the people in Saskatchewan are collecting more cans and bottles than we are; they are collecting more with their deposit return, people are taking back cans and bottles on a greater percentage than they are here, but what we are noticing is the number of cans and bottles we are collecting is increasing.

What we feel ultimately in terms of overall waste reduction that as people begin to think of programs that incorporate newspapers, plastic bottles, margarine containers, all of the things that our programs do, they become very, very conscious as they are disposing of everything in their household as to, you know, you will see so many households in Manitoba, now they will say, well, this is going on the compost heap, toss this please in the glass bottle thing, and toss this in the pile of newspapers. They are very conscious of recycling, so awareness increases an incredible amount on this issue. We have seen tremendous growth in awareness, generally speaking, and so as it grows generically it also grows specifically. You become conscious of everything you throw away, which means you get increased consciousness of throwing away cans and bottles as well. As opposed to just thinking in terms of getting money, you become part of a whole way of doing things.

We have courtesies in Manitoba that are peculiar to our province. I had visitors visiting with people this weekend from another land who were just so impressed with the courtesy Manitobans showed as they line up for things. It has got nothing to do with recycling, but a characteristic that we have is that if there are lots of people going to a place, we just kind of courteously line up and we wait our turn, whereas these people I was with come from a land where you just kind of push and shove and get to the front as fast as you can. But so too we have attitudes towards taking care of the world around us that have become as Manitoban as perogies, which used to be Ukrainian but now, I understand, are thought of as Manitoba foods.

Mr. Dewar: On May 10 of this year, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities met us. As they met with the government caucus as well that day, I always enjoy attending those meetings because they often have a number of important environmental issues, which they bring to our attention. This year, of course, they talked about the stewardship program and they talked about some of the problems associated with transportation costs. But one line I think is quite interesting. I would like to read this. We also encourage the province to place levies on a larger number of recycled products to ensure the future financial stability of the program. Are there plans by the corporations to expand this levy to include a larger number of recyclable products?

Mrs. McIntosh: The stewardship program has been looking at the feasibility of extending that to newsprint, perhaps to some other grocery products, but they are having to take a good close look at it because as they examine those feasibilities, there is a whole complex. Cans are pretty straightforward. A can is a can is a can, but some of the other products are not that easy to break out and identify because they are not all exactly the same. But newsprint is one that is being looked at, it is more the same. Like newsprint is newsprint is newsprint. So they are looking at those things. They have not yet made a determination as to where they will be going, but they are looking at it.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I am wondering if I could ask some questions not necessarily directly following up what my honourable colleague was doing but hopefully in the same ballpark. Most of those would be questions relating to specific issues in my own constituency or issues raised with me. So they could be varied, if the minister would be so kind as to deal with them.

Mrs. McIntosh: That is fine.

Mr. Jennissen: The first one is recycling of materials. Would that include recycling of old pavement? The reason I am asking the question is there is a gentleman in Flin Flon or a couple of gentlemen that have for a number of years been trying to take sections of old Highway No. 10, the pavement, getting the rights first of all to lift up those sections of pavement and then have them shredded and have them recycled in the sense of new pavement. I am not sure how the whole procedure works, but first of all, is the department even interested in this? Have there been any inquiries into this? I am sure these gentlemen must have approached your department.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, that is something I think the department has had brought to its attention in a preliminary fashion and would be very interested in examining further. I think it has been brought, or we just cannot recall right now from whence, but we know that the issue has been raised about the possibility of using it that way. The idea appears to have some merit that would say it is worth exploring.

Mr. Jennissen: If I could maybe just in the nature of clarifying just a little bit for the minister, even if I am not really up on the issue either, it came about because of a straightening of highways a number of years ago. There are a series of stretches of an old highway, Highway 10, and there is very good pavement on some of those stretches. I am estimating maybe 10-15 kilometres, and it is basically just sitting there. And these gentlemen, I think Mr. McIntyre for sure, I believe that is his name, is involved and perhaps a few others. Their theory was: why do we not just recycle it, have it shredded and, when we are putting new pavement on the new No. 10, we would incorporate the old pavement? Now, I do not know if there are contaminants in the old pavement like PCBs. I do not know that for sure, but I am sure if it could work interdepartmentally, it would be a great way of getting rid of these eyesores, which these old highways are, and recycling that material for new highways.

