* (1440)

Mr. Chairman (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 1.(b)1 on page 62 of the Estimates book.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I would like to ask the minister a series of questions as it relates to the expanding hog industry here in the province. As the minister is, I am sure, aware, the Department of Agriculture has a mandate to double the production of hogs in this province by the end of this year. That was a goal set, I believe, two or three years ago. I assume that they are on their way. Last year myself, the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans), and others held a number of forums across the province dealing with hog production. There were some concerns raised from residents and producers regarding the lack of land use plans and assessing the location of large-scale hog operations. We heard of proposed barns being located on poorly drained soil near sink holes, over aquifers.

My question would be to the minister. What is this minister doing in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources, which I am sure would be part of this discussion? What is she doing in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources to provide a better systems approach to hog barn location, taking in the physical features of a region, including of course the soil, water, vegetation, et cetera?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Mr. Chairman, we have got together a livestock management team, which is composed of a very diverse group of people. Eight existing staff have been reassigned to a support role, six new staff, four assigned to the livestock team, and two providing indirect support. Amongst the people that are looking at this management program, we have got water quality representatives, ground water experts, hydrogeologists, engineers, et cetera, that are in place around the province in various locations in Steinbach and in the Interlake, et cetera, who are experts in certain areas that we have targeted to make certain that they are well managed.

We have got, as the member has indicated, a very rapid expansion in pork production as well as in beef and poultry in Manitoba, but we have taken pains to address potential pollution of soil and water systems, and the public advocates sustain development in environmental protection. So we have put special measures in place or systems in place to address concerns, real and perceived.

In 1996 Manitoba Environment initiated a stakeholder consultation. It was a process which resulted in a new Livestock, Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation, which we passed on April 1, 1998, a year ago, just a little over a year ago. That then led to the livestock management team, which I just referred to. They provide the new regulatory requirements for environmental monitoring for compliance. They also are there to meet the expectations of Manitobans that environmental integrity will not be compromised by increased production. That cost about $35,000 in '98-99. That was mostly to have meetings for the development of the team unit, protocols, and guidelines for implementing consistent program delivery, et cetera. That was about $8,000.

The training of new staff, the preparation of outreach information for clients and for the public, brochures in English, French, and German, because a lot of the producers speak that language, support for a video and a contract for engineering assessment guidelines, those guidelines for manure storage facilities. Increased inspection for the five-month period under discussion there, that was $13,000. In the year that we are entering, the '99-2000 year, the livestock management team will be in full operation. The operating expenditures will be estimated to be about $60,000. A lot of that will be for travel to deliver regulatory requirements on inspection and enforcement activities and as well for the delivery of outreach and communication activities.

So those are some of the background on the question. We do have some challenges that we are looking at, that we will be addressing, and that we are currently working upon. That is like manure storage facilities, you know, what is the permitting process going to be for new manure storage facilities, et cetera, because we have 115 new facilities. That is a huge increase, over 400 percent increase. We are moving rapidly to stay in front of it.

That challenge for '99 and beyond is the administration of the manure management plans and the auditing of these plans for large operations. Inspection and compliance are the current policies. We will be continuing that, but existing facilities will be a priority after 2003 when the moratorium on winter spreading is in place for everybody.

Generally speaking, hog producers are aware of the regulatory requirements. They are generally supportive of them. That is about it for now. If you have other details, I will try.

Mr. Dewar: You mentioned in your answer the new waste management regulation. One of the aspects of that, of course, is the moratorium on winter spreading. Maybe you can just enlarge upon that? What size of operation now will not be allowed to spread slurry in the winter?

Mrs. McIntosh: The livestock manure and mortality regulation covers this. All new facilities with over 400 animal units; after the year 2003, all existing facilities over 400 animal units. They cannot spread between November 15 and April 15. Those are considered to be the winter months. The size limitation will be reviewed again in five years from the inception. So it is really 2004 that it will be reviewed again. Our anticipation is it will most likely be reduced at that time although I guess we cannot say for sure, but that is the expectation at this point.

* (1450)

Mr. Dewar: I had a chance to attend a meeting in Portage when this regulation was being put forward for public consultation, and I had a chance to listen in to some of the conversations. There were some producers who felt that the winter spreading would mean the end of their operation. They were raising some serious concerns at that time. I heard one person say: well, this does nothing, of course, to really decrease the volume of slurry. It just requires them, I suppose, to have a larger lagoon to store it until they can then apply it to the land.

Have you noticed an impact upon the number of producers? What is their general feeling now about this regulation, which I think is a good regulation, by the way.

Mrs. McIntosh: The act was endorsed by KAP, the Keystone Agricultural Producers. So that stakeholder approval was there.

Farmers do understand and appreciate that the objective here is to protect soil, ground water, and surface water. So they have opted in, so to speak, conceptually to what we are about here and what we are trying to do. Those of us who have such facilities in our constituencies have not been receiving complaints. We have not, in the department, that we are aware of, heard anything that would indicate there are objections or concerns. I mean, everything requires a little work and everything that is new requires a bit of adjustment, but we have not had it brought to our attention that this is an adjustment that people are unwilling or unable to make.

The short answer, we have not noticed a decrease or concerns because of it.

Mr. Dewar: Well, I have not. I have a couple of hog operations. In fact I had complaints to the opposite in that there were people who were raising issues, neighbours and so on, regarding winter spraying, winter spreading, obviously, in that they did not appreciate that activity being done at a time when the soil was not conducive to accepting the slurry.

Has your department detected any contamination of any aquifers from any of the large-scale hog operations in this province?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we have not had any contamination from the new facilities. There is one historic contamination, an old site that is being worked on to get thoroughly cleaned, and that is between Carberry and Brandon. There is an area in there where there is an old development that is still in need of some cleansing. But, in terms of the new ones, no, there has not been any contamination noted.

Mr. Dewar: Well, I am quite pleased to hear that. That is an issue that people raise, of course, the quality of the water, and another one is the odour from lagoons which may not affect someone's health. I guess it could, but it affects people in the–

Mrs. McIntosh: It is very unpleasant.

* (1500)

Mr. Dewar: It is unpleasant, and it does so in a different way, not so much a physical way, but a psychological way. I am quite intrigued by a proposal or an idea put forward, and I was reading in the Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative about placing a plastic lagoon cover as opposed to straw because the plastic, I think, works better according to this study or to the analysis done in here. So I am intrigued by that.

