Manitoba Committee Hansard — 16 January 1991 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 4, 35th Legislature, 1st Session)

35-1-la4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 First Session ·Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on LAW AMENDMENTS 39 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. Jack Reimer Constituency of Niakwa VOL. XXXIX No. 4 • 8 p.m., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1991 ISSN 0713-9586 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Gulzar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward, Hon. CUMMIN GS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIED GER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Ciif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Eclward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA THLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack, Hon. PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIM ER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswoocl lnterlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas lnkster The Pas St. Norbert Elm wood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Wednesday,January16,1991 TIME-8p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN- Mr. Jack Relmer (Niakwa) ATTENDANCE-11 -QUORUM· 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Connery, Cummings Ms. Cer illi, Messrs. Edwa rds , Hel wer, Martindale, Reimer, Rose * Substitutions: Mr. Cheema (The Maples) for Mr. Carr (Cresce ntwood); Mr. Praznik (Lac du Bonnet) for Mr. Stefanson (Kirkfield Park) ; Mrs. Mclntosh (Assiniboia) for Mrs. Vodrey (Fort Garry) APPEARING: Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs, MLA for River Heights WITNESSES: Harold Syrett, Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh Helen McCullough, Winnipeg Water Protection Group (Winnipeg) Deanna Martz, Manitoba Naturalists Society David Taylor, Concerned Citizens of Manitoba Harry Mesman, Manitoba Federation of Labour Ronald L. Carter, Private Citizen Jack Dubois, Manitoba Eco-Network Brian Pannell, Manitoba Environmentalists Inc. Len Sawatsky, Private Citizen Bryan Johnson, Private Citizen Peter Miller, TREE Harvey Wil liams, Cana dian Parks and Wilderness Society MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 24, The Environment Amendment Act *** Mr.

Chairman: Will the Comm ittee on Law Amendments please come to order. Bill 24, The Environment Amendment Act, is being considered today. Committee Substitutions Mr. Chairman: Before we proceed, we have resig nations of Member s for the standing commi tte e. I wish to bring before you the resignations of Rosemary Vodrey, Eric Stefanson and Jim Carr. Mr. Edward Helwer {Gimll): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move thatthe Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) replace the Member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson), and that the Member for Assiniboia (Mr s. Mclntosh) replace the Member for Fort Garry (Mr s. Vodrey). Mr.

Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): I move that the Member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) replace the Member for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr) . (Agreed) Mr. Chairman: The Standing Committee on Law Amendme nts for this evening consists of Mr. Cheema, Ms. Cerilli, Honourable Minister Connery, Honourable Minister Cummings, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Helwer, Mr. Martindale, Jack Reimer as Chairman, Mr. Rose, Honourable Minister Praznik and Mrs. Mclntosh. lt is the custom to hear the briefs before consideration of the Bill. What is the will of the committee? Ms.

Marlanne Cerllll (Radlsson): Before we begin hearing the presentations to the committee, I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions considering the extraordinary circumstances that we are experiencing tonight with what is going on in the Middle East. *

(2005) I think it is of an interest to all of us if we would make an agreement that we would only hear the

96 LEGI SLAT IVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 prese ntations of people here tonight and not prolong the committee hearing tonight beyond that, that we would hear the people tonight, try and limit the debate and carry on tomorrow night, since there already is a scheduled public meeting tomorrow night and go through clause by clause tomorrow night. Hon. Glen Cummlngs (Minister of Environment): Mr. Chairman, I would concur that we should try and hear the briefs before us tonight.

I presume that will consume a greater part of the evening, and we could do clause by clause tomorrow night. lt is not, however, my choice or individual Members'; that has to be the concurrence of the committee. Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I am not a Member of this committee, but I think all of us for the last two hours have been listening to a history that could be excessively damaging to the environment, so it is particularly appropriate that we are gathered here tonight to discuss an environment Bill.

I would ask for a moment of reflection for all Members and all individuals gathered in this room, because no matter what our feelings about this war, there is going to be the loss of life. Many of those who lose their lives are going to be innocent people on all sides. Each of us pray in our own way, but if we could take just a moment to express in our own way silently our feelings about tonight. Mr. Chairman: Is there agreement? (Agreed) (A moment of silence was observed) Ms.

Cerllll: Considering that the Minister has already agreed to limit the committee tonight to just hearing the presentations, I am wondering if, considering that we would like to know the Minister's plans for the Bill-we appreciate that we are having two nights of committee hearings-! would like to ask the Minister if he would also table any planned amendmen ts tonight that he has for the Bill considering that there might also be further amendments based on the hearings. I wonder if the Mi nister could table any plans tonigh t for amendments that he has prepared. Mr. Cummlngs: Mr.

Chairman, normal process would be to hear the presentations and have the input of the public and their thoughts on a Bill that is before the Legislature. I can indicate that we have worked rather diligently since this Bill was first presented to the Legislature. We now have in hand draft regulations that would go out for public discussion.

While they cannot be part of this discussion in terms of tabling them in relationship to the Bill, I certainly intend to make them available to the Members of the com mittee and the public and provide that information additionally, but I would prefer to hear the presentations and the discussion before we get in to the clause-by-clause discussion of amendments or changes to the Bill. Mr. Chairman: Before we proceed then, can we agree on adjournment time this evening? Mr. Cummlngs: I would ask the committee to not set a definite time for adjournm ent, but that we start to hear presentations.

We can make a judgment as the evening proceeds and as we get closer to seeing what time is needed for prese ntations. We can make a decision at that point. I would urge the committee to take that approach. *

(2010) Ms. Cerllll: I would just like to clarify as well, if there are individuals who are registered to present but are not here tonight, if they will be allowed to present tomorrow night. Mr. Chairman: Is that the will of the committee? Mr. Edwards: I certainly agree with that. I would prefer not to go way long into the evening as has been done at prior committee sittings. I think in fairness to the people who have come forward, we do have tomorrow night set aside. If there are people who can present tomorrow night, I do not think we should be in any rush necessarily to hear them all tonight at all cost. Mr.

Cummlngs:W ell, Mr. Chairman, I do not know as we should prolong this debate, or we are necessarily going to shorten the time we have to hear pres e ntati ons. I would enc ourage the committee and the people who wish to present this evening, for us to be able to hear as many as possible, and I would hope all of the presenters, so that when we get into clause-by-clause discussion there will be ample time for that, or we will find ourselves going to the small hours tomorrow night. I suggest that we start with the presenters as quickly as we can. Mr.

Chairman: I have a list of persons wishing to appear before this committee: Helen McCullough,

January 16 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 97 Winnipeg Water Protection Group; Deanna Martz, Manitoba Naturalists Society; Harold Syrett, Friends of the Oak Hamm ock Marsh ; David Tay lor, Concerned Citizens of Manitoba; Harry Mesman, Manitoba Federation of Labour; Ron Carter, Private Citizen ; Jack Dubois, Manitoba Eco-Network; Harvey Williams, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; Len Sawatsky, Private Citizen; Bryan Johnson, Priva te Citizen; Peter Miller, Private Citizen; Brian Pannell, Manitoba Environmentalists Inc. ; John Shearer, Private Citiz en; Kemlin Nembard, University of Winnipeg SAFE; Cyril Keeper, Private Citizen; Ken Emberley, Private Citizen; Bill Hunter, Private Citizen; Jenny Hillard, The Consumers Association of Canada (Manitoba); Wayne Neily, Manitoba Environmental Council; Dennis Breed, Cana dian Public In terest Organization.

I understand that there are out-of-town presenters here tonight. Is it the will of the committee to hear from these gentlemen first? Agreed. lt has been agreed to hear Mr. Harold Syrett first. Mr. Harold Syrett (Private Citizen): I will start on page 2. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh feel that this is a definite forward step of considerable import for all Manitobans, this public input to Bill 24 and its regulation. We want to express our appreciation for this opportunity to express our concerns on this matter before you here today.

The Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh came into being immediately after the CEC hearing on the Ducks Unlimited application for an environmental licence to construct their office headquarters in Oak Hammock Marsh. Its executive members had made presentations at this hearing and subsequently united to pursue this issue at the R.M. of Rockwood by-law amendment heari ngs and the South lnterlake Planning District hearing. We have initiated legal proceedings to quash the by-law amendment and have appealed the issuing of an environmental licence to Ducks Unlimited Canada.

We have been active in the consideration of Bi1124 and its regulation with other environmental groups under the um brella of the Manitoba Eco-Network. Many of its mem bers hold membership in various other environme ntal groups and have extensive experience with environmental matters. The execu tive statement by Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh is just under the cover. The Friends of Oak Hammo ck Marsh are in fu ll agreement with the position paper presented to the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Cummings) by Brian Pannell on behalf of the Eco-Network and the participating groups. * (201 5) The content of our document is based upon our familiari zation with the Ducks Unlimited application for an environmental licence. Of the numer ous similar situations that we encountered, we have related only five of them here to emphasize the validity of our recommendations. lt is our contention that The Environment Act and its regulations must be free of all political and vested interest influences to be meaningful. Federal and provincial Governments are notorious for the playing at politics with our environment.

This document will substantiate this statement. This document will show that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) improperly indicated Government approval of the project on the very day that the public notice of the CEC hearing appeared in the local paper along with his improper letter of approval. Urban Affairs concerns were ignored and impr operly presented to the public at the CEC hearing. The Department of Environment concerns were never tabled at the CEC hearing for public consideration.

There is every likelihood that the CEC were briefed on what the outcome of the hearing should be, and the Bovey Report, an independent appraisal that was very critical of the DU EIA, was never submitted to the public for their consideration, nor was the CEC reconvened to consider the report. The Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh contend that the Government's handling of the Ducks Unlimited Canada hearing indicates malfeasance and that the process was so fundamentally flawed that it rendered The Environment Act and its regulations a useless vehicle in the protection of our environment.

Our rec ommendations appear on page 26, and upon reviewing them, which I shall do, one cannot help but ascertain that with their inclusion in Bill 24 and its regulation that a more just and meaningful piece of legislation will appear. Page 26, Recommendations, Bill 24: The Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh rec ommend:

98 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 1. All mem bers of the panel, including the chairperson, be persons who are unbiased and free of any potential conflict of interest relative to the proposal under review. 2. All members of the panel be free of political influence. 3. All mem bers of the panel must have some special knowledge and exp er ienc e relevant to the anticipated environmental effects of the development under review . 4. There shall be no dele gation of assessment to another jurisdiction. 5. That there should be public consultation prior to amending the Act. 6.