* (1600)

Mrs. McIntosh: I am not sure if you are talking about asphalt or concrete or both, because the asphalt you can readily shave off into tailings and the concrete, I imagine, you can grind back into powder-like substance. I think one of the things that would, depending on where the used material is, sometimes it is very costly to reclaim, depending, again, where it is and what quantities are available. The heavy construction industry apparently is advancing this concept. There have been some projects carried out in southern Manitoba. In the city of Winnipeg, certain types, it is not a technical problem per se as it is a matter of economics. If the material could be easily reclaimed in a cost-effective way and utilized, I think that is something that people interested in cost containment would be wanting to explore. If it is hard to get at material or it is isolated or it is in small bits and pieces and requires a lot of work, then it probably would not be economically feasible.

I would think in any of those things that, if the technology is not a problem, it would boil down to how cost effectively such material can be reclaimed and how willing our municipalities and governments are able to do feasibility studies to get at it.

Mr. Jennissen: The material in question is asphalt, and I do believe there have been some preliminary investigations by these people that are interested in recycling it. I think also it would be just a very effective way of various departments working together, such as the Highways department working with the Environment department. So maybe everybody could benefit, and it could be a win-win situation. I am just flagging it as such an issue which maybe the minister should look at, and I thank her for her answer.

Another question I have, and we dealt with it to some degree last year with a different minister, is about the polluter-pay principle. I believe it was in Gods Lake Narrows or Gods Lake where there was a fairly large fuel oil spill from a Catholic rectory, I believe. I think that has been resolved to some degree. I believe it has been. I guess the question still lingers in my mind: when you use the polluter-pay principle is that general, generic, or do we have some variance? I am suggesting that a huge corporation, a multimillion-dollar corporation or billion-dollar corporation should not be treated the same as an individual or a charitable organization or a church. I am just wondering if the minister has any views on that. I guess I am suggesting that the church over there should not be treated the same way as, let us say, Tolko or some huge corporation.

Mrs. McIntosh: We do apply that polluter-pay principle with a fair degree of compassion. We know that if you might have a mom-and-pop facility, they might have a little problem and their intentions of cleaning up are good, so we will work with them to help them do it without bankrupting them and putting them out on the sidewalk. So we do have the polluter-pay principle, we believe in it, we think it is the way to go, but we try, at the same time as we apply our rules, to be realistic and compassionate. Where we recognize that there is an intention to repay or to compensate, we provide extra time, put in resources to assist, et cetera, our goal being to get things cleaned up. Our goal is to help build awareness so that they will not be encouraged to repeat the exercise. If it has been a deliberate oversight or genuine careless endeavour, then we try to put in disincentives that will be effective without: Is it not grand; do you like it? That is good; I like it too.

Does that give you the response you are looking for? Okay.

Mr. Jennissen: Are we saying then that that particular issue from last year with the Archdiocese of Keewatin-Le Pas that involved that bigger spill, has that then been resolved? I am assuming it has been.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, that is in fact a very good example that the member has raised because it indicates how we try to approach situations like that. There we moved in to try to rectify a situation and to try to help the people involved extricate themselves in a way that would–we try to bring about win-win solutions where we can. I think that example is one that shows how we enforced the polluter-pay principle with some degree of effort to help the individuals involved come out of it at the end unscathed, knowing they were part of a solution and not burdening them severely or unjustly.

Mr. Jennissen: One other question I had that I am not sure even if this falls under the purview of this ministry, but I am asking it anyway. Buffer zones, with regard to clear-cutting and logging operations, I have had a number of calls from citizens and citizens' groups and also lodges, and they were worried that the buffer zones were not large enough. Like sometimes for esthetic reasons we allow 100 metres but sometimes only 10 metres or 15 metres, and it seemed very arbitrary.