Is your department working on other initiatives similar to this?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we have a board, a Manure Management Board. There is representation from the department on that, in fact, in the person of the deputy. They have explored about 30 different initiatives so far; one of them was the one the member alluded to just now. They do look at innovative ideas and suggestions, and they do brainstorm around activities that might help offset the unpleasant effects of odours and other side effects that come from hog operations. That is a self-sustaining board where the money for it comes from the industry itself, so it is not paid for by taxpayers as a whole. It is paid for by those who are involved in the industry and will directly benefit ultimately from good and workable ideas that might come out of that committee.

Mr. Dewar: I would like to move on, in some of the time we have remaining, to talk about the federal-provincial agreements and the concerns raised by the federal environment commissioner. Some of these issues I raised with the minister in the House last week.

In your response to my question, you indicated that you had raised concerns with the federal government over the classification of chemicals and pesticides and so on. The commissioner in his report stated that of the 23,000 chemicals in this country, only 67 have been researched so far. This, of course, is a serious concern and has the potential for repercussions on the health of Manitobans and the state of our local environment.

You said at that time, I believe, that you have had some discussions with the federal minister. Would you be prepared to enlighten us as to what those discussions were and the response that you received back from the federal minister?

Mrs. McIntosh: We have a philosophy or a belief that the federal government should do what the federal government can do best, is in the best position to do, and that is research that type of thing. We agree, to a certain extent at any rate, with the federal commissioner of sustainable development, who said there is not enough research being done into a number of these areas. We would like to see more of that occur.

To address our concerns more directly, our own Environmental Operations Division has recently appointed a senior consultant, toxic chemicals, to work with provincial and federal agencies. I should indicate, as well, that the communications that I have had with the federal minister have been written communications, at this point, and verbal telephone conversations, but we have not yet had a face-to-face meeting which we hope to have soon. So they have been verbal and/or written communications at this point.

So we have agreements going back and forth. We have some correspondence that has gone back and forth, and we have not only telephone conversations but telephone conferences where the ministers talk to all the other ministers simultaneously on certain issues, or at least a portion of us in some cases. So that is just for clarification.

Mr. Dewar: I want to talk about some of these harmonization agreements. Some have argued that these agreements are an offload of duties from the federal government to the provinces. Do you agree with that?

* (1510)

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the short answer, no. A little detail around it, as I indicated in the answer to my previous question, we believe the federal government should do what it does best, which is the opportunity for big massive research projects, et cetera. We similarly believe the provinces should do what they do best, and our big concern is that we do not want to see money wasted while both entities duplicate each other's work.

So if we can avoid overlap and duplication and redundancy by having each area do what it does best, which means sitting down together and discussing with each other what areas we feel we are most capable of doing and what areas we feel they are most capable of doing and then agreeing that we will not trip over each other or us try to reinvent their wheel or vice versa, I think it is a better way to make use of the money we have and a better way to become specialists in areas of endeavour.

At the same time, of course, we remain very highly conscious of what the other jurisdictions are doing, both our provincial counterparts and the federal government, because overall in the end, the word "harmonize" is not a word chosen by accident. We do want to see a harmonized effort where you do not have components working at odds with each other or contradicting each other or, worse, acting in ways that are counterproductive to each other because that then would be to waste all the energy and talent and money that we have.

So that is basically the philosophy we bring to the agreements, and we believe the agreements reflect that. We believe that as time goes on and these things are in place and people start to have a record that we can point to, that the wisdom of that approach would be revealed.

Mr. Dewar: I want to read from the federal commissioner's observations: The federal government has entered into environmental partnership agreements with the provinces to reduce overlap and duplication. The seven agreements we audited cover activities such as inspection, enforcement, monitoring and reporting. We found that these agreements do not always work well as intended. Many activities that are essential to implementing them are not working as well as they could. Before entering into these agreements, the federal government did not formally analyze and document the potential for failure, including whether both parties could do what they were agreeing to do. There is no ongoing analysis of the impact of the agreements on environmental performance or the industries involved. The federal government does not have a documented plan in the event that a province is unable to carry out its assigned responsibility or an agreement is terminated.

Now we asked a question in the House about whether or not you have in your department an auditing procedure being used to ensure that this province has the capability to handle responsibilities given to it from these new agreements.

Mrs. McIntosh: I think just before I begin, reading the commissioner's comments, the member indicates that the commissioner himself or herself has zeroed in on the objective that we seek, that each area does what it does best, they do not duplicate, you do not overlap, it is not redundant, et cetera. So the goals that the commissioner is identifying are the ones that I myself would identify, that the province did identify in coming to these agreements.

There is a requirement right in the agreement part of the agreement that a review be done and that the review be done, in this case, on January 1, 2001, that all signatories to the agreement committed to that review for the end of next year when they signed on. Each jurisdiction–I will speak specifically about ours because I think that is where our interest lies–Manitoba is compiling information on the performance under the umbrella agreement on a systemic basis, and that information will be part of the major review that is done on January 1, 2001. So that audit, if you want to use the word, or that tracking or tracing of information, that compilation, is underway now. Indeed, it has to be underway as part of the agreement itself. The agreement stipulates it, not just for Manitoba, but for all signatories.

Mr. Dewar: I would like to move on to waste management and in particular in the Capital Region. I live in the Capital Region, and this, of course, is one of the areas that has the highest concentration of population in the province, within the outlying areas of the Capital Region. We have seen a rapid increase in the southern part of my constituency in terms of the population in West St. Paul and St. Andrews and East St. Paul. There have been some concerns raised by individuals regarding the number of septic fields, the expansion of septic fields and lagoons. Are you seeing any increase in terms of the complaints raised with your department as it relates to the septic fields in the Capital Region?

* (1520)

Mrs. McIntosh: Two points I would like to make. One, the answer to the question: no, we are not seeing an increase in complaints. In general, complaints are usually related to the weather. If you have a lot of rain and flooding and high water runoffs and so on, fields that are really saturated surface runoff ponds, that runoff water will pond and the field will fail and so then you will have a bit of a problem, but that is weather related. It is not due to any increase in the number of fields or anything like that.

We are initiating, though, a septic field survey which might give an indication of, you know, are there systemic problems any place or are there ongoing problems that are not related to an increase of water in the fields, et cetera. That septic field survey will be done at East St. Paul, West St. Paul and St. Clements, and we are starting that later this month or this summer and we are working with the R.M.s on that. As well, there are new ways of putting in septic fields that are useful and helpful and state-of-the-art kind of things like new technologies or new improved ways of putting in the fields. The short answer, we are not seeing an increase in complaints about septic fields.

Mr. Dewar: In the 1997 State of the Environment Report, there is quite a good article related to private sewage treatment systems. They talk about holding tanks or injector systems and fields and trenches and so on.

Do you feel in the long term that the septic tank and the septic disposal field is a sustainable way to deal with, to handle this human waste?