That The Environment Act be reviewed and amended in 1991 . 7. That a pro ponent provide intervener funding and that these funds shall come under the jurisdiction of the panel. 8. That allocation of intervener funds shall be done by the panel as early in the process as possible. 9. The panel shall set its own terms of reference with public input. *

(2020) Recomm en da tions, The Envir onment Act Regulation: 1. That the Technical Advisory Committee (T AC) be abolished or report directly to the panel. 2. That the present CEC be abolished and replaced for each proposal by a panel as outlined above. Thank you. Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Syrett, it seems like you have a considerable amount of experience in working to protect the environment. From your experience, how has politica l involvement or influe nce hampered environment assessments in the past? Mr.

Syrett: The feeling of the group in presenting this paper, that this paper has documents in it that come from file 31 27, that is the file in the Environment office, and these documents that are in here substantiate the fact substantively and contain examples of Government interference with the process. As I stated in the recom mendations, any panel considering an environmental issue must be free of political in terf er ence . Tha t is one of the recomme ndations we have as far as TAG is concerned. lt must be at arm 's length. I do not know if I have answered your question. Ms.

Cerllll: To clarify then, what would be the things you would recommend that would ensure that environment assessments become less likely to have political influence? Mr. Syrett: They are contained in this list of nine points in our recomm endation. I think this is adequate, because this will put the process at arm's length. Ms. Cerllll: Do you think that the Ducks Unlimited proposal would have gone as far as it did without political influence? Mr. Syrett: No. lt would have never got that far. Ms. Cerllll: Can you explain that a bit more, please? Mr.

Syrett: lt is the contention of the Friends that the Department of Natural Resources is in place to protect the environment, and this proposal, when put forward, should have been imme diately returned. There are a number of documents in existence, and I will quote some of them. The South lnterlake Planning District has a development plan. lt is a book about yay thick. In this book, it says various things of what shall be done and what shall not be done.

One of the policies in this manual is that land in Wildlife Management Areas, when taken out of Wildlife Management, shall return to the zoning of the area that it is in. Oak Hammock Marsh is in an A-80 zone. This A-80 is agriculture.

Therefore , this land will be taken out of Wildlife Management as defined by The Wildlife Act, as defined in the South lnterlake Planning District manual, its principles, and in the rural municipality of Rockwood's by-law. * (2025) lt is also stated in the original working plan by the working group that set up the marsh in 19 7 4. lt is also stated in various other documents emanating from the Department of Natural Resources. In this planning manual in the South lnterlake Planning District, it contains a

section that delineates a half-mile buffer zone around the marsh. lt definitely states that no commer cial or residential construction shall take place in this buffer zone.

January 16 , 19 91 LEG ISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 99 Early in the history of the marsh, there was a company by the name of Zacarias Realty that attempted to build a commercial development on the east side of the marsh. At that time, Ducks Unlimited and the Department of Natural Resources went to bat and they had it quashed. That is what the buffer zone is all about now. The unfortunate thing with this proposal is that this Government is set on ignoring the buffer zone, and they are tryi ng to plunk in the middle of a marsh a concrete jungle and turn it into a commer cial operation. Mr.

Morrison at the CEC hearing, the very last night-it is all contained in Volume X, it is in the public registry-there were two people sitting at that hearing other than Ducks Unlimi ted and the Department of Natural Resources. Mr.

Morrison stood up and said: We have to get into the marsh to do business; we have to attract the American people who come up here; we do not get them now; in fact I know we do not get them because our office is in the wrong place; we used to get them on Pembina Highway when we were there, but we know we do not get them now; we have to be in the marsh so that we can advertise it in our publication, north, south, and let the Americ ans know what a wonderful thing this is so that when they come into Winnipeg they will come and see us; we know we are not getting them now.

They did consider three other places, but that was not the place to do business. There were concerns raised by the Pla nning Branc h, mun icip al , metropol itan and urban, but these were never adequately put forward at the CEC hearing. The Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh are rather concerned about this Government's action, about their misinterpretation of wildlife management.

If constructing, if plunking, a corporate headquarters of a private company that lobbies this Government for funds and then takes those funds to build its headquarters in the marsh is protecting wildlife, that problem really bothers the Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh, that approach by this-did I answer your question? Mr. Cummlngs: I have just one question. I am willing to understand that you may have made the statement without having thought entirely about the contents of what you were saying, but you at the opening of your presentation charged that the CEC may have been briefed. Mr. Syrett: That is right, sir. Mr.

Cummlngs: Sir, I suggest you had better provide some definition of what you are ref erring to, because you are challenging a very credible organization, people who have acted independently and in good faith, and I would only ask that you consider the gravity of what you are saying. Mr. Syrett: Could we turn to page 13 , please, on my docum ent, dated February 28, 19 90, to larry Stratchan from Norman Brandson, Director of Environment Management Services. The writing on this in pen at the bottom of the page I think you will find belongs to D. Peterson, who answered it. •

(2030) The second paragraph on page 14 states: If my appraisal of the document is correct-he is talking about the Ducks Unlimited environment impact assessm ent-good enough for a decision in principle, but if that decision is yes then more work required before we have enough into to draft detailed licences -then is the CEC aware of what is required of them? In other words, is it not really the go or no-go decision that concerns them? If so, should they not be made aware so they will not take the tack that they do not have enough into to draft a licence?

The answer to that came on March 14, on page 15 , and it says: No, I see no need to require further assessment work. I feel that the document is in fact complete and am prepared to say so. However, Ducks Unlimited are progressing along with the design details and will be providing me with more information. I see no need for more work before we can draft a licence. I do not see the hearing as merely a go or no-go decision. The only requests for mo re information that I am aware of is for alternatives that Ducks considered and for a more complete assessment of the "human carrying capacity" of the Marsh.

I have requ ested and received further information requested by MEC on alternatives. As for an assessment of the carrying capacity of the Marsh I have not found a method of doing this. I am having a meeting with the TAC representative and Natural Resources wildlife staff and will be posing the question. This is signed by D. Peterson whom this letter was directed to by Norman Brandson, and the writing at the bottom of page 13 is by Mr. Peterson. lt is indicated, as I said in my summation, there is an indication that, in paragraph 2 on page 14, they were

10 0 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 briefed. For your information, I was asked to appear before the CEC on the writing of their new terms of refer ence. I did read this to the chairman of the CEC and the members present. I got a mixed response, but I also had some very, very red faces. One member said, "You understand that we talked among ourselves." I said, "Yes." Then he said, "But one would hope what we talk about would not be put on paper." There is every indication here, Mr. Cummings; I am not just drawing this out. These are only five of a multitude of TAC mismanagement.

I say, quite assuredly, and I think I am on firm ground that-and I had confirmation of this from the CEC. I will not tell you who, but I said, "You know, it is too bad this had to be a political decision," and this man on the CEC said, "Yes, it was a political decision." I cannot give you names. Did I answer your question? Mr. Cummlngs: No. I disagree with Mr. Syrett's interpr etration, but obviously that is something that we can de bate at another time. I think it is unfortunate that we would quote someone whose name we cannot use as stating that there was a political decision. Mr.

Syrett: This document, sir, came from public record . lt is in a public registry, and it is open to the public. lt has been around for a long time, and a number of people have seen it. We cannot say definitively what I would like to say, but we can say it appears that. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Syrett. Mrs. Helen Mc Cul lough, Winnip eg Water Protection Group. A brief has been circulated to everybody, so you may begin at any time. Mrs. Helen McCullough {Winnip eg Water Protection Group {Winnipeg): Mr. Chair man, Members ofthe committee, fellow Manitobans, what is the most important issue facing Canada today?

I wrote that question 1 0 days ago, but the answer provided by the Brundtland Report is as accurate today as it was then. The issue according to that esteemed report is survival and the need to change our present method of decision making. However, when asked what the most important issue facing Canada today was, in a recent Maclean's-Decima poll, the environment ranked in third place at 9 percent behind the economy at 21 percent and the GST at 23 percent. This shows that only 9 percent of those surveyed in that poll presently understand the diffe rence between cause and effect.

If we ignore cause and only react to end resul ts such as a slumping economy and increased taxation, we will never get out of the mess into which our environmen tal decisions have led us. The failure to understand that our economy and our future prosperity are founded on preserving and protecting our envir onment has taken us along a downward path of environmen tal exploitation towards the point at which our environment will no longer sustain development. To continue along that path will not only destroy our economy, it will destroy humanity as a species on this planet.

If you consider that to be an overstatement, I invite you to read the 19 87 Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, by the World Com mission on Environment and Development. A very good consumers guide for the public to that report is now available in paperback for $9.99, excluding GST. There is no business having GST on anything that informs the public about the environment, including CBC programs which inform the public about the environment. The title of this report is Preserving our World, by Warner Troyer, and it should be required rea ding for all politicians beginning with those in Revenue Canada.

The report with which there is no serious scientific dissent clearly spells out the dangers on continuing on our present course and warns that the time frame in which to secure survival is short. In other words, if we continue to neglect the cause of our present woe, we can expect much worse effects in the future: global warming, violent climatic change, famine, drought, floodings, massive number s of environmental refugees and pandemic illness spread through contaminated drinking water.

The Brundtland Report is much more than a warning. lt offers the solution, a path to prosperity and conti nued growt h through susta inable development. Good environmental practices are also good economic policy. Unfortunately, while playing lip service to this concept, there is every indication that certain elements within Governments do not under stand it and will therefore continue along the downward path waving the banner of sustainable development-their version. If we follow this course we can expect to worry about much more than the GST and the economy. We will all quite literally be struggling to survive.

What can we do? Again, the report has the answer.

January 16 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 10 1 In the words of Madam Gr o Harlem Brundtland, the chair, survival is everyone's business. The first step is to become an informed participant. Unfortunately, the public had very little opportunity to become informed participants in the present issue of Bill 24 because of the speed in which it was introduced. *

(2040) Bill 24 provides for join t environmen tal assessm ents with federal and other provincial jurisdictions to replace the present separate federal and provincial processes. Public hearings in Ma nitoba su ppor ted the principle of join t assessments, provided that the joint process combined the strongest elements of the federal and provincial processes. lt is the unanimous concern of the Manitoba environmental community that Bill24 in its present form will represent the weakest, not the str ongest, aspe cts of envi ronmen tal assessment.