I talked with some Tolko people, and I am not sure who makes the decision, at what point you leave a 10-metre buffer zone or a 15 one or a hundred-metre one? Is there some kind of rule or regulation, formula that is being used?

Mrs. McIntosh: We do major forestry operations as the member knows. We have very generically described buffer zones, very generally described buffer zones in our licensing. Natural Resources then will come in, and they will outline specific buffer zones. They will tighten up the detail using the broad general guidelines that have been established by the Department of Environment, so they come in and provide the exact requirements.

Mr. Jennissen: Are there minimum standards in, like, we cannot go below 10 metres, 15 metres?

Mrs. McIntosh: Pardon me?

Mr. Jennissen: Are there minimum standards, like the buffer zones must be no smaller than?

* (1610)

Mrs. McIntosh: It is not that tight. It is prescribed by Natural Resources on a site-by-site basis. They will tighten it up and they will make the specific requirements. We just moved very generally site by site, and they will look at each site and determine what the variances should be depending upon the locale and all of the other things happening in that particular ecosystem or that forestry area.

Mr. Jennissen: One of the reasons I am bringing this up is because I am thinking of a specific case. Well, there are many other cases, but one specific case of a lodge. There has been a rezoning taking place, and the chances are that they are going to be slapping cabin lots very close to this lodge. Now when you are in the lodge business in northern Manitoba, wilderness is one of the things you sell. You do not want sort of an urban setting right on your doorstep. That is what I am a little worried about.

I would suggest there should be at least a hundred metre buffer between that lodge and any kind of development, but it does not appear to be the direction it is going. That is why I am interested in some minimum requirements. I do not know who would enforce them, whether Natural Resources, Northern Affairs, or Environment.

Mrs. McIntosh: I was talking specifically about a logging issue. The development issue you are raising is a different issue than the one I was answering, and they may be treated differently.

On the development question that you have raised, usually it would be the local municipality, the local government, that would determine how much space needs to be left. The logging issue and the buffer zones for logging will be established provincially, but with the development ones the local government jurisdiction has authority to make decisions as well.

Mr. Jennissen: One more series, or perhaps even one question. It deals with the service station in Cranberry Portage. It was called Norwood's Service. Norwood attempted to sell out about four, five years ago, I believe, and there was a fair bit of red tape involved in terms of possible contamination or pollution because there were underground tanks. Although there were a number of buyers, he never did sell it because he apparently never could get the authority to do so and therefore, I believe, now has either transferred it or sold it or let it go, whatever. I do not know the fine details, but he seemed somewhat perturbed because apparently now the site is considered clean. He says: well, why could it not have been considered clean a number of years ago? I could have sold it, made $50,000. Now I face quite an economic loss.

He wondered if there had been some rule changes.

Mrs. McIntosh: I do not have the particular details on the Cranberry site here, although staff has some recollection of it. That Cranberry site was investigated in co-operation with Manitoba Environment. The cleanup standards have not changed in the ensuing years, but the department operates by risk management. To explain it, if there was no risk to the environment or to public health, then the cleanup may not have been required, depending upon what the site was going to be used for. That is a big part of the risk management. If there is no cleanup, if there has been no cleanup done, then that facility remains on our records as what we call a tracked site. We keep track of it, in other words.

If it is to be sold or somebody else acquires it, depending upon the use they wish to put it to, they may have to first comply with certain cleanup regulations in full or in part or whatever because of its history. Obviously, if somebody just wants to buy the land and just have it sit there, there is no risk in terms of managing it. But if they wish to do something else more elaborate with it, there may well be a risk attended, and they would then have to be subject to cleanup requirements by the department. I do not know at the moment if it is under request to buy or for what purpose it might be being looked at, but the risk management aspect of the department would certainly swing into full gear on any tracked site that comes up for change of ownership.