Mrs. McIntosh: I think, Mr. Chairman, that I do not have any trouble long term with the septic field being a common long-term solution for the disposal or the human waste management. That is, of course, with the understanding, as with any system, that it has to be well maintained. It has to have the pumping and the cleaning and all of those things that need to be done, repairs when required, and so on. Properly maintained, there is no reason a good septic field that is kept well cleaned, et cetera, that it should not have any problem standing a fairly good, long test of time. There are other technologies that abound that are new and that are experimental and that do seem to have credibility and merit to them. But the old, time-honoured septic field, if it is properly maintained, as I say, I think can stand the test of time for many years to come.

Mr. Dewar: In your answer, you reference some experimental methods and procedures. Maybe you can just expand upon that.

Mrs. McIntosh: Sure. There are several that are in existence. One, the composting, Abby Rockefeller is heavily involved in that one; Clivus Multrum, that is very intriguing, and it is in use. One of the proponents of that particular methodology has had a facility with that technology in his home for 23 years, in a fairly large, gracious home that he feels has been a very successful endeavour. So that is the composting. They will put earthworms, for example, in that, but in the final analysis they are able to open the box at the base of the device and take out composting that they can use for fertilizer. There are also biological filtration systems that are utilized. Some of these are very, very good. Some of them also have higher than normal costs. I think practically speaking, if you have a combination of a good, solid, time-tested, workable system that is in an affordable price range that people can afford to maintain well, you probably have the most practical and pragmatic solution, although some of these Clivus Multrum model proponents who have them just swear by them.

I do not know if staff has any other indications there of other–oh, the package plants, the mechanical "package" plants. There is the jet aeration system; they use aerobic technologies. Of course, there are holding tanks that people are familiar with.

So all of those, plus the old-fashioned biffy, which is not in a lot of use, but is still in use in many parts of Canada and the United States. I would not call it sort of new high technology.

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

What does she think then about holding tanks? It seems to me that this is a fairly good method to deal with it, in that the sewage is placed in the tank, and the grey water would then find its way and would be applied to the soil, as the sewage is now. The sewage then would be taken either to a storage facility or a lagoon, or in fact ultimately would be treated, so that it could be applied without any contamination to the soil or to the water.

Do you think that we, as a community or as a province, should be moving towards requiring that more and more homes, say in the Capital Region, should in fact be relying upon a storage-tank system as their means of disposing of their waste?

* (1530)

Mrs. McIntosh: We have not considered requiring them. Holding tanks are acceptable. I mean they are very good, but they are expensive as well, and they must be, absolutely must be, emptied out on a regular basis. They have to be well maintained. If there are a lot of people living in a particular home, they can become quite expensive. The pump-out costs are about $40 a trip, and a four-member family may have to have a pump out every three to four weeks. So, you know, that can get pretty costly. Pump-out systems, like holding tanks, require a municipal lagoon or treatment plant to take the waste to, so you still have the eventual problem of disposal and treatment. So you are going to end up with the waste product in lagoon at some point requiring some kind of treatment. So it is introducing another step. If you do not want the waste products coming in contact directly with the soil then that is really good because this keeps them right away from the ground. But the cost is a factor. They can also be used as a last resort, but I do not think we should be designing our lots or development plans based on holding tanks, for a couple of reasons. In the eventuality that they leak which sometimes they do–that is not very good–you are designing a very costly system at that point.

Mr. Dewar: As the minister is aware, in '95-96, there was a great debate in this province in terms of the licensing of BFI, the BFI landfill site in Rosser. I guess the plant has been in operation now for a couple of years. I know the R.M. of West St. Paul had a lot of fears about the potential for ground water contamination, and they very much opposed the approval of the licence. But the operation received this licence and now is in operation. So maybe you can just enlighten us as to any of the results of the monitoring that has been done by your department in that area.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the facility has been very well monitored by the department and probably others as well. It is running very smoothly. There have been no problems. I guess there probably have been some problems but none that have been brought to our attention as problems. The concerns that were identified at the time of the hearings or the licensing process as potential problems never developed, so it is said that it is probably one of the best run facilities in the province. Recently, you maybe saw, it is one of the ones that has the radioactive detectors there which others do not. So it seems to be running very well. The R.M. of Rosser has been very supportive initially and I think continues to be. Now that it is up and running, its support I think has been justified in municipalities' thinking. We have not had any concerns. The proponent, BFI, is required to monitor extensively the ground water. No contamination has been detected. The whole site is lined. The crucial areas have double liners. The leachate is collected and treated at the Selkirk Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Mr. Dewar: Yes, you mentioned the fact that it was a truck entering the compound that set off alarms, that the truck had in its storage container these radioactive, I think they were smoke detectors. You mentioned that in your answer, and I recall that, seeing the story. Were you able to find out the source of these smoke detectors?

Mrs. McIntosh: We do not know yet where they came from. The RCMP are involved in doing an investigation to try to seek out the source, but they have not as yet been able to report what that source was.

Mr. Dewar: Well, it is quite interesting that they have the technology to be able to detect that, which I thought was quite intriguing. Do you know if they have that similar technology at the Brady landfill site operated by the City of Winnipeg?

Mrs. McIntosh: No, they do not. They are looking at getting it, but they do not have it yet.

Mr. Dewar: An ongoing issue, of course, is analyzing and dealing with waste management in the Capital Region as a whole. I believe the City of Selkirk is looking at either closing down their landfill site or they are, they will be doing that soon. I know the R.M. of St. Clements opened a Class 1 landfill site and then decided to close down all their Class 3 landfill sites because they thought at the time they were under pressure from the minister's office, from the minister's department to do so. They felt it was somewhat unfair, because they went ahead and did that, but other R.M.s in the Capital Region were not.

* (1540)

Now they placed themselves in a bit of a difficult spot, because they have this nice, new Class 1 facility, but they do not have enough waste and the corresponding tipping fees to make it a viable operation. That is just one example of some of the situations that are going on.

What is your vision in terms of waste management in the Capital Region in terms of dealing with some of these Class 3s, Class 2 disposal grounds?

Mrs. McIntosh: I am not familiar with the example you cited. I hope people are not feeling, you know, that they have been pressured to do something that was not what they should have done. But, having said that, in answer to your question, we support a regional waste management concept. We have a regional waste management task force underway right now with a task force of municipal officials. They are reviewing solid waste management in the Capital Region. That group will report to the Capital Region Committee, which, as the member is probably aware, is made up of the reeves and mayors from the region plus three cabinet ministers from the provincial government. So we support that. That study may eventually point out where we should finally settle in terms of where our big sites should be. We are encouraging throughout Manitoba the closure of small garbage dump-type areas, and we have seen many operations come together in a consolidated format where they will build one really good waste disposal grounds and have pick-up points along the way. This means, in some cases, closing down six or seven sites to create two or three new ones. So there is a bit of a transition period there and a state of flux that some of the R.M.s are going through.