A strong environmental assessment process is essential and fundamental to ensure sustainable development as defined by the Brundtland Report. Sustainable developmen t is the key to future economic prosperity, not only for Manitoba but for all of Canada. We can no longer afford to repeat the expensive environmental mistakes of the past. The cost to the taxpayer is too high, not only in dollars but in the growing threat to our health and to the health of our children posed by pollution in our air, our water and our food.

In terms of water pollution alone, it will cost billions of dollars to clean up major waterways including the Fraser, the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, which are so polluted that they endanger the health of the eight million Canadians who depend on them as a source of drinking water. If a strong process of environmental assessment had been in place in the past, taxpayers might now be spared the monumental cost of cleanup. A strong en vironmen tal assessm ent process is now essential to ensure that better decisions are made in the future.

The Winnip eg Water Protection Group in conjunction with other environmental groups has al ready made deta iled presen tations to the Govern ment of Manitoba on amendments to Bill24. These are outlined in a copy of a December 14 , 19 90, letter to the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), and the committee has been provided with a copy of that letter. As stated in those presentations, Bill 24 should be amended as follows: 1. Clause 13 .1 (

b) should be deleted. There should be no delega tion of the environmen tal assessment process to another jurisdiction. If a project has any potential to affect Manitoba, then the standards of this province must be applied rather than the sta ndards of another province or municipality.

Section 3(

c) of the regulations is unacceptable, as it does not provide that the panel will be free of political influence. The panel must be independent. There is absolutely no point in conducting an environmental assessment if the panel is not free from political control. Panel memb ers must be impartial and free of any bias or conflict of interest. In addition, panel members should have special knowledge and experience relevan t to the anticipated environm ental effects of the project under review.

Otherwise the scientific presentations of independent experts will not be fully understood by the pane lists, forcing them to rely on the technical expertise provided by the Technical Advisory Committee, TAC. Since the TAC is a political body, this will effectively compromise the independence of the panel if they do not have their own expertise. lt is not appropria te to include the TAC in the regulations,

Section 3(b). If the TAC is included as the Government's source of independent expertise to the panel, then the public should have access to all TAC notes, minutes, et cetera, to ensur e that the independence of the panel is not compromised in any way. Panel members should be appointed jointly by the Ministers of the relevant jurisdictions. The panel should be able to set its own terms of reference after public consultation.

Section 3(

c) should be changed since it allows the Minister to set the terms of reference. This could result in the panel being forced to take a much too narrow view of the project. For example, if the project were to discharge toxic effluent into a body of water, the panel should be allowed to review all possible aspects of that discharge, including modifications to its source. I might point out there that from Winnipeg Water Protec tion's point of view, we did have the opportunity to see this working of terms of refer ence, which the public may not completely understand, but when we were replying to the terms of refe rence for the proposed mine on Shoal Lake, we were very

10 2 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 grateful that we had wide terms of refe rence there, and so too were the City of Winnipeg and the Government of Manitoba, both of whom provided wide additions to the original scoping mechanism, so 1t is extremely important that the terms of reference are not set narrowly. I am not suggesting this would have happened, but in the most ludicrous issue, if this does not happen, you could have an assessment of Shoal Lake where it was not appropriate to discuss that it was a source of Winnipeg's drinking water. That is the sort of thing that could happen.

I am taking the most extreme example. That is the second point, the independence of the panel. The third point, No. 3-and I only have three-the environmental assessment process must allow for full public participation. This is fundamental and can only be guaranteed by an independent panel. To ensure public parti cipa tion, the follo wing amendments should be made to Bill 24: 3(

a) Provisions for mandatory intervener funding should be made in the Bill. The independent panel should administer this funding and ensure that it is made as far in advance of the environm ental assessment as possible. 3(

b) Criteria for intervener funding should be provided in the Bill or at the very least in the regulations. At present no criteria are set out in the regulations. 3(

c) Notice of joint assessment should be given to the public. 3(d)There must be public hearings in Manitoba. 3(e)There should be a public review of the entire Manitoba Environmental Act in 1991 . Provision should be included in the amendments to requir e that there will be public consultation before any changes to the Act. This would prevent any repetition of the fast-track process that has been taken with respect to the present amendment which was introduced in mid-December 1990 and is to receive its final vote on January 21 , five days from now.

In sum ma ry, in order to ensu re that the environmental assessment process is as stringent as possible, it is essential that the panel be independent of political control and that it be able to provide intervener funding to ensur e full public participation in the environmental assessment process. Without these vital checks and balances, the only remaining safeguard against unsustainable development will be the federal environmen tal assessment process. However, the federal process is presently being altered in Bill C-78.

If it is significantly weakened and is combined with an extremely weak provincial process, then there is a very real danger that the environme ntal asse ssmen t process coul d degener ate into nothing more than an expensive facade designed to delude the public into believing that the environment is being protected. This must not happen. Bill 24 will govern every Manitoba development with potential to affect the environment. lt will govern developments in the Manitoba

section of the Shoal Lake waters hed, and it has the potential to influence indirectly the Ontario assessment of the proposed gold mine on Shoal Lake, the source of Winnipeg's drinking water. Manitoba is the first province to adopt the joint process of environm ental assessment. In doing so, it has the opportunity to lead the way in sustainable development, which is appropriate since Winnipeg is the centre of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. However, if Manitoba adopts a we ak pro cess of environm en tal assessment, it will set a poor example for other provinces to follow.

Winnipeg residents should be very aware that at present the only protection standing between us and an operational mine in our drinking water is an Ontario environmental assessment. That process must not be weakened. I trust that the Manitoba Government will lead the way in setting a high standard for joint environmental assessments and will adopt these amendments to ensure that our concerns are fully addressed. Thank you. Ms. Cerllll: Thank you, Helen, that was an excellent prese ntation.

You made the statement that TAC is a political body, and you have gone on to make what seems to be a good recommen dation that any information it has should be available to presenters and interveners. From your experie nce, what has been the involvement or use of T AC by people who are making presentations? *

(2050) January 16 , 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 10 3 Mrs. McCullough: This is a question that really at the moment I am not qualified to answer, since I have not had direct experience of TAC. Ali i know is that TAC is a political body, and I know how it works. There are others here who will be able to answer that question in much more detail, and I hope you will ask it again of them. Mr. Cummlngs: One questi on, plea se . Mrs.

McCullough, in your presentation you make a point that political bias, political control regard ing pane ls-how do you define political bias as opposed to being separate from any bias? Mrs. McCullough: lt is possible, Mr. Cummings, to find people who are not in any political field. I would set myself as someone here. I have no political aff iliations. Governments can look for people like this who do not owe allegiance to any particular Party and who are not in a position to perhaps depend on that Party or even worse to be employed in their employ. These people should be sought out. They are available. Mr.

Cummlngs: Do you consider civil servants to be political? Mrs. McCullough: I think civil servants are too close to Government. The pressures from Government and I have seen them with civil servants. They do the best job they can, but in the end they say this is the decision for our political masters, and they should not be put into positions that make them not able to be as independent as they might wish to be. Mrs. Ll nda Mclntosh (Asslnl bola ): Mr s. McCullough, I wonder if you happen to have a copy of the first part of your presentation. All I have received in the handout is the recommendations. Mrs.

McCullough: That is correct. The first part of my presentation is-this is what it looks like at the moment. I can provide you with a copy of it and I will do so. I can have it for you for tomorrow if that would be all right. Mrs. Mclntosh: Thank you very much. I would appreciate that. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. McCullough. Now I would like to call on Deanna Martz. We have a written presentation which has been circulated. You may begin at your convenience. Ms. Deanna Martz (Mani tob a Naturalis ts Society): Good ev ening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. I would like to clarify.

My name is Deanna Martz and I am the chair of the Environmental Action Committee of the Manitoba Naturalists Society. The Manitoba Naturalists Society is a volunteer organiz ation of approximately 2,400 individual Manitobans dedicated to the awareness and appreciation of the natural environment and an understanding of our place in nature. We seek to provide an association and a voice for those interested in natural history and the outdoors and to co-operate with individuals and organizations with similar objectives.

To further these objectives, we arrange educational programs and field trips to prom ote an unde rst anding of the natural environment, we stimulate research and record data and material in natural history and allied subjects, and work for the preservation of our natural environment. Specifically we have the Environmental Action Committee which monitors federal and provincial legislation, policies and actions which have an impact on the environment. Various Government departments and private corporations approach the Manitoba Naturalists Society about issues or activities that affect natural resources.

For example, the Naturalists Society is often asked for its position on proposed projects, including our suggestions for mitigation of impacts. We have also worked with the Gover nment to preserve Manitoba's natural habitats such as through our prairie preservation program . The Manitoba Naturalists Society agrees with the concept of joint environmental assessments. If the legislation ensures an adequate environmen tal assessment, there is nothing to be gained by forcing proponents to go through the time and expense of two separate assessments.

I would just like to emph asize there, when we use the wor d "adequate," in no way do we mean "minimal" environmen tal assessment. Our brief contains suggestions that we believe will strengthen The Environment Act and also protect Manitoba's environment. We have three main recomm endations to make concerning Bill 24. The first deals with Manitoba's participation in joint assessments. Next we will address the independence of the panel, and lastly, intervener funding.

10 4 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMB LY OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 While we agree in principle with the notion of a join t assess me nt, it mu st tr uly be a "joint" ass essme nt with represe ntation from all jurisdictions involved. Manitoba must not delegate the joint assessment to another jurisdiction. Another juris diction will not necessarily be accountable to Manitoba citizens, nor will it have an interest in protecting Manitoba's environment. Again our fear there is that Manitoba might simply become an interested observer at a panel that might be set up.

We want to have people who are answerable to Manitoba citizens sitting on those panels. As far as the independence of the panel is concerned, as you have heard already tonight, the panel must be independent. In our opinion, the panel will be independent if its members are unbiased and free of potential conflict of interest relative to the proposal; if the members are free of political influence; and if members have special knowledge and ex perience relevant to the anticipa ted environmental effects of the projects. Environmental assessments must start to consider a broader spectrum of environmental effects.