Mr. Jennissen: So is the minister saying that, if it is used differently, let us say, from a service station, then it does not pose any more risk and therefore no cleanup is required?

* (1620)

Mrs. McIntosh: It could be a variety of different uses that somebody would like to buy land for and whatever that desire is–they may wish to buy it to do something, to do X with, then the department would look at it because it is a tracked site and say they want to do X with it, they would then have to check to see if X required cleanup. If it did, then the prospective owner or the prospective seller, somebody would have to clean up that site before X could be permitted on it. So it may not be the usage that it was there for before, it could be something else.

Mr. Jennissen: So a tracked site could be tracked for how many years? Is there a limit on this?

Mrs. McIntosh: There is no limit on the amount of time that it is tracked.

Mr. Jennissen: I am under the impression that there is a current ownership change happening. I do not know the details of it, and the minister may be right, perhaps there are no plans to do anything with it in the interim. Perhaps it is just going to sit there as a vacant lot, so to speak, but I am still not clear why that is any more or less dangerous than if there was a business on it. I guess there could be some problems if there were fumes or whatever. I do not know either.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, they have to determine the amount of exposure that people are going to be exposed to. If they are selling the land and they want to sell it to someone who wants to put up a daycare centre then there would be one kind of exposure. If they want to put up a parking lot, there would be a different kind of exposure. The risk management aspect from the department would make it necessary to determine what kind of risk is involved in managing the property either as a daycare or a parking lot. One, of course, would have greater exposure, greater risk than the other and would require cleanup to a certain level or completely cleanup so no contamination whatsoever for certain uses, so those are the kinds of things they look at when a property that is called a tracked site is offered for sale.

Mr. Jennissen: So, to get back to the original point, if it were low risk, for example, if this were a lot that would be turned into a parking lot with gravel on it only, would it still continue to be tracked, say, 50 years from now if it stayed in that shape? So the tracking is not dated. It keeps being tracked.

Mrs. McIntosh: They would still be tracking it.

Mr. Jennissen: Those are all the questions I have. Thank you very much. I will turn it over to my colleague.

Mrs. McIntosh: Just before my critic begins, he had a couple of questions from last Thursday. I said we would try to have them for him today and I have got them. I will just provide them for him now before he starts the next round of questioning.

The member had asked that we ask questions about flood mould. One of the opposition party members was asking. We indicated that we were checking 5,000 basements for flood mould. That number should be 1,000, just a correction.

He had asked about the funding for Rockwood water supply, and that is Bristol, one-third; feds, one-third; provincial government, one-third. I should be more courteous and say federal government, not feds. That is not a polite way to refer to them. So it is one-third, one-third, one-third.

I had indicated earlier this afternoon I would table the annual report, Making Every Drop Count, for MARRC and the annual report for the Stewardship Corporation, and I have the extra copies here so I will table those now. Do I need to read the exact title into the record?

An Honourable Member: You just did.

Mrs. McIntosh: Well, no, I just read the little abbreviation, but I think we all know which they are.

Mr. Chairperson: Oh, I am sorry. The two copies were the 1998 Annual Report, Making Every Drop Count, Manitoba Association for Resource Recovery Corporation. The other one is the Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation Annual Report, April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1998, and that is called Putting the Pieces Together. Thank you, Madam Minister. That is it?

Mrs. McIntosh: That is it.

Mr. Dewar: Good. I thank the minister for providing me with the copies of those annual reports.

Getting back to the Association of Manitoba Municipalities brief, they mention the chemical container program, and this is another recycling issue of importance to municipalities, the future of the chemical container program. It appears that the Crop Protection Institute still plans to replace the current system of municipal collection sites administered by ACRE with a return to vendor program. Currently over 90 percent of the containers in Manitoba are returned to municipal sites, whereas jurisdictions with a return to vendor program have a lower rate of return.

Madam Minister, maybe you can just enlighten me as to the future of this program, administered by ACRE?