In the Capital Region, we have sort of an ongoing business as usual while we are awaiting the results of the review to give us further guidance.

If the member will forgive me, my staff have just given me a little update on that one that you were referring to. It was the R.M. of St. Clements. They did develop a first-class facility, and they will reap the benefits of that. As time goes on, it is a good decision. They will be able to accept waste that others cannot, for starters, and Manitoba Environment was able to approve the Domtar waste soil for disposal in St. Clements. So it will be taken there for disposal, and that is a large amount. That was more than or roughly equivalent to 20,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil or soil to be cleansed that is going to St. Clements, so they will get those benefits accruing to them.

We are also trying to divert waste away from disposal grounds through waste reduction, so that there is not as much going to them in the first place. We have talked about that earlier in Estimates, recycling, the Product Stewardship Program, waste oil program, Used Tire Program, et cetera. But I do support a regional waste management.

Right now we say that, if you have a population of up to 5,000 people and you meet all the required criteria, you would be eligible, provided you met all the criteria, for a Class 1 licence because of the size of the population served, but you still have to meet all of the criteria as, say, BFI did when it was being established. I do not know if that provides you what you are seeking.

Mr. Dewar: So is it then the policy of your department to close down these Class 3 operations here in the Capital Region? That was the impression that I had from speaking with one of the councillors. He said: here we are closing down our Class 3s, and we open up this nice new facility, Class 1. Other R.M.s still have their Class 3 in operation, disposal grounds in operation.

So what they were doing is that they were trying to entice other municipalities within the Capital Region to provide them with their waste through a series of stations. They were looking at different proposals at the meeting I went to. It was just an introduction to the notion. This one councillor felt that they were under pressure to close down their Class 3s. So they did so, and, at great cost to the taxpayers of the R.M., they built this new Class 1. They are just concerned that right now they do not have the volume to make it sustainable, but there is no policy of your department to close these down within the Capital Region.

Mrs. McIntosh: The basic policy is not to do with class or size per se; the basic policy is to try to get rid of all of the disposal systems that come into what I call the garbage dump type thing where they do not have certain standards, and most of those fall into the Class 3, the small areas where it is for basically places to throw things that have not had to meet the higher standards of the bigger waste disposal locations. It does happen then that, as we clean things up, the ones that are most likely to be closed would be the Class 3s but they are not being closed because they are Class 3.

* (1550)

Mr. Dewar: As the minister should be aware, the federal government has decided that they will no longer be dredging the Red River and the mouth of the river and certain locations along the lake and as well, the Coast Guard base out of Selkirk has been closed. First they spent $3 million renovating it; then two years later they closed it down, but have you any concerns regarding this? Do you think your department is able to deal with any type of an environmental spill on the lake because of the lack of Coast Guard services. In fact, now, because this is the last year of full-scale dredging, it is anticipated that larger vessels will not be able to enter the lake because of the silt and so on that is collected at the mouth of the river.

Mrs. McIntosh: I think that would certainly be a government concern, more a government concern than an environmental concern because there are so many different aspects to it. Yes, there would be help that could be provided in terms of a spill on the lake or something like that, that we would hope to see a federal presence for, but we really have not had a lot of dialogue or concern in that area environmentally. It is a multifaceted thing that would have more of a government-wide concern.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairperson, that concludes my questions. I would just like to thank the minister and her staff.

Mrs. McIntosh: I thank the member as well for his questions. They were very interesting questions, and I want to thank my staff for the assistance they provided in answering them.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I just want to take a few minutes of the minister's and her staff's time to ask some questions that relate to my constituency. I am going to start off with asking some air quality questions. There have been recently calls to my office about New Flyer, and the chemical smell probably from spray paint that is actually drifting quite far north from the Pandora plant. I was surprised to find out that the plant is just currently going through the licensing procedure for an environment licence.

The first question I have related to this is: how does it work? This is a plant that has been operating there for a number of years. They have changed their production over the years, but there has not been an operations licence previously in terms of their environmental requirements. At the same time though, there must be requirements for them in terms of any emissions that they have had. I know in the past, years back, when they used to do more motor testing on the buses that they were manufacturing there was a problem where residents were complaining that the fumes from the exhaust, as they were testing and running the buses, was a problem and it was drifting throughout the neighbourhood, and now it is paint fumes. So maybe, first of all, just some clarification on how it works when you have a plant of this size that has been operating for some time and only now they are getting licensed, and how it is that they were controlled previously.

Mrs. McIntosh: New Flyer was in existence predating the existing act, so places like that, that one in specific terms, had a lot of its existing items grandfathered. As time has gone on, they are bringing those grandfathered items under the licensing process. The time that they passed the act, all of those things not specifically identified for inclusion in the act were grandfathered. Those are now in the process of being licensed, having to meet the criteria and coming up to whatever the act specifies.

I imagine the reason it has taken a long time in New Flyer's case is that they probably have not had a lot of concerns expressed. I mean, if they have some being expressed now, and those items are being addressed, they are coming under the licensing provisions now and coming off the grandfather status. Does that answer your questions?

Ms. Cerilli: We are getting there. That is okay. So was the licence process now triggered by the expansion at New Flyer or is there a system in the department where you are going industry or plant-by-plant or facility-by-facility to sort of bring the ones that have been in existence prior to the new act under compliance?

Mrs. McIntosh: We are not exactly sure with New Flyer, although we could find out for the member if she wishes. But certainly the point that the member made about expansion would be one trigger. Another might be if people have phoned in with concerns or complaints. That might be another trigger. So there would be triggers that would activate getting the grandfathering status removed aside from just the regular time going on and getting-around-to-it way of doing things. But the specific triggers, we do not know for this one but we can find out if you would like us to.

* (1600)

Ms. Cerilli: Yes, I think it is important. I would also just like to clarify then if there are all these manufacturing plants and different industries in the province, and a number of them have been around since before '88 or '89 or whenever we got the new act proclaimed, what is the process in the department for determining which ones are going to get addressed in terms of under compliance of the new act, other than the kind of triggers you have just described of community concern or them wanting to expand?

Mrs. McIntosh: Another aspect could be looking at different sectors where we would take a look at a particular sector of industry, and that could contain several different plants all of the same type. If there is a new plant about to be built, that could trigger then a removal of the grandfather status on the old plants that everybody is up to the new act standard. Also, and this one I think is fairly common and very pragmatic, that as new information is found, new information is discovered, new scientific writings are done, that would make it possible to improve air quality, or whatever the issue may be in a particular plant, where they would say: now I would like to see this new way of doing things implemented, grandfathering status should be removed because there is now technology here to address a particular point. So those are a couple of the other things that go on. I do not know if staff would like to add anything to that.