This requires the appointment of panel members who in total have a broad background including social, philosophical and ethical strengths. Further, an independent panel must be free to set its own terms of reference, and the Bill should be amended to give the panel that power. In particular, we would like the panel to be able to start to consider one issue which in the past we feel has not been able to be addressed, which was a consideration of whether or notthe development is needed or not and what alternatives might be possible.

At this point, I would just like to leave my prepared text for a moment and say that I think what you are going to hear a lot about is that panels should be independent. I do not know, I have not heard anyone so far say-the reason I think and the MNS thinks that panels should be independent, or perhaps I really should admit this is more of a personal opinion-that what we have now is so much cynicism among the citizens of not only Manitoba but the whole country.

One of the reasons people are so cynical is that we do not believe the politicians when they tell us that "we have the environment's best interest at heart." Well, we do not believe that, because there are not always the channels we feel we need to have all the input that we want to have and to make sur e that those issues-that would really convince us that you really did have our interests at heart or were at least giving them as equal a consideration as you are giving to other issues. We are not convinced that is happening.

We feel, if there were an independent panel, there would be a greater likelihood that those issues would be addressed , and it might help to alleviate some of cynicism that people are feeling these days. Going on, we are pleased to see that the proposed

section 13 .2 in the Bill provides for intervener funding. However, the panel, not the Minister, should be able to determine its criteria for awar ding funding, and such funding must be mandatory and available at the outset. We are not saying that every group that walks up should have funding, but funding should certainly be available for all projects undergoing a joint assessment. As well, the funding must be available at the outset for the Manitoba Naturalists Society and for many other volunteer organizations, I would even say most volunteer organizations.

Funding at the outset is important, because the Naturalists Society and other groups do not have sufficient financial resources to take on the very large expenditures requir ed to participate fully as an intervener. lt is very difficult to hire witnesses and other professional assistance on the speculation that somewhere down the line we might receive funding at the end of hearings.

To give you a very practical example of this, the Manitoba Naturalists Society office is about, oh, I would say maybe one-sixth the size of this room, and there are usually two people working there. lt is one big room ; there are no separate offices; there is no quiet place to work. There are usually two people working there. There are four phones, I believe four desks with phones on them and numer ous lines going to the office. They are often ringing all at the same time. There is no physical place to work in the office.

Volunteer organizations need to have an office to work. .. (21 00) I was involved peripherally with the capital review in front ofthe Public Utilities Board this summer, and the documents alone filled up my dining room table. To really be involved and to really be involved to the extent that you can stand up and give a credible job of being intervener at these hearings, you need to have the physical backup. To be able to do that, you need space to work. In the case of the Naturalists

January 16 , 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 1 05 Society, if they do not move in the next little while, it would mean having to get an office. All those types of things are ver y expensi ve . Volun tee r organizations just do not have that kind of money. We can appreciate that you just cannot hand out money to anybody and hope they show up at the hearings.

I am sure mechanisms can be worked out so there would be some control of the money that is given out. lt is very im portant that volunteer organizations such as the MNS be involved in the process to ensure that joint assessments are thorough and as effective as they can possibly be. Only with a thorough examination of the project from all viewpoints can the resu lts be relevant and acceptable. Again, I think that would go some distance toward reducing some of the cynicism that people feel about the decisions that are currently being reached not only in Manitoba but in other provinces as well.

To conclude, we believe that Bill 24 should be amended to include our recom mendations with respect to Ma nitoba's partici pation in joint assessments, the independence of the panel and mandatory intervener funding. Manitoba has taken the national lead in proposing a joint assessment process. Now is the time to take that leadership role a step fu rth er by inc orpora ting ou r recommendations which we believe will strengthen The Environment Act and protect Manitoba's natural environment. Mr. Cummlngs: I would like to ask a question regar ding your concern about the relationship of another ju risdiction.

We had an exam ple in Manitoba not very long ago where the assessment that was required was primarily on Native lands and had federal funding. Primarily the responsibility fell, the vast majority, under the federal jurisdiction. Do you believe that under those circumstances that information gathered by that federal panel could be used for a Manitoba panel to make a decision? Ms. Martz: lt is kind of hard to answer a question like that without really- Mr.

Cummlngs: Sorry, I do not mean to put you on the spot any more than to ask, where a situation arises, to simply say without being specific that the majority of the responsibility lies with the federal authority and they are doing an assessment, do you be lieve that information gathered by tha t assessment could be used by a Manitoba panel to make a decision? Ms. Martz: I really do not know what you are asking me. Mr.Cummlngs: Perhaps I am not explaining myself well enough. What I am getting at is that that would be an example. If you look at the Bill the way it is structured,

Section 13 .1- and I appreciate that the joint process is seen by your organization to be a reasonable process-a number of people have taken umbr age at 13 .1 (b). Subsequent to that, it talks about "for the gathering of information," it does not talk about delegation of decision-making authority. I guess that is really what I am asking you, if the gathering of the information could be done in a situation like this by the federal authority. Ms. Martz: So in effect then, the report of the federal panel would become evidence at a Manitoba hearing? Mr.

Cummlngs:The information gathered would be used for the Manitoba panel to make a decision. In other words, there would be two independent decisions, but the information gathered by the first panel could be used by the second panel. Ms. Martz: I would say off the top of my head I do not see anything glaringly wrong with that. Certainly it wou Id be better-1 mean, these things do not just occur overnight: Oh, by the way, we had a federal assessment last week, do you want our results? lt would be much better if Manitoba had some input then into the kinds of information that they were going to be gathering.

Just because something is occurring on land under federal jur isdiction, does it mean that the effects will not be felt on lands under provincial jurisdiction? Mr. Cummlngs: I repeat, I am not trying to ask a trick question. I am searching for the best way for these things to be done. I am only trying to envisage or to demonstrate how joint panels could operate , as you have just said a moment ago, or how, under what might be some rather unique circumstances, there could be a delegation of the information gathering process. I wondered if you had any opinion on that, that is all. Ms.

Martz: I would say no violent objections to it. Again, people kno w that these thi ngs are happening, that they are coming down the pike, so to speak, and that if Manitoba is thinking that they will probably use that information, then again it would be advantageous if they had some input into the kinds of information that were collected. As far as taking that information and assessing it, I do not

106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MA N ITOBA January 16, 1991 think we would have any problems with that. lt would be preferable if it was found that information was lacking, that that information be provided. Ms. Cerllll: lt seems to me that one of the most difficult things is collecting or doing research on the env ir onmen t that is exp ens ive , that is time consuming and difficult to do, and that is crucial to knowing how the environment is going to be impacted. lt seems to me the easier

part is having people listen to a panel, listen to presentations, much like we are doing right now. Who do you think should be doing that kind of research on the environment? Ms. Martz: Are you asking me whether or not we should have access to the information of the proponents? Ms. Cerllll: Sure, who should the proponents be that ar e-w ho should be doing the research that is actually going to be going out to the area where development is going to be done, and getting dirty, and having the money and expertise to do that? Who do you feel should be doing that? Ms.

Martz: Ideally, any of the parties that actually have an interest in that matter. lnformation is a funny thing. Depending on where you go looking is what you are going to find. Depending on what you find and how you use it is going to influence your results. Ideally, the thing would be to have all interested parties doing their own research. That would certainly go a long way to ensur ing that all aspects of a project were considered. Ms.

Cerllll: How would you feel then about relying on the research of a proponent of a development to be used in determining if there are going to be adverse effects on the environment? Ms. Martz: Well, of course that is basically what happens now, because environmental groups do not have money to do their own resea rch. I guess that is where we look toward being able to tap into the expertise of other people. Right now a lot of what happens is that, for exam ple, the Manitoba Naturalists Society, a lot of our members happen to be biologists or people with that kind of background.

We also have some people with backgrounds in more of the technical matters such as chemistry, engineering, things like that. We try and tap into their expertise. These people are working full time-most of them hopefully are working full time-a nd they do not necessarily have time to launch a full-scale research project on our behalf, so we do try and tap into our members. lntervener funding, especially up front, would certainly allow us to then hire people who can evaluate the information that is provided by the interveners. I think that would be the next best thing.

The worst thing is having to rely only on your own members, not to denigr ate the contributions they make, but getting ready for these hearings is getting to be more and more complicated, more and more sophisticated. lt is a big thing to ask people to, on a volunteer basis, help you get ready for these hearings. That is sort of the least desirable option. * (21 1 0) Next would be being able to hire expert s so that we could fully evaluate the information that is brought forth by the proponents' consultants.

Ideally, the thing would be, if there were enough lead time to projects and funding were available far enough ahead, that interveners could also actually do research on the ground as well as be able to evaluate research that is brought forth by others. Ms. Cerllll: Has the Naturalists Society done that kind of research to intervene in an environment assessment? Ms. Martz: Not to my knowledge, not original research. Again, we have a lot of members who have exper tise and we often call on them for their help. I am not certain on that point, though.

Not since I have been a bit more active in the Naturalists Society has there been that type of original resear ch. Mrs. Carstalrs: I would like you to give me a definition, if you can, of what you mean by an independent panel memb er.

Just to give you where I am coming from, the previous presenter implied that it could not be anyone who had any political affiliation which, of course, would be contrary to their Charter rights of freedom of association, so surely it is not whether they are a member of a political Party or whether their mem bership of that political Party would influence the position they took on a particular panel. Is that how you view the sense of an independent panel mem ber? Ms. Martz: Repeat that last sentence or so. Mrs.

Carstalrs: Well, is it the fact that they are a memb er of a political Party or whether their membership in the political Party influences the position they would take as a panel member?

January 16 , 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 10 7 Ms. Martz: I think the thing that the Naturalists Society is getting to here is that at present the clean environment commissioners are appointed by the Go vernm ent with-1 think aside from one commissioner in

part icular -! do not mean to disparage them at all as far as their competence to do their job, but they do not really come bearing great credentials for evaluating the environment. I think it is not so much that they-l lost my train of thought there. lt is sort of the whole ball of wax that you get. When you take them all as a whole, you know, they happen to be appointed by the Government-except I think for the one member they happen not to have any great credentials, experience or expertise. When you take it all together, it is not very encouraging.