Mrs. McIntosh: We share the member's concern that CPI is trying to erode the program. We do not want to go to a return to dealer because we just do not think that is–all the problems associated with that I think are known and understood by the critic as well as by the minister.

We are looking or seeking to provide interim funding for ACRE to help them continue. ACRE, I think, has done a good job. It has functioned well. People are pleased with it. We would like to see it continue. It may require some interim funding. We are looking at a way to provide that for them, but we do not see as a solution going to the return to dealer way of doing things.

Mr. Dewar: I agree with the minister, based upon my limited knowledge of this issue. But I know, from what I have seen and from the comments made by the AMM in their brief this year and in past years, they have supported the current system and have raised concerns about changing it. So I do support the minister and encourage her to continue with that program.

An issue that I raised in the House early on this session was the status of the Household Hazardous Waste Program. The minister was kind enough to return to the House with an update. I am pleased that the program seems to be going this year, but what is the long-term future of that program?

I know at one time it was placed on hold because the used oil program was coming into place, and they felt that maybe there was not a need for this as well. But I want to encourage the minister, I think there is a need for this. Again, speaking with municipal officials who partner with the government in providing this service to the residents, there I believe are 200,000 kilograms of household hazardous waste that are removed from the waste stream, which often ends up regrettably in landfill sites across this province. This year, I believe, once again, is it Miller that received the contract?

* (1630)

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, Miller has received the contract for household hazardous waste.

Mr. Dewar: Then you, Madam Minister, envision this to be a long-term program?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, we do. The member may be aware that we have as well put into place a task force which we are asking to look at the whole situation, because we see an increasing interest in and an increasing demand for places to send household hazardous waste, and we are very encouraged by that. We think it shows an understanding in the public that we have been hoping to see evolve; it has come. So we are looking to see if there is some way we can underwrite the program to give it even greater scope, greater ability to respond to what we hope will be an ever-increasing demand from the public. As they grow in their awareness, we want to match that with making opportunity available.

Just so you know, we have some 20 different people involved, different organizations involved, and in terms of the management of household hazardous waste, they will be consulting with stakeholders. They will be consulting with people around the province, and they hope to provide us with appropriate recommendations so that we can bring in a new program next year that will add to what we have. We do see it as long range. We do see it as continuing to grow, and we have people from our department in the Pollution Prevention branch working on this.

We have four contracts that have gone out, all to Miller Environmental, to run the Winnipeg and the rural Household Hazardous Waste Program for the next two years. We have issued separate contracts for the Winnipeg program, the spring rural program, the fall rural program and the northern program. We have those four different contracts because it helps us track costs more effectively. We are able to zero in on how much each area is costing, and this is useful information for planning and for meeting targets.

I think I have indicated to the member the dates, times and places in my question in the House. I wanted to give a more detailed answer at the time, but the Speaker felt that one minute was fine for the answer to six questions, and who am I to argue with the Speaker? I would not do that.

I do not know if the member wants this information at this time. We have a variety of drop-off points and pick-up points. I think I did get a chance to get most of it onto the record before I got told I was taking far too long for my answer, but, in short, I can just maybe say this as sort of a summative statement. The Miller contracts commit the funds we have for household hazardous waste this year, and any unofficial sites are outside that particular envelope.

Just as a matter of interest on ACRE, it is a little bit of a backtrack, but my deputy has just handed me this little piece of information as we were discussing ACRE. For the member's information, in 1998, ACRE recycled one million containers, and there were only 1,200,000 sold in Manitoba. So of 1,200,000 containers sold, one million were recycled, which is a percentage rate in the mid-80s which is a return rate that is pretty good. I just thought I would share that information because it shows I think why the municipalities are so supportive of ACRE.

Mr. Dewar: In terms of the Household Hazardous Waste Program and its promotion, do you or does your department take an active role in promoting this, I think, much-needed program across the province?