There is an example that has just been indicated to me. Three years ago, we began the process of licensing about 250 pesticide and herbicide dealers and warehouses. Those had been previously grandfathered, but that has now been completed. That took three years of work, but those are now licensed and off grandfather status. So we use the risk assessment approach in dealing with most–all of our things have a risk assessment, a risk management component to it as we make decisions.

Ms. Cerilli: This is sort of getting off the topic about the specifics as it relates just to New Flyer, but I find that this process in the department is pretty interesting and important. I think it would be useful information for us to get, if we could get sort of a report on this, in terms of the number of facilities then that are still grandfathered under the old process, the number that need to then be brought up to date and the different kinds of industries that are in–and a report over the last 10 years what has occurred in terms of different plants being brought up to date under the new legislation, and exactly what the changes are. I mean, I am not as familiar at all with the old act–I was not around during that time–what the requirements for licensing were under the old process, but sort of then a comparison. I think that would be really interesting and useful information.

Mrs. McIntosh: We will provide that information for the member. We do not have it here right now, but we will put it together for her.

Ms. Cerilli: I would appreciate that. Getting back then to the specifics of New Flyer in Transcona, I just wanted to ask then: what was Manitoba Environment's involvement when the expansion at New Flyer occurred a few years ago?

Mrs. McIntosh: Apologies to the member. I am not sure, and the deputy is not sure either, but we can again find that information for her.

Ms. Cerilli: Given that they would not have had a licence at that time, I am just wondering how it would be that Manitoba Environment would find out. This was a fairly public, high-profile kind of expansion. The city was involved, public dollars were involved in terms of land and that. Would Manitoba Environment see that going on and then respond and get in touch with them to be part of the expansion and make sure that they were going to be involved in establishing things like ensuring that at the time of the expansion, when it would make the most sense, perhaps, to implement emissions technologies, or the best possible technology, that that would be done at that time and be included as part of their expansion. Is that the kind of thing that would occur?

Mrs. McIntosh: We have been discussing this on the assumption that New Flyer never had a licence originally. We do not know that for certain. It may have had a licence, but we are not certain. But the rule is that even for a facility that has been grandfathered, whether it had a licence before or not, if they go to make changes then they must get licensed under the act. For them it could possibly mean some major pieces of work that they would have to do in order to meet the standard for the act. So if they are going to expand or if they are going to do something different or renovate or whatever, then they must get licensed, and the grandfathering disappears. Whatever it is, it has to fall under the definition of development under the act.

Ms. Cerilli: I guess the minister's last comment is sort of more getting at what I am interested in here. That is that facilities that are expanding would come to the attention of Manitoba Environment so that Manitoba Environment would see that they are going to do their expansion in keeping with environmental regulations but specifically that they are going to start employing environmental technologies that would control emissions while they are doing their expansion. I am not convinced that that is the case that occurred in the situation of New Flyer.

The question I am asking is: How is Manitoba Environment keeping up with industries as they are expanding in terms of reviewing to see if they are going to comply with the definition of a Class 1, 2, or 3 development and how that process would affect, then, their expansion?

* (1610)

Mrs. McIntosh: Things will come to the department through a whole series of ways. There is an internal network of intelligence, so to speak, where applications made in one department are known by another department, et cetera. That, plus the industries themselves phoning to make inquiries to ask procedures, et cetera, are all sort of the standard ways that information comes to the department. We do not have sort of a search team that goes out because the information will almost invariably come to us through one of those sources, other government departments, companies themselves.

Ms. Cerilli: My concern is it does seem to be a kind of hit-and-miss system in a way, and I will be interested to find out for sure if Manitoba Environment was involved when the expansion occurred at New Flyer and what that involvement was, and if it is possible under legislation, at the time of the expansion, if a company is not licensed then, there is probably, I do not know of any way then that Manitoba Environment could require them to use a certain kind of technology to control their emissions. But that is going to happen after the fact. Once they are licensed, then you can go in and say, you know, this is what is going to be required for you to meet the licence specifications. So that seems like a bit of a gap that is occurring with some of these facilities. It seems like it will improve once all these facilities are licensed. But I just want to clarify if that is the case then that Manitoba Environment really does not have any way that they can require certain emissions technologies during an expansion if that facility is not licensed or maybe if it is classified as a development under the three classifications, if then you can sort of step in and say, well, if you are going to do this expansion, it is only going to be licensed and allowed to go forward if it has this kind of emissions technology.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, once something is in the licensing process, there may not be a restriction on what we can require, but–my mind has gone blank. I forgot what the question was now. I was thinking about something else. Oh, yes, that we may not be able to require specific technologies and so on.

I was just thinking of something the member had said. I would just like to make reference back to it, because I did not want to leave an incorrect impression. When I said there is an internal network or internal sort of intelligence that information comes to us by, it is actually quite an intricate mesh of information coming into government when people are applying for various things, and we do become aware in fairly rapid succession of things that we need to know. The member had indicated it sounded kind of hit and miss, and I just wanted to indicate that it is not quite as hit and miss as it may sound. I apologize. I was thinking more on that as I was listening to her last question.

I do not know if that very simple response to–we may not be able to be restrictive in what we can require in terms of technology or not.

Mr. Chairman, the trend is not to be prescriptive. In certain circumstances, of course, we can specify certain technologies if it is deemed to be the way to address a particular problem or complaint that has been brought forward. So the trend is not to be prescriptive. We have authorities, particularly where environmental concerns are paramount, and that is our raison d'être, that is our reason for being. So all of those are given very careful considerations when brought forward, particularly when licensing is the topic under discussion.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, over the years I have gotten involved in these issues in a number of industries in Transcona and the Radisson area. As the minister may know–actually, I live very close to New Flyer as well–that whole area is highly industrialized, and there is residential housing that is very close. It is a zoning nightmare, quite frankly, and I have been talking about these issues since the nine years I have been in this Legislature.

One of the things that is a concern, then, is specifically in this plant I would be interested in finding out if there were specific requirements that are being made on the emissions technology, because, as I have been dealing with other plants–for example, I know at Dominion Malting that they were required to put in a specific new kind of ventilation system and fans and blowers to deal with the emissions from their facility. What I am trying to do is understand if that was the same process. They, I think, expanded, and they made some changes over there. Manitoba Environment was involved in having them prove their ventilation and emission systems because people in the neighbourhood again were complaining. Thank you.

* (1620)

Mrs. McIntosh: So just for clarification, are you asking then if there were those kind of conditions placed on New Flyer?