I guess the way that we summarize that and express it is to say they are not independent. Mrs. Carstalrs: Would you feel more comfortable if an appointee to a clean environment commission, or indeed any other body, was asked to appear before a legislative committee for an examination of his or her credentials before the approval was given for that person being a member? Ms. Martz: Well, that is an interesting idea. Right off the top of my head, I think that shows great prom ise. I agree.

I do not think they should have to be subjected to, you know, do you belong to a political Party and do you go out and vote, those types of things, but I think that would show great promise. Ms. Cerllll: I want to get back to the kind of questions that I was asking. Has the Naturalists Society been an interve ner in hearing s on environment assessment? Ms. Martz: To my knowledge, they have been certainly involved in presenting briefs. I became involved with this committee just as they were finishing up being involved with environmental assessment for the Repap expansion at The Pas.

There is somebody sitting behind me who could answer that question a bit more authoritatively, if you want me to find out. Ms. Cerllll: My assumption would be thatthey have. I am wondering where they would get their resear ch. I think that the public would look at a name like the Manitoba Naturalists Society and assume that they would have an interes t in protecting the environment.

When you look and see that they have 2,400 memb ers, and you were saying that they would have biologists and people who could do that kind of research-but I am looking at the dire straits that you would be in financially, so I just wanted to see-where would you get the research then? How would you rely on getting that scientific information? Ms.

Martz: I think in the past what has happened is that whoever is in charge of the committee at the time, or whatever, will get a policy paperg oing.ltwill be distributed again to those mem bers that we know who have either some expertise or some particular interest in a matter and ask them to review it and to give their comments. I think we have been frustrated on more than one occasion, because we are often asked for our opinions, not only as interveners but we just mailed things in the mail that say hey, would you like to comment on this?

We are often very frustrated because we might not have anyone in particular who has that particular knowledge. Right now, what I am thinking of is the siting of the north-central line for Hydro, taking the power out to the north-central reserves. We were sent a letter-1 am not clear if it was either directly by Hydro or by a consultant working for them-asking for our comments about where the line should go. Well, very often we are frustrated in providing those kind of comments because we can give them some general information.

I think in that case, you know we said well, please be particularly carefu l when you cross streams and try and stay away from lakeshores, but we could not say there is a very rare plant growing there or there is a very rare ecosystem over here or you should stay away from that particular area, because we do not have that specific knowledge and we do not have the resources to ask somebody to go out and carry out that type of field work basically.

At that time we actually, in the letter that we wrote and it was directly to Hydro-1 mean I believe there is some movement afoot to try and co-ordinate a bit more so that the kinds of information that is gathered by researchers all across the province in all different fields can be a little bit more accessible, so that people can have access to that type of information when they need it, such as it is. Ms. Cerllll: I have just one final question on this. Who has that kind of information, from your experience, and who do you think should have it? Ms.

Martz: Most obviously the people who live in local areas have that information. They do not

10 8 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 always, but a lot of them do, and there are certainly a lot of professionals in the city and the province and even other places in Canada that have- Ms. Cerllll: I gu ess, I am tr ying to get an understanding of who are we relying on to do that kind of resear ch. Where do they work? Who are they employed by? Ms. Martz: University professors. Sometimes the proponent's consultants go out and actually do original research. A lot of times they just rely on other people's knowledge as well. Mr.

Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. * (21 20) Mr. Chairman: I will now call on Mr. David Taylor as a Concerned Citizen of Manitoba. Mr. Davld Taylor (Concerne d Ci tizens of Manitoba): I would ask that Mem bers of the Committee also have Bill24 at hand, the Regulation to Est ablish a Cooperative Envir onmen tal Assessment Process in hand, as well as the document McJannet Rich, which is contained in Helen McCu llough' s subm ission. All these documents are available. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Member s of the panel, my name is David Taylor. I am with Concerned Citizens of Mani toba.

Concerned Citizens of Manitoba is a group of approximately 1 00 me mb ers that has been actively involved in environme ntal affairs in this province for over 1 0 years. We welcome the opportunity to present our position regarding Bill 24, The Envir onmen t Amendment Act. At the outset, we want to state our extreme concern regar ding the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced to the House.

Considering its importance as the first provincial legislation in Canada perm itting join t fede ral-provin cial envi ronme ntal assessm en ts, the Bill' s consideration was not well served by introducing it with such a short time period remaining until the end of the legislative Session. The rapid passage of the Bill, as envisaged by the Environment Minister (M r. Cummin gs), allowed for no effective public consultation on this matter of critical importance to environment groups and to the environment of Manitoba.

Our group is pleased to have been able to participate in the somewhat hastily called meetings with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Environment Minister to discuss the Bill further, but we believe that future environme ntal legislation requires more thorough public deliberation and debate.

We are satisfied that the amendments to the Bill, which were agreed to by the Environment Minister dur ing our meetings with him-please refer to the December 14th letter from Brian Pannell to Glen Cummings-offer an impr ovement over the original wording of Bill24 and that they are a step in the right dir ection towards effective joint environmen tal assessment processes. lt is absolutely essential that the Government live up to the agreement on these amendments.

We share the concern of many of our colleagues that Minister Cumm ings appears to be backing away from his commitments, especially upon review of the draft regulation of the Bill, which is now being circulated. The agreement made with the Minister represents our bottom line with regard to Bill 24. lt is important however that this committee recognize that even with these amendments Bill 24 still does not go far enough in ensuring that the most com prehensive and stringent environme ntal assessment of proposed developments will be carried out.

The rationale for joint assessments is to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts, to streamline the process of determining environmental impacts and thereby to save money. Under the current system two assessm ents are frequently req uir ed, a pro vi ncial and a feder al one. Though two assessments can be costly and time-consuming business, there are times when the environment can clearly benefit from this process. A well-known example is the AI-Pac review in Alberta.

The initial provincial assessment gave the green light to the pulp mill project, however subsequent review under the-and in this case-more stringent, federal EARP guidelines revealed that the impacts on the river systems were in fact poorly understood. They turned outto be far greater than the provincial review had recognized, and more in-depth study was necessary before the project was to proceed. In this case there is clearly no question that the environment was well served by the dual review process by virtue of the fact that more information was brought to bear on the question.

Nothing is gained if a joint review fails to live up to the very mmrmum that is offered by a combination of provincial and federal reviews. Here it is worth

January 16 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 10 9 noting that even the most highly-touted EARP guidelines often fail in important ways to fully address the issues to which it applies. A very good example of that is the recent review of Atomic Energy of Canada's plans for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste.

Given their purp orted interes t in sustainable development, most proponents of developments should be ready and willing to meet the toughest tests of environmental assessment that can be devise d, and Gove rnmen ts, having this same sustainable development agenda, ought to be prepared to hold them to it. More importantly, the curr ent state of our environment leads us to suggest that meaningful environm ental assessment of any proposed project, which includes the option of no deve lopmen t at all and of exami nation of alternatives to a given proposal, is a survival impera tive.

Having made these comments, we suggest that the amendments to the Act, as proposed by the coalition of environment group represent atives who met with the Minister before Christmas, meet the needs of a thorough joint review process, and at that time, can refer to those in the McJannet Rich document. We would recommend that this entire package be adopted. Failing this and recognizing that the cause may have to be advance d incrementally, we support the package of agreed-to amendments as noted in paragraph 4 above.

We have, however, some outstanding concerns which arise from our review of the regula tion which pertains to Bill 24. I would like you now to refer to the draft regulation and specifically 3(c)(ii). One of the committee Members does not have the draft . Mrs. Mclntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am also missing-it says "see enclosed copy of December 14 1etter." I am missing that letter. Mr. Cummlngs: Officials have a few copies, I think, of the draft regu lations that were out for discussion, which is what you are referring to? Mr. Taylor: Yes. Mr. Cummlngs: I would like to circulate what copies we have to the Members. Mr.

Taylor: Thank you ver y mu ch-t hese regulations which fall under Bill 24. Referr ing to the dr aft regu lation , 3(c)(i i), impartiality is one of the most fundamental features of any environmental assessment. For this reason we feel that application of the regula tion, 3(c)(ii), under which panel memb ers are required to be "impartial with respect to the proposal and are free of any bias or conflict of interest," should contain further stipulations to the effect that the panel be truly independent as they must be under the federal EARP guidelines.

Under these guidelines public review panels should be "fully independent of government." To achieve this independence, the federal clause as stated above needs to be included in this section. In addition, we believe that it is critical that panel members have specific expert ise in the issue under review. These points must be included as they are part of the package to which the Minister has already agreed to in our meetings with him. Please refer to the December 14 1etter. Regarding the panel's independence, our group feels that the terms of reference need to be set by the panel itself.

In this way the panel will be able to do a comprehensive review unrestrained by the influence of political motives. Under 3(c)(i ii), "the minister shall issue or approve the terms of refe rence for the panel so appointed." We feel that this should read , "the appointed panel should set the terms of refe rence after consultation with the public, such that a wide range of environmental social and economic impacts can be adequately reviewed."

Section 3(a)(v iii), "the provision of a participant assistance program for major developments" does not provide a clear enough statement of intent. The word "ma jor" im plies the possi bili ty of an interpr etation by the Minister involved. What indeed is a major development as opposed to a minor one? We feel that in order for there to be consistent and fair allocation of intervener funding, this regulation needs to be free of ambiguity. In addition, we note that no mention is made of the time frame involved in the assistance progr am , nor of criteria for provision of funds.

As members of a non-profit citizens' environment group, we can be seriously hindered by our financial situation. To ensure that all evidence is heard before an environme ntal review and that non-governmental environmental group interveners participate in reviews in a position of equity with proponents and Governments, we feel that intervener funding must be made available to participants prior to the commencement of a review, and that a clearly

11 0 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 defined set of criteria for awarding such fu nds be spelled out in the regulation. * (21 30) Finally, with respect to the role of the Technical Advisory Committee as noted in the regulation 3(d), it seems likely that the TAC could in practice end up perfor ming the role of a shadow review panel having a disproportional amount of influence over a given review. This situation could lead to political interference and serious compromise of the independence of a review.