Mrs. McIntosh: We do regional publicizing, I guess. Would that be the right word? We will announce, for example, put out a press release, as we did when the contract was awarded this year, letting people know when and where the hazardous waste could be taken and when it would be picked up. We work with the municipalities to build awareness, and we also try to ensure that we are being realistic in the amount of hazardous waste that we can pick up. We are trying to advertise appropriately so that we get to the right number of people so that we can have our depots properly utilized.

We do not have an intensive public relations campaign per se. We are trying to work interdepartmentally with our sustainable development education that is taking place in schools and so on, that people are aware of these types of things or that they learn about them. Those are the ways in which we try to build awareness.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment detected sulfur dioxide gas on a monitor in the Tilston area on a farm owned by Mr. Bill Campbell. Can you just provide us an update in terms of this situation out in that area?

Mrs. McIntosh: We have been monitoring Mr. Campbell's land, and on an ongoing basis, we are in frequent communication with him and becoming very intimate with the area.

As well, we are working with Saskatchewan and Alberta, the provincial governments, their departments of Environment, to look at the effects of sulfur dioxide gas on things with which it comes in contact. Part of the difficulty has been, and continues to be, trying to make a direct link between the sulfur dioxide gas and problems that people might be encountering. No one has been able to make the direct linkage to a particular ache or pain that someone is having and the gases in the atmosphere. So that is part of the dilemma, and if we are able to say, well, you know, if you are exposed to this gas, you will experience that and can prove it, it would be much easier to deal with this particular situation.

* (1640)

But we have, in addition to working with Alberta and Saskatchewan to try to determine what, if any, effects are harmful, also set up a committee with local governments and others in the area to keep everyone informed as we go through the process. We have regular public meetings and updates. At the end of the summer, we will decide what, if anything, we need to do in this particular situation. As I say, it is a tricky one, because no one has been able to prove any direct linkages. Yet we have the views put forth by Mr. Campbell and others who support his perspective there to challenge us.

Mr. Dewar: In the press clipping from March 25, it concludes by stating: Manitoba Environment has established a community advisory committee and promises to set up more monitoring equipment until August.

So I assume then that was done.

Mrs. McIntosh: That is the committee I just referred to that has been struck with local government in the area and that will be doing that update on air quality monitoring. We have equipment out there that we have been using to monitor the air quality. Basically, they are at two locations. We set up two trailers in each of those locations. Not two in each location but one in each location. Those trailers have specialized air-quality-monitoring equipment. They have been set up in a farmyard. They do continuous monitoring. They undertake continuous monitoring for sulfur dioxide, and they have been since the beginning of April. Also, for the measurement levels of hydrogen sulfide since the end of April. Two additional air samples for the determination of volatile organic compounds, VOC, have been taken in the area since the last report, and the results have been received and are being reviewed. Those arrangements, having been made for the VOC, or the volatile organic compounds program–it is a sampling program–will continue throughout the summer. They will take a sample once a week, and Manitoba Environment will operate as it is now. It will continue to operate its portable analyzer for the determination of sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.

The first phase of the vegetation and soil investigation has been done. That was done at the end of May. Locations upwind and down-wind of the facility have had their vegetation inspected, and they have collected samples of foliage for sulfur analysis. Other phases will be planned for later this summer into August. But they have not found any sulfur dioxide at any of the monitoring locations since the inconclusive readings they experienced at the beginning of January. So, you know, it is kind of frustrating but, still, as I say, they are monitoring.

They have not recorded any levels of sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide on the portable analyzer at the various locations in the area of complaints during the monitoring. The hydro-carbon levels for the 147 compounds in the latest two samples were within the range of levels measured in Winnipeg from 1990 to 1996. So that information is very useful, and all of the data collected will be provided to the community advisory committee that the member referenced just a few moments ago.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, the provincial government, the provincial Department of Environment, was to prepare a climate action plan to bring Manitoba into line with the Kyoto agreement which mandates a 5 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, I guess, by the year 2012. Can you give us an update in terms of this climate action plan and if so, if you do have this plan, what does it tell us about Manitoba's ability to reach that target?