Ms. Cerilli: I am asking if, as in the case of Dominion Malting where there were specific requirements on the types of fans and ventilation systems that needed to be put in place, the same kind of thing is going to be done in the case of New Flyer?

Mrs. McIntosh: The authority is there for us to use if we are in need of it, so we have that authority. If we require certain changes to be made, we can require it. Before we would use that authority of course, we would need to be certain that we know what the options might be for the company. If there was only one option of course, then that is what we would order. If there are a variety of options, maybe three options, any one of which would accomplish the goal, then perhaps the company might have a choice of A, B or C. But whatever we would ask for in terms of requirement, we have the authority, but of course we need to have the specific details around any particular requirements that we would make.

Ms. Cerilli: I guess that begs the question of where public concern, public health and safety comes into these kind of decisions, especially when you have got an industry like New Flyer where just across the street are residential homes. They are right across the street from the large doors that open up where the buses are painted and are tested and all that kind of thing.

So I am wanting to see if you can tell me what the possibilities are that the public, in the case of the licensing of New Flyer, and I am not even in this case I do not think going to ask for a full public hearing. I am not sure what the classification of development this is going to receive, but for sure to have some kind of a public meeting, an open house, a public forum, where community residents could be informed about the kind of things that are going on at New Flyer, the kind of airborne contaminants that are being emitted, what they are trying to do to control it, what is going to be required in their licence, the requirements for the community when they do want to complain, all these kind of things could be explained in a meeting and information could be then sent out into the community as well.

I am wondering if the minister and her staff would consider having at least that kind of public input into the licensing of the New Flyer facility.

Mrs. McIntosh: The member is speaking with some detail, probably greater than we happen to have here in terms of what is going on in her neighbourhood, because at this level, at any rate, we do not have the detail about a proposed expansion to New Flyer that staff in the department might have.

I am presuming from what the member is saying that there is a rather sizable expansion about to occur–[interjection] It is one that is finished. We thought we were talking about something that was underway. So, if it is completed, then what would the public hearings you are requesting be for?

Ms. Cerilli: We just finished discussing that the expansion is likely, in my way of thinking, even though you are going to confirm this, to be what triggered the new licensing process that is going on, because this is an older facility. The expansion also means that there are new things going on that are putting new smells, new chemicals into the neighbourhood, and the licensing–there is an option. It is at the discretion of the minister or the director to have a community meeting, some type of community input, community information as part of the licensing process. That is what I am asking for. I am wanting there to be some acknowledgment that there is community concern, that this is in very close proximity to people's homes, that there is a drift that has occurred with airborne contaminants into a large residential area that is just north of the facility. I am just wanting to see if you will entertain having some kind of community information meeting, open house kind of forum as part of the licensing process.

Mrs. McIntosh: I hope I did not leave a wrong impression when the member said that I had responded that it was likely because of the expansion that a licensing process was underway. I believe what I indicated was there could be several reasons. One of them could be, as the member indicated, an expansion; another could be some other reason. I would not leave the impression that I thought it was likely the reason the licensing was because of an expansion. I did indicate, though, that would be one possibility, which is a little different than saying likely.

It is not really that subtle a difference. I think that is why I need to clarify it. It may or may not be that it is being licensed, because there was an expansion of some sort. It could be as well that it is just hard to take it off grandfathering status, or other things are going on in that sector, or any of the other reasons that I mentioned as possibilities for licensing beginning.

None of us here have heard any concern or complaints raised about some of the issues the member has mentioned, but I will certainly take her concern under advisement and check to see if there has been any concern raised. Certainly none has come to the senior official's level or to the minister's level. Normally, when there is a concern, it does. Normally we would hear. But we will check it out, certainly check it out and see what is going on. If there is information sharing that we could embark upon that would be helpful to people, that is great. We just do not have any detail other than what you have told us just now. We will take it under advisement at the member's request.

Ms. Cerilli: I know what I often do is, when residents phone me with environmental complaints, I always refer them to call the department as well, the enforcement people. So I know there are a couple people that live in that residential area that are complaining. I will follow up with them, and if what has to happen is they have to call you directly, we will do that. I appreciate at least you are open to the idea that there be a community meeting of some sort as part of the licensing process on this facility.

* (1630)

Mrs. McIntosh: As I say, we will check it out to find out if there is a licensing process going underway, et cetera, check out the details and certainly the licensing process. Whether or not there is a licensing process, we are able to have meetings for public discussion and information sharing. So we will take a look at all of that.

Ms. Cerilli: I am pretty sure there is a licensing process going ahead on this facility right now. One of the concerns I have about this process is the length of time that it could take. There is no requirement under the act of how long the whole process takes in terms of an industry having to hire a consultant, collect information, submit it to the department, you have to review it. There could be all sorts of other steps in there in terms of public participation. That whole process can take quite a while.

I am familiar with another industry that is impacting my area, General Scrap and car shredder. The department staff have received numerable letters from me on that particular facility and the fact they continue to blow up cars in their car shredder process. The explosions sound like bombs. They shake the houses of the people who live in Radisson and Transcona. We have been trying to get that licence re-evaluated or amended, I guess is the right word, and to have a new licence prepared. That has been ongoing for quite a few years.

My first question is: any idea on the duration of a licensing process for New Flyer? Secondly, why is the licensing process for General Scrap and car shredder taking so many years?

Mrs. McIntosh: On the scrap-car problem, our work has all been done on that in terms of the licence, but because it is an all-encompassing licence, we have to have everything in place before we can pass it. So it is not a staged-in thing. I always like a staged-in thing. We can do one thing at a time and get it done, clear it off and the next one, clear it off, but this one is all encompassing so everything has to wait until everything is approved.

The federal government has a concern with the auto shredder residue, which we call fluff. They are not quite sure what to do with it. We believe it could be recycled, but we are waiting for them to give us their decision on that. Until they do, it is all held up.

On the other, with the New Flyer, again, we will look into that, as I indicated, because I do not know the answers to that one.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, well, let us deal with General Scrap first then, anyway. The minister talked about what to do with the fluff from the cushions and that inside the cars. I thought this was one of the whole things behind the relicensing is they were going to establish a new facility to recycle the fluff and turn it into that plastic wood stuff. That would be, again, another good industry to locate somewhere out there in that Springfield-Transcona industrial zone, farther down Gunn Road I would hope. I think there even was a lot that had been established. I thought that they had put in the basis of a building. So has that plant not gone ahead?

I guess back to the issue then of how is it that we can allow the licensing process to sort of drag on so long that what ends up happening on some of the other outstanding issues is it ends up being the status quo, and there is at times serious damage that could be going on because a facility is continuing to operate under an old, outdated licence.