To rectify this situation, we suggest that any reviews, meetings, et cetera, undertaken by the T AC be fully open to the public at all times. In addition, the expertise offered by the TAC should not be seen as a subs titute for the independent expertise which would otherwise be engaged by the review panel itself or by the interveners to assist with technical

interpretation. In closing, we apprecia te the opportunity to express our views on Bill 24. As we have stated, we believe that it can be stre ngthened considerably. Concerned Citizens of Manitoba wishes to continue our in volve men t in consu ltation on the environmental laws of Manitoba and to contribute what we can to sound environm ental legislation. We therefore welcome the suggestion by Mr. Cummings that The Manitoba Environment Act will be opened up to public review during the calendar year 19 91, and intend to participate fully in that review. Thank you very much. Mr. Edwards: Thank you, Mr.

Taylor, for your very concise and informative presentation. Mr. Pannell's letter of December 14 indicates at page 2 at No. 1. (b )(

v) that there must be a program of financial assistance for public participants in the assessment, and he suggests that be in the Act. As No. 1 .(

b) indicates, he is talking about amendments to Bill 24. You indicated that you felt there had to be provision for a funding assistance program with the criteria set out in some detail and I presume also the expenses-you mentioned in a regulatory form. Mr. Taylor: Not to mention prior to the review, as opposed to after. Mr. Edwar ds: You indicated, as I heard it, that you wanted that in a regulatory form. Do you want it in the Act, or do you want it in a regulation? Mr. Taylor: As long as it is law and we are able to appeal to the legal process, that is sufficient, yes. Mr.

Edw ards: You under stand the difference between a regulation and the Bill itself in terms of how it can be amended, I assume, the regulation being able to be amended by Order-in-Council pursuant to the regulatory

section in the Act, in effect by executive authority, and the Bill having to be amended through the Legislature. Mr. Taylor: Then indeed it would be preferred to be in the Act. Mr. Edwards: That is in keeping with Mr. Pannell's suggestion. Mr. Taylor: Yes, indeed. Ms. Cer llll: Mr. Taylor, do you foresee problems with making the decision if there should be a joint assessment panel used or not? You seemed to be alluding to that in part of the brief. What do you think the problems would be? Mr. Taylor: In deferring it to another jurisdiction? Ms.

Cerll ll: How do you think it should be decided if there should be a joint process used? Mr. Taylor: Any development which has an impact upon Manitoba should be reviewed by the Province of Manitoba Environment Department. Ms. Cerll ll: Okay. Mr. Edwards: I have one further question. Mr. T aylor, I was at a press conference yesterday and you were there. There were some dra ft amendme nts handed out, which I think had been put together by the coalition. Mr. Taylor: Yes. Mr. Edw ards: I do not have those right in front of me, although I recall that they-here, I do have them in front of me.

They suggest, with respect to the participant assistance program, that-here it is-the Minister may require a proponent of a development to assist. Then it says here : The panel may require a proponent to assist. Is it envisaged that there must be a participant assistance program in any joint assessment process? Is that what is being suggested- Mr. Taylor: lt is essential, yes. Mr. Edwar ds:- thatthere must be some participant assistance program . In other words, you are not

January 16 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 111 suggesting that there be an option when we are entering into a joint assessment process as to whether or not there be a participant assistance program . You are saying that there must be? Mr. Taylor: Essential, yes. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I call Mr. Harry Mesman. His brief has been circulated. You may start at your convenience. Mr. Harry Mesman (Manitoba Federation of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and Members of the committee.

The Manitoba Federation of Labour represents some 86,000 workers, on behalf of whom we are very pleased to present our views on this important Bill, and we thank you for the opportunity to do that. You have my name. My title actually is health and safety representative with the organization which, lacking the fu nds for another staff member, the responsibility for the environment was appended on to that.

Unlike most times when your job is greatly expanded, in this case I did not resent that for personal reasons, and my concern about the issue and the knowledge of how really important it is to our members and to all workers in this province, in this country, on this planet. In any event, our members, like most citizens today, are gravely concerned about the well-being of our environment, but unlike many citizens, our members are subject to a double dose of that pollution, once they receive it at work and then again when they get home.

Organized labour has been fighting for a cleaner workplace environment for decades, and we are applying the lessons that we have learned there in the struggle for a cleaner planet. Before dealing with the Bill proper, we would like to add our voice to those who have objected to the attemptto hurry this Bill through, and we have heard some of them already this evening.

As much as we like to see the Government act expeditiously on environmental matters, we do not think that should ever re sul t in for egoing mea ningful public consultation, and that the subject matter itself is just too important to see any repeated attempts at rushing legislation like this through. We support, however, the initiative that the Government has taken with this Bill. Although we have seen cases where dual process has benefitted the environment, this was inevitably due to the inadequacy of one or the other.

Stream lining the mechanism of environmental assessment strikes us as eminently sensible as long as the resulting process is fair both in practice and perception, complete in the options provided and thorough in its evaluations. Unfortunately, Bill24 in its present form does not meet up to these standards. lt does not ensure fairness or completeness. In order to correct these shortcomings, we would recommend that the Bill be amended as follows: Claus e 13 .1 (

b) shou ld be de lete d. Our understanding at present is that this deletion will be tabled by the Minister by way of amendment. Should this not be the case, we are here to express our serious opposition to that clause. We do not believe that Manitobans should and will, and we do not believe that Manitobans can, accept the approval of a major project affecting their province without the guar anteed ability to provide their own input.

Any joint assessment should equal Manitoba's own process and in addition meet the following criteria, which you will recognize from the previous presenter, but we will go through them again, because you cannot say the right thing often enough: * (21 40) 1. Requir e notice of the joint assessment to be given to the pub lic thr ough advertisements and the filin g of the deve lopmen t proposal in the public registry . 2. That there must be public hearings in Manitoba. 3. That members of the joint assessment panel are to be appoint ed jointly by Ministers from the relevant jurisdictions. 4.

That panel members are to be impartial and free of any bias or conflict of interest and have experience and expertise in the area. This would cover the independence that previous presenters have called for. 5. That there must a program of financial assistance for public participants in the assessment. 6. That there must be an opportunity for the Minister or the director, as the case may be, to acquir e further information after the report of the joint assessment panel, which

11 2 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 information would be used to assist the Minister or director in the decision as to whether or not to grant a licence. These points are taken directly from the previously referred to December 14 , 19 90, letter written by Mr. Brian Pannell to the Honourable Glen Cummings on behalf of a number of organizations including our own. lt is our understanding that in a series of meetings just prior to this date with represe ntatives of some of these groups present, Mr.

Cummings agreed that these items would be contained either in the Bill or a regulation pertaining thereto. If this is so, it is a commendable step toward effective assessment. If not, we sincerely have to question whether this Bill is intended to protect the environment from damaging development or the developers from those who seek to protect the environment. That same letter also noted our understanding of the Minister's intent to review the entire Act in 1991 as well as to introduce further regulations.

We look forward to participating in that exercise and helping to ensur e the inclusion ofthe right to refuse to pollute and the protection for those who whistle-blow on employers who do pollute. The amount of discretion left to the Minister in regard to the make-up of a joint assessment panel and in regard to the funding of intervener groups to appear before that panel is more individual power over this province's environmental management than we suspect that citizens would care to give to any individual politician.

Inclusion in the Act of the amendments contained in the attached document provided to the Minister at the aforementioned meetings would remove the uncertainty of such excl usive power and ensu re

an Act that all Manitobans would see as truly safeguarding their environment. I would like to read certainly not the entire att achm ent you have there, some of the recommended amendments to the Bill, but just very quickly go through the minimum requirem ents for joint assessments that are set out in there, which state that: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Act, the Minister shall not enter into an agreemen t pursuant to

Section 13.1 unless: the agreement provides for the establishment of a panel to conduct the joint assessment process pursuant to

Section 13 .1 ; the Minister may appoint or approve the appoin tm en t of the chai rpe rson or a eo-chairper son and one or mo re other members of the panel; all memb ers of the panel includi ng the chairperson are persons who: (

a) are unbiased and free of any potential conflict of interest relative to the proposal under review; (

b) are free of any political influence; and (

c) have special knowledge and experience relevant to the anticipated environmental effects of the project under review .

The public will be given an opportunity to participate in: setting the terms of reference for the panel; setting the terms of reference for the collec tion and pr esen tati on of any information or evidence related to: the environmental effects of the project, including the environmen tal effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the development and any cumulative environmental effects that may result from the development in combination with any other developments that have been, are being, or will be undertaken syner gis tic ef fects if you lik e-the significance of those effects ; the comments concerning those effects received from the public in accordance with this Act and the regulations; measures that are tec hnically and economically feasible and that would mi tiga te any signi ficant adverse environme ntal effect on the development; the purpose of the development; alternative means of carrying out the development and the alternative to the developmen ts that are technically and economically feas ible and the environm ental effects of any of those alternatives; the need for, and the requir ements of, any follow-up program in respect of the project; the shor t-term or long-term capacity for regene ration of renewable resources that

January 16 , 19 91 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MAN ITOBA 11 3 are likely to be significantly affected by the development; and the need for the development and the need for technically and economically feasible alternatives to the development. Public hearings for the purpose of gathering information or evidence by the panel will be something that the public will also be given an opportunity to participate in.

Just to jump a short list under the participant funding, which is the other key element of this Bill, the amendment suggested here, 13 .4 it would be under the-if the amendments were to flow as this is proposed: The panel may req uir e a pr opon ent of a development that is subject to an assessment under 13 .1 to provide financial or other assistance to any person or group participating in the assessment process. In deciding whether to award the funding to a person or group, the panel or Minister, as the case may be, shall consider whether: (

a) the person or group represents a clearly ascertainable interest that should be represented at the hearing; (

b) separate and adequate represen tation of the interest would assist the board and contribute to the hearing; (

c) if the person or group does not have sufficient financial resources to enable it to adequately represent the interest ; (

d) the person or group has an established record of concern for and commitment to the interest. We are missing an (

f) there, or an (e), pardon me. (

f) the person or group has attempted to bring related interest of which it was aware into an umbrella group to represent the related interest at the hearing, and the person or group has a clear proposal for its use of any funds which might be awarded. We think those amendments take on the two main subjects of the Bill proper. While not dealing with it directly here, we certainly hope to be consulted and expect to be consulted, and to be fair, to date we have been consulted at least as a member organization of the Manitoba Eco-Network on fur ther development of the regulation that we refe rred to earlier.