Mrs. McIntosh: We have a draft action plan that is being readied; it is almost ready now. Minister Newman and I, the Minister of Energy and Mines and I, are involved in this. It will shortly be available for a public consultation process. It will have in it proposals for the public to react to to determine if they have thoughts and ideas that would support or not support suggested solutions. Manitoba is very good in this area in that we are not a very big part of the problem, but we would like to be a big part of the solution. We think with some of the proposals that are going to be in this draft action report that we can be of a real position help. So there should shortly be a report available which will go for public consultation. I am sorry I do not have an exact date I can give you, but we hope to see it while weather is still warm, available for people to go through. [interjection] Yes, by the end of the summer if all goes well.

Mr. Dewar: In preparing this report, has your department discovered that in fact emissions have gone up as opposed to the much more preferable option of them going down?

* (1650)

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, 1990 was the base year chosen to start measuring, and we are up slightly; we are up about 5 percent. The second piece of that is that emissions are up everywhere, and that is part of the reason we need to get a handle on them. Manitoba has the second lowest per capita emissions in Canada, and I think that is because we have done a good job. We have a smaller rate of increase, so to speak. We have been able to slow down the rate of increase that the lifestyle in North American and parts of Europe has encouraged, and that is an important part of the puzzle. Solving the puzzle is to slow down the tendency that is there and then start reversing it.

So I think in that sense we have done a good job, although the short answer is up about 5 percent over the last decade. The encouraging part is that I think without the work we have been doing, it would be up a lot more. We hope to continue with a series of initiatives that will see that start to change, and we hope to be influential in reversing the Canadian figures as well, because we all live in the same part of the world. You know, the border does not go straight up into the stratosphere and only have things happening on one side of it, it goes right across the nation. This is one area where we really have to be part of a good, strong interjurisdictional effort.

Mr. Dewar: So you mentioned there has been about a 5 percent increase since 1990. Can you tell us the cause of that increase?

Mrs. McIntosh: The short answer is not the whole picture. It is one aspect that we believe is a fairly substantial contributing aspect. There is more that can be said, but we do not have all of that information available right here and now. Certainly transportation emissions have played a very discouraging role in that they have added to the problems substantially, and I guess with a highly mobile world particularly in North America, transportation emissions in all areas have been ones that are hard to contain, and they are a major part of the problem.

Mr. Dewar: So when you say transportation, are you suggesting then because of a reliance in our economy more upon the trucking of goods as opposed to once the transportation by rail would have an impact on this? Is that one of the causes?

Mrs. McIntosh: One thing that we have noticed, we have, as the member is aware, very definite increases economically in the trucking industry, and we have also lost a lot of our rail ability, so we have as the economy grows it is one of those little side effects that we are going to have to really get a handle on. More trucks means more emissions on the road. More trucks also means strengthened trade and strengthened economy, so there has to be a way to marry that increase in the trucking industry, which is substantial and desired economically and for a whole lot of other reasons. There have to be ways to marry that for sustainable development purposes, and that is something we are conscious of.

We have forest fires that were both in 1997 and 1998 incredibly heavy, and those forest fires in the neighbouring provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan, west and to the Yukon Territory, they contribute to our readings as well, because the smoke is brought in on winds, et cetera. Those two years we had very substantial problems with forest fire smoke and all the debris that comes with that through the air registering in Manitoba as Manitoba emissions.

I just wanted to check, I just got a note from my staff here. Staff has just pointed out to me that both trucks and rail will use diesel fuel so that if it happens the rail decreases by the amount the trucks increase, they can probably balance out, but if we are using with the rail that we have got, increased traffic as much as we can, they use the same type of fuel, so the emissions would be similar in terms of their impact in the atmosphere.

Mr. Chairperson: Time being five o'clock, it is time for private members' hour. Committee rise. We might be back in case it is waived. I am not sure exactly. I have never done one of these before.