Mrs. McIntosh: The building has been built, the equipment is in. Everything is ready to go, but they cannot use it because the federal government has not yet determined what it will approve. So everything is on hold waiting for them to come back with a blessing or an approval or a statement or a denial or some kind of answer to this particular portion of the licensing. So it is very frustrating.

Ms. Cerilli: Maybe the minister and her staff could clarify then what federal department we are dealing with, what is the role of a federal agency in licensing this type of plant and exactly what it is that they are trying to determine.

* (1640)

Mrs. McIntosh: We are dealing with Environment Canada here. It is the federal Department of Environment. So it is Environment Canada, and their role is under the PCB regulation because they say there are trace residues of PCB in that material. We believe it could be recycled, as I say, and they are not sure. So they have not got around to giving us an answer yet and we are waiting, and therefore everything is held up because we have a licence that is all encompassing, and we have to have every aspect covered before we can pass any portion of it. It is a case for staged-in licensing, which we have in place for Brandon, for example, and so on.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. This is interesting. I just want to make sure I am understanding this correctly. Environment Canada is saying that there are PCBs in the scrap materials and potentially that could be emitted during the process of recycling it, or are they saying that the PCBs could still just be in the product that is produced and that is a concern?

Mrs. McIntosh: It was Manitoba Environment that discovered trace elements of PCB, trace amounts in the fluff. We identified that to Environment Canada. What the problem has been is that we believe that Environment Canada is using an inappropriate way of characterizing that PCB, those trace amounts, because their regulation deals with liquid PCBs. What we have identified here are very minute quantities of solid PCB. The federal government is saying a regulation designed for liquid, they are applying it the same way as it is for a solid. For a variety of reasons, we believe they are using an inappropriate measurement way of identifying or characterizing that PCB content.

So we come back then to them not yet having given us an indication of what needs to be done here so that we can proceed with this whole licensing process.

Ms. Cerilli: How long have you been waiting for Environment Canada to respond on this issue?

Mrs. McIntosh: We have been waiting over a year. During that time it has not been devoid of action. During that time, the federal government has gone through two series of tests. The reason they have done two series is because of controversies over their techniques and their measurements. They have basically said to the company: you tell us how you are going to meet the requirements and get rid of these PCBs, without giving them any guidance. It has been a very frustrating exercise all around.

But the short answer to your question is that it has been now over a year.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I guess all this discussion about this issue has been with the assumption perhaps that I am making and hoping that the new licence for General Scrap is actually going to deal with the problem of the exploding gas tanks in the cars.

I wish the minister could be in the neighbourhood when one of these things blows up, especially when it occurs at three or four in the morning and residents are feeling like they are in Beirut or Yugoslavia or someplace and they are under siege.

You have indicated you have completed the licensing for other parts of the facility. Are there going to be new requirements for General Scrap and car shredder vis-a-vis inspections dealing with these cars that still contain a gas tank with gasoline that causes it to blow up and what the requirements are under the licence for that whole part of the facility?

* (1650)

Mrs. McIntosh: I always like Estimates, because I always learn something new, especially when it is a department I am relatively new to. First of all, I indicate I have just consulted with staff here and they have said that, yes, the licensing requirements will take this into account, and it should help alleviate the problem. It probably will not eliminate it completely because in the nature of the world not everything gets captured completely.

The other problem that they face–and this is the interesting piece of information–sometimes the people bringing the flattened cars to the scrap metal dealers will put propane tanks in the trunk and squash them flat, which I did not know about, but that will often cause the popping and the crashing. It is not necessarily the gas tanks, it is the propane. That is a little bit more difficult to get a handle on, because if they are flattened before they go, it is hard to open them up, because they are squashed.

The new licence requirements should help address it in some measure, but probably not completely. The General Scrap licence will cover all the relevant environmental concerns, including the control on incoming materials such as propane tanks.

Ms. Cerilli: There are a couple of other issues I just want to raise quickly. So maybe I could just get the information that is in the licence provision for General Scrap related to this area sent to me. Is that possible?

Mrs. McIntosh: We will send out what we can. Because the licence is not fully granted yet, there may be some inability to send out everything, but we will send out everything that we can.

Ms. Cerilli: I will take that, and, when the licence is approved, then maybe I can get the rest of it.

One of the other issues I wanted to ask questions about is the mobile air quality monitoring equipment that Manitoba Environment used to have and no longer has. I have raised this before, but I am concerned because when issues arise, as we have been discussing at New Flyer, where the community is complaining about odours and chemical smell, we want to have the air tested. So one of the questions I have is: how does Manitoba Environment now do that if there is a plant that is emitting, we know it is emitting, certain kind of chemicals? How are you going to monitor it in this sort of roving way? I use the term "roving"; you know, it is not air monitoring equipment that is stationary. It needs to be air monitoring equipment that can be taken anywhere in the province on an emergency or as-needed basis.

I am concerned that Manitoba Environment, before the current minister became the minister, was in possession of this equipment and there was the staff there to run it, and now we do not have that anymore. So I want to find out what the cost was for that equipment, both for staffing and for the equipment and for maintaining that equipment, and what we are doing now that we do not have the equipment.

Mrs. McIntosh: I should just indicate that the member is referring to a van that carried around our equipment for monitoring air quality before. The van was only used a couple of times a year, maybe three, maybe four times a year maximum. So we still have portable air-monitoring equipment which we use extensively. We used it out in Tilston at Mr. Campbell's area, for example, and it can be carried in any vehicle. It does not necessarily have to be that particular van the member is referring to, and we still do monitor, with very good equipment, air quality, et cetera. We have equipment that can be moved from place to place to check air quality and we do that. I guess we just do not do it in that particular van anymore.

Ms. Cerilli: That is not the way it was described to me, but I will move on. That is fine.

Mrs. McIntosh: It was a mobile home. It was a base of operations that you could operate from, but you could operate that from any base of operations. But, you know, to have a vehicle tied up all year, I am presuming, because certainly the portable air-quality equipment is in use around the province and moved from place to place as it is needed, just not in that particular motor vehicle anymore.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, it was the technology for monitoring the air quality I am interested in, not the mobile home or the van, even though I can understand where that may have some impact on its use, but maybe what I can do, just to wrap up this section really quickly, is to ask that I get some kind of a report on where that air-monitoring equipment has been used over the last couple of years, the kind of testing, and the cost of that equipment.

My final question has to do with the Canada Packers plant.

Mrs. McIntosh: Did you want that information now in terms of the monitoring of air quality that we do throughout the province?

Ms. Cerilli: I am assuming that you do not have the specific information of where the tests were conducted throughout the province here with you, that it is either in a report somewhere and you are going to have to send it to me. That is why I was going to move on.