We know that much of what we seek may wind up being contained in such a regulation rather than the Act, and we see room for considerable improvement to what has been drafted to date. We hope to participate in that improvement. Organized labour has not bought into the frequent assertions that the issue is jobs versus the environment. Workers and the environment will continue to suffer as long as this false choice is accepted. We thank you for providing this occasion to put forth our viewpoint on this particular environmental issue. Ms. Cerllll: Mr.

Mesman, were you at the hearing where the regulation was discussed in the public meeting? Mr. Mesman: No, I was not. Ms. Cerllll: Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Cummlngs: I wonder if you would give me your definition of someone free of political bias. Mr. Mesman: No, I will not. I think clearly that is something that has to be worked out. lt is obvious that it would be somebody with any direct links to the governing Party, and it possibly would be anybody holding a card of that Party, but I think already there we tread into the Charter area, frankl y.

I am not sure if it should be that restrictive, but that is something that would have to be determined. Mr. Cummlngs: You would then exclude those who are Member s of the Opposition Party? Mr. Mesman: I did not say that, no, I said of the governing Party, the Party in Government. Again, I have to admit that it is not something that thought has been carried through all the way. I think people need to sit down, but I think it is an important factor.

Obviously, the cynicism that is out there is partially because many of the members of this panel have clear political ties to the Government that has set up whatever the panel may be. Mr. Cummlngs: Do you consider civil servants political? Mr. Mesman: I do not consider them political, but I consider them to be politically influenced, yes. Mrs. Mclntosh: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, on the questions asked by the Minister, I was not quite clear on the intent of your response, and I

11 4 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 wonder if you could clarify it for me. I know it is something that you do not really want to give a definitive answer to and I understand that about being independent and free of political influence, but you indicated that a person would be free of political bias if they had no direct links to the governing Party. Mr. Mesman: That is correct, yes, that I did say that. I am saying that is one obvious definition. I am not saying that would be the sole and final definition of someone free of political influence, not political bias incidentally, influence.

Mrs. Mclntosh: Could I ask the question that I think the Minister was getting at? I was confused by your answer. Would you extend that also to include someone who had no direct links to the Opposition Parties? Mr. Mesman: Yes, I would. Mrs. Mclntosh: Thank you. Ms. Cerllll: To get around the issue of individuals with political ties on the panel, how would you feel of people having to declare their ties or of having individuals from all political Parties on the panel? Do you think that would- Mr. Mesman: That might be a way to address the question, yes.

I admit to my own not-fully-clear thoughts on the subject, other than some of the obvious ones that I have indicated. When it gets to the point of saying should no one who carries a card in a political Party sit on one of these panels, I have a bit of a problem with that question, yes, so that may indeed be a way to go then to balance that off. Mr. Chairman: I would like to call on Mr. Ronald Carter, Private Citizen. Mr. Carter's brief has been circulated. You may precede it. Mr. Ronald Carter (Private Ci tizen): Mr.

Chairma n, Member s of the Assem bly, although I am listed as a Private Citizen, I should say at once that I belong to, oh, about half of the groups which are represented here this evening. However, I have not consulted them on my brief, and these are personal remarks. • (21 50) When the meeting was held, I believe, on December 11 , there were certain activities which stemmed from that meeting. One of them, I felt, was the preparation of the regulation you have in front of you, which is called Regulation to Establish a Cooperative Environmental Assessment Process. lt was dated January 3.

I have read the regu lation in context with Bill 24 to get some sense of the Government's intention in bringing this Bill forward, therefore I will talk to them together, if I may. The first point I would like to talk about is the value of the legislation. Why do we want it? What is the good of it? In proposing this legislation, the Government has taken an opportunity to save money and minimize differences of opinion between jur isdictions through streamlining ofthe assessment process. (Mr s.

Mclntosh, Acting Chairman, in the Chair) This is commendable, especially in light of the Raffe rty-Aiameda experience, the Oldman and the AI-Pac. Perhaps the occasion is the need to avoid two assessments of Conawapa, a federal and a provincial one. Possibly also , knowing Mr. Cummings as I do, there is a modest amount of statesmanship being shown by Manitoba in a comprehe nsive Bill which all Manitoba political Parties might endorse if we can get it together a bit.

The point to be made is that, if we can get a Bill together which all Parties can endorse, then we will strengthen public confidence in the assessment process and enhance public trust in the impartiality of the major players. To this end, much can be gained by enlarging the Bill to provide detail, despite the usual convention which ordinarily gets this done through regulation.

I would like to see us raise then many of the things which would ordinarily be in regulation into the Bill proper, so that both process and specific rules shall be provided to the Legislature and to the public as a package, minimize the amount that you put in the regulation of this Bill. I want to talk about the nature of agreemen ts under

Section 13 in Bill24, the nature of agreements between Manitoba and other jurisdictions. I make the assum ption that delega tion as originally proposed in 13 .1 (

b) is deleted altogether, and it is possible no comment may now be necessary. I believe that was part of the general discussion with the environmental groups made back in December. The notio n that Ma nitoba could entertain standards lower than its own is repugnant in the gathering of information necessary to do an assessment. The public must be assured that any agreement with another jurisdiction must require that a joint assessment meet the standards of Manitoba, but are these standards good enough? Can Bill 24 elevate those standards, perhaps

January 16 , 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 115 anticipating changes to be expected when the promised 19 91 review of The Environment Act is undertaken? I will talk a bit about the focus for improvement. The focus for im provement should be the quality of the panel appointed to conduct, to orchestrate, each joint assessment on behalf of the public. In this respect, whatever internal mec hanism you use-you usually call it a TAC. What is it called? What is that for? A task force of some kind.

The partners in this joint process, which are set in place to assist the panel, is secondary to the capacity of the panel to marshal! its own expertise whether this is coming from Government or from the consultants. lt is clear that the draft regulation as we have it now places heavy reliance on Government sources. The point to be made is that the panel itself must be selected early and care fully, must scope the assessment, set its own terms of refe rence for review and change them if warranted as the assessment progres ses. To set things into stone at the outset seems to me to be a regres sion.

There are things discovered during the process of the assessment which can be inserted in the terms of reference and pursued by the panel itself. We have to do that all in circumstances which provide for public comment. The Bill should specify that panel members be independent, free from conflict of interest and political influence and that some members have su bsta ntial techn ical exp er tise in the field represented by the proposal.

On the principle that the assessment, with the panel's proceedings and its recom mendations, should be understood by the ordinary non-technical person, panel members should include ordinary citizens and perhaps ordinary citizens who are resident in the area of the project. You have somehow in the panel to find a balance with a good deal of expertise in the field to which the assessment relates, and in addition to that I believe that panel membership should include people from the locality and the ordinary people in the street.

I say also that consideration should be given to video taping of the proceedings and supplying the tapes to the media. I am saying all along that public visibility is absolutely necessary in this process. Also, from the point of view of developing public confidence, the regulation 3(b), in the January 3, 1991, version which seems to vest the control of scoping, guidelines and review in a Technical Advisory Committee is undesirable. The TAC must be subordi nate to and a servant of the panel throughout the panel's life.

In this way some light may be thrown on the possible impacts of a project which go beyond the valuable but often constrained visions of line departments of Government. We ask then, what is the role of CEC in a jointly organized assessment, the Clean Environment Commission? lt is reasonable to expect that it can provide adm inistrative su pport to the pane l, organize the panel's expert advice, if any is needed, and bring its own experience on hearings to the panel's attention. In a word , it should provide medicine and duty, as I call it.

That is to say, it is there as an administrative arm, helps out in the process, but does not get involved in the judgments. lt must remain, therefore , remote from decisions on the information to be collected and the judgments upon that information. (Mr. Chairman in the Chair) Again the CEC I think should be a servant to the panel. Regulation 3(

c) should be changed, and the Minister's approval of the panel's terms of refe rence should apply rather than putting the onus on the Minister to issue the terms of reference. In addition to that, the task of the panel itself is to consult with the public as it evolves those terms of reference for itself. I have a note on intervener funding. The notion that requests for financial and other assistance will be entertained under Bill 24 is commendable.

In proportion to the capital expenditure involved in projects such as Conawapa and Bipole Ill, the cost is insignificant for the returns which arm's-length examination can produce for the proponent. lt is the importance of potential environmen tal impacts which shall govern, not physical size or capital costs as the term "majorw in the regulation might indicate. We do not know from either the Bill or from the regulation how this assistance is to be organized. A case can be made for the elaboration in the Bill beyond the five general parameters proposed for Subsection 41 .1 , as has been done in Ontario.

In that province, sufficient guidelines are available to enable the panel chairman to assign decisions on who is to be helped and how this is to be done to one or more ofthe panel members. A panel member then is assigned the task and removed, if you like, from the actual assessment and told to find out who are likely to be proper interveners. He reports to the

11 6 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 chairman and says Joe Blow from the Concerned Citizens of Good Lad should be here getting assistance and doing the research which he has told you about on a program which he has presented to you. In Manitoba the CEC could handle requests and maintain the linkages with the proponent on the provision of funds on behalf of the panel, but the panel should fully control allocation. •

(2200) A point made by other people-it is important that advances be avai lable to indi viduals and organizations who have made proper application. Flexibility and concern for the time constraints under which volunteers have to work shall govern the mechanism for financial aid. I conclude then, the threads which bind the credibility of the environmental impact assessment process are public visibility and good judgments of impacts. The latter must be made independently of proponent and Government. The regulator and the implem enter should not be seen as parties in making those judgments.

Bill24 and its regulations, above all other matters, should enhance and strengthen the role of any panel selected to conduct the joint assessment process. Thank you. Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Carter, what do you think should be the relationship between interveners and the Technical Advisory Committee? Mr. Carter: The interveners themselves, I think they should kno w what the Technical Advisory Committee is advising the panel. I think all that material should be available to everybody who is engaged in the process of doing the environmental assessment and making the judgments as they go along. lt should be open.

Relationship, obviously somebody has to make a judgment of whether the technical advice available from Government is good enough or whether it can be benefitted more by adding the research which might be mounted by an intervener. I think there is nothing adversary about this thing.

I think there is a combination of getting the best information together and that can be done from the proponent, by the proponent, by the Technical Advisory Committee, and by the interveners, if there is suspicion, as there will be, about some of the material provided by Government, some of the ma terial provided by the proponent, in completeness, then the intervener can spot the weaknesses and use his resources if he is provided with them to add and flesh out the total information available. Ms.

Cerllll: One of the other areas I am concerned about is how are we going to decide which developments or projects are going to have the joint assessment. Do you have some ideas of how that should be decided or if there are going to be some problems with that? Mr. Carter: That is a good question.

I think there are some fairly standard things that you can say if a project is going to impact on either side of the boundary, whether this is a municipal boundary or a provincial-federal boundary or provincial territorial boundary or between ourselves and the States, for example, then obviously you need a joint panel of some kind. This should not, however, mean that you delegate the task and toss yourself away and say okay, North Dakota, you do this job. You have to be present all the time.

You have to make your own decisions and Manitoba has to be party to, and if possible, consensual in the decisions which are made, the judgments which are made. Does that answer your question? I hope it does. Ms. Cerllll: As it stands now when there is a development and we have two assessments, are there problems with the current system? I am thinking in terms of when things are screened out. Do you see that as affecting when things are screened out from the federal process and then only receive a provincial environment assessment?

I am concerned that is the same thing that could happen with a joint process which is supposed to be more stringent, then we would have things screened out in the same way. I am looking for ideas of ways that we could not run into that kind of a problem. Mr. Carter: Well, I think of the time that the other jur isdiction gives up its participation, then it should be, at that time, confident and prepared to accept Manitoba's decision of whatever comes out of this thing. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Carter, I presume you have had a chance to look at the draft regulations put forward by the Government. Mr.

Carter: Yes, just roughly. I have not studied them very deeply. ! have scanned them. Mr. Edwards: I have not studied them in detail either. lt gives me some concern, this establishment

January 16 , 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 11 7 of this Technical Advisory Committee. lt strikes me that the Technical Advisory Committee being set up-what I gather from these regulations-is set up at the outset to advise the panel, and then they produce a report and that report is made public.

If a person was to be reviewing the project with a view to intervening, they would not only review the assessment done by the proponent, but they would review this Technical Advisory Committee report which is, according to the regulation, a committee with represen tation of relevant expertise from participating Governments. That is it.

Does that give you some concern that the Governments are going to be involved at the outset in producing a report which may or may not support the project and purporting to give advice at that very preliminary stage to the panel? lt gives me some concern only in that if that technical expertise is needed, surely the panel should decide that and go out and solicit that technical expertise if in fact they need it. Mr. Carter: As I recall that regulation, I did not like the way in which that TAC was doing the things which I believe the panel should do.

I think the panel should be helped very much so by the TAC, and it could go anywhere to get its help. lt should have the money and the opportunity to go and get experts for itself. I do not want the TAC governing the process. I want the panel to do that. I want the panel to be brought together very care fully, get its advice wherever it wants it, but the strength of the assessment, the strength of the judgments and recommendations, come out of that selection process up front.

You get the best panel members of the kind for the project that you want, and then you make the TAC the servant to that panel as you do the consultants which the panel may itself hire to do work for it as well as those of the proponent. Mr. Cummlngs: Thank you for your presentation. I was wanting to ask you in terms of-you went to some extent to comment on the potential for intervener funding. There is no doubt that further regulations regar ding the conditions of intervener funding will be taken outfor further discussion.

I take it from your comments, however, that something similar to the model used by the PUB might be a type of system that would be acceptable. Mr. Carter: I have seen the PUB process and felt it was a reasonably good one. I think, however, just rea ding that new Bill in Ontario, which has really not had too much testing yet, is a better way of doing it. I think that once again the independence of the panel is further strengthened by the fact that they will make the judgments on the people who are helped.

In the case of the PUB, as I understand it-and I am not sure of this-Is more like the CEC where you have a permanent Public Utilities Board , and you have not really tuned your PUB exactly to the kind of project which you are looking at, although I do not want to do that with disrespect to the PUB because I do not know enough about it to be able to criticize them. Just the same, it does not do for me the thing which a totally independent panel does for me. Mr. Cummlngs: I have one other question directly related to 13 .1(b ).

Do you agree or disagree that another jurisdiction, an example being the federal author ity, their assessment of an information gathering process, essentially the assessment, bringing together of the information, could then be used by a Manitoba panel to make a decision? * (2210 ) Mr. Carter: Oh, yes, very much so. I agree that the information collected by anybody can be used. What I want though is an independent test of that information a little bit.

If you are dealing with, say, and we will use this example-if some federal Fisheries and Oceans are taking a look at some fish problem or what have you, a highly reputable organization, very, very good, but I would also like our own fisheries people or some kind of consultant to say yes, they are right or they are wrong or they have provided us with the most probable impact. In other words, you should not leave them alone, no matter what.

You should not leave any consultant alone to do his own thing, you should not leave any Government alone to do its own thing, and you should not leave any other jurisdiction alone to do its own thing. Mr. Cummlngs: I was being more specific in terms of accepting their information for decision making by Manitoba in terms of an environmental licence or impacts, because the Bill does not delegate the decision-making authority or does not propose to delegate, but the question is whether or not information can be gathered and then used by Manitoba for decision making.

11 8 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 Mr. Carter: -(inaudible)-you go out and get your information wherever you can get it, and that is one of the sources. Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Carter. Mr. Jack Dubois. Mr. Dubois does not have a written presentation to hand around. Mr. Jack Dubols (Manitoba Eco-Network): Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen.

I apologize for not providing a written version of what I am going to say, but those of you who were at the press conference yesterday will have gotten more or less the bulk of what I am going to say. First of all, let me give a little bit on the Eco-Network. The Eco-Network, of which I am the chair of the steering committee or the board, is a neutral, non-partisan service organization to the environmen tal groups of the province. We are not a spokesgroup for other environmental groups; we are in fact just service to those groups.

When I say neutral and non-partisan, I mean that you will not hear the Network speak out officially on anyone's behalf on any of the particular issues of the day regarding such things as water quality issues, air quality issues, et cetera, but where we do feel we have some right to speak is on these kinds of issues, these generic, if you will, environmental issues that affect particularly public participation and public consu ltation, and therefore the basis of my appearing before you here this evening.

The environm ental community in Manitoba is calling on the Governmen t to live up to agreemen ts made with us bef ore Christmas regarding environmental assessment legislation, Bill 24. We are concerned that the agreement will be broke n, leaving Manitoba with totally inadequate legislation for joint federal- pro vincial environme ntal assessments. This probably should not be said before seeing what amendments the Government will put to this committee.

We have no firm basis to believe that they will renege on agreements made with a group of us in early December, but it is the indications that we have had from the Minister that this may be the case, thus our deep concern. Bill24 was introduced close to the end of the last legislative Session. lt is legislation which enables the provincial Government to enter into joint en vir onm en tal assess men ts of prop osed developments with other jurisdictions, that is, the federal Government primarily, I believe is the intent of the Bill, possibly other provinces and even states of the United States.

The intent of joint assessments is to st ream line the ofte n costly and time-consuming, dual-assessment process which must now take place in theory when a proposed project affects areas of both provincial and federal jurisdictions. Examples of such projects are the Rafferty -Aiameda dams, the Re pap development in northern Manitoba, Conawapa and the Shoal Lake developments. This legislation is extremely important. First, it would be unique in Canada, providing a blueprint for similar legislation in other provinces.

Second, and perhaps more important, it would cover several major developments currently being planned or under way in Manitoba. As you may know and as you have hear d fr om oth er pre sen ters, represe ntatives of several of our groups met with the Environment Minister (M r. Cummings) and Premier Filmon before Christmas to discuss our concerns about the legislation.

During those meetings we offered alternative wording for the Bill, which we believe would significantly impr ove the legislation and help it to live up to the claims made by the Premier that the intent of the Bill was to incorporate the best aspects of both federal and provincial environmental assessment laws. Again, the proof of the pudding will be in what the Government puts forward in the way of amendments at the end of this process. At the end of our meetings in December, the Environment Minister (M r.

Cumm ings) we felt agreed in principle to amend the legislation, utilizing some but not all of our suggestions that we had put forward at that time. The agreement which we reached with him and which you have now seen spelled out in some detail in our letter dated December 14 briefly touched on the following points that we thought we had reached agre emen t on: fi rst, that there would be no delegation of environm ental assessments to other jurisdictions.

In other words, Manitoba would always be active in assessm ents involving Manitoba interests; second, that any joint assessment permitted would have to be at least equivalent to Manitoba's own en vi ron men tal ass essmen t process; third, that intervener funding would be available for joint assessments; fourth, that the assessment panel would be unbiased and free of conflict of interest; fifth, that regulations would be produced to ensure that joint assessment panel

January 16 , 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 11 9 members would be free of political influence and have specific expertise and qualifications in the area under consideration. The Minister also indicated at that time that a public review of the entire Environment Act would be undertaken by the end of 19 91 . While many of us feel that the Act could be strengthened even further, we believe that these amendm ents significantly impr ove the original legislation. The Minister of Environment (M r.

Cummin gs) indicated to us that if we were in agreem ent with these amendme nts, we could communicate this understanding to the Opposition Parties, which we did at that time. While we welcomed the decision of the three Parties' House Leaders to have the House reconvene January 21 for a vote on the legislation, allowing an opportunity for the public to comment on the Act before the legislative committee, we do not similarly welcome the Minister's apparent backing away from the agreement which he had made with us.

To touch on the regulations just very briefly, and again you have seen those tonight and they have been touched on before, we have seen them, they have been circulated, and we are grea tly concerned about the wording which indicates a reversal of the Go vernmen t's position on the agreed-to amendments. Specifically, there is no requirement that the assessment panel is to be free of political influence and have expertise in the area under review. The inclusion of these req uirem ents in the Bill is, we feel, fundamental.

A second point is that the Minister of Environment may set the terms of reference for an assessment; that is, he or she may determine the range of subjects which the panel will examine relating to the assessment. This contradicts again Premier Filmon's assertion that the best of both federal and provincial assessment laws will be utilized, since under current Manitoba process, the panel has the ability to determine the terms of refe rence. •

(2220) Another point is that the role of the provincial Tech nical Advis ory Comm ittee, an interdepartmental committee of Deputy