Mrs. McIntosh: For clarification, is the member wanting what we have now? Is she wanting the historic information on like what we did when we used to keep all our equipment in that vehicle, or does she want to know what we have done since we have been transporting it with other means? Like the equipment is there. If that is her concern, the monitoring equipment is definitely there. The housing that it is in has changed, but do you want it historically from way back to when?

* (1700)

Ms. Cerilli: I will tell the minister what has occurred in this area. One of the other industries in Transcona is CN. CN runs its diesel engines, tests them, runs them at night. Again, there are houses right next door to the CN shops. We have been told that the equipment to do the onsite testing of the air emissions from the diesel fuel and how that might affect the properties is not available anymore. We were told that, that it is not available to do that kind of testing. Residents wanted it tested at night time, when the diesel engine smog is a real problem for them when they are trying to sleep and there are diesel engines running and there is smog in the air.

So I am interested in knowing both now that we are under the program without the mobile home and before that to sort of maybe compare the locations where that equipment was used, the kind of industries that were tested. It may not be industries, it could be a variety of different kind of scenarios where that equipment was used. So that is basically what I am interested in is to know where that equipment was used, when, and just the record of the kind of circumstances.

Mrs. McIntosh: We will certainly look for that. I just wonder whether the member could provide me some more detail. Residents were told by whom? By the department that there was no equipment to measure air quality?

Ms. Cerilli: It was not just residents; it was myself as well.

Mrs. McIntosh: I am just seeking some clarification. There was a complaint lodged with government about diesel emissions at the railroad yards, and you and others were told that we could not test the air quality there because there was no equipment available?

Ms. Cerilli: That is correct.

Mrs. McIntosh: I will take that concern under advisement. I am being indicated here by senior staff that, if the member was indeed told that, and I have no reason to know that she was not, the reasoning given may be not quite right. We do need to on different jurisdictions. This is a federal jurisdiction here that she is talking about.

An Honourable Member: It was.

Mrs. McIntosh: Was. Well, you see, they are still out there testing.

Ms. Cerilli: I remember a couple of years ago raising this issue in Estimates, and it was just at the time that CN was privatized, so it is no longer a federal agency. It now comes under provincial Environment jurisdiction, because it is just another private industry in Manitoba. So I can understand that previously there may have been some federal-provincial issues, but I would hope that by now all that has been sorted out. I mean, we went through this a couple of years ago in Estimates.

People in the area have been trying to get the air tested. A fellow phoned not too long again saying: oh, they are at it again. CN is running these engines. The Manitoba Environment people have been down there. They thought they had come to an agreement on the time frame that they were allowed to test the engines at night and the number that were allowed to be tested at a time. But I do not think up till now there has been any air-quality testing to try and determine the amount of diesel smog that people that live there are breathing in when this occurs, when the diesel engines' testing is done. That is the story.

Mrs. McIntosh: I appreciate the details surrounding that. We will provide the ways in which that equipment is being used. Does the member want us to look into issue as well or just get the details surrounding the other–I understand what she is saying, that we have not tested this one. Would you like to know which ones we have tested? Do you want us to look into this issue as well?

Ms. Cerilli: The member is nodding, yes, please. Thank you very much.

I will just ask my final question, and we can get through passing the rest of the Estimates. The Canada Packers plant, the abandoned property that is on Marion, has now got a proposal for housing and for a golf course and whatnot. There are a number of issues that this raises in my mind. One of them is Manitoba Environment's involvement when a building like this is going to be demolished. People have said to me that that place is full of asbestos, for example, that there may be a need to have Manitoba Environment do inspections and there be certain requirements during the demolition that would prevent the asbestos from just being sort of spewed all over the place.

So that is one issue. Other than that, just what Manitoba Environment's involvement is going to be in sort of evaluating the environmental feasibility and wisdom of locating residential properties on that plant, the kind of testing you are doing on that plant and the land?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, in a demolition site like that with asbestos, for example, if that is found, the demolition site itself is governed by the Department of Labour. So the Department of Labour will have protocols for the on-site worker activity, and the Department of Environment then would have protocols for the off-site activity and proper disposal. There are standards that would have to be met before the Department of Environment could dispose of them, and they have to be disposed of in a particular way. So first you would have Department of Labour followed by Department of Environment as they look at those types of materials.

Ms. Cerilli: I would be real interested if the department could just provide me with some information about how that process fits together and any licensing or sort of overview that Manitoba Environment is involved with when you are demolishing a facility of that size with the kind of history. I am sure that there are areas on that property that are contaminated.

Just to wrap up. I mean, I could ask a gabillion questions on Domtar, but I am not going to take anymore time. I appreciate the time that the staff devote to that issue, and the minister has just responded again to one of my letters. I guess I will just continue to correspond in writing on that issue.

But I do want to ask if the minister would consider joining me and having some of her staff come to Transcona in the next week or so and see what is happening there with that site and tour the site itself. I have not toured the site since they have completed the capping and the landscaping. Would you be willing to do that?

Mrs. McIntosh: Well, I have already been out. I mean, there is an assumption there that I have not. But I think I am scheduled to go again with the Fort Whyte people, am I not? I think it is in my schedule book, but you wish to go together? I have no problem with that. I will have to get my secretary to co-ordinate the schedules, and I would be pleased to do that.

Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate that. Maybe the minister could just tell me the date that she was out there previously. Was it during the most recent construction?

* (1710)

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, just in the last couple of weeks. I was not on a formal tour per se, as the member is, I think, referring to.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 31.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $365,500–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $75,800–pass.

31.1. (c) Financial and Administration Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $729,200–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $316,800–pass.

31.2. Environmental Management (a) Environmental Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $5,036,900–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,353,900–pass.

31.2.(b) Environmental Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,835,600–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,183,200–pass.

31.2.(c) Legislation and Intergovernmental Affairs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $187,900–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $92,900 –pass.

31.2.(d) Clean Environment Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $310,000–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $188,000–pass.

Resolution 31.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,188,400 for Environment, Environmental Management, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Item 31.3. International Institute for Sustainable Development $1,145,900–pass.

Resolution 31.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,145,900 for Environment, International Institute for Sustainable Development, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Ms. Cerilli: I just wanted to clarify, how much did ISD get this year?

Mr. Chairperson: $1,145,900.

Item 31.4. Amortization of Capital Assets $281,800–pass.

Resolution 31.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $281,800 for Environment, Amortization of Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

We now go back. The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Environment is item 1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary. Would the staff please leave the table for the consideration of this item.

Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $27,000–pass.

Resolution 31.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,514,300 for Environment, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

This completes the Estimates of the Department of Environment. Thank you.

* (1720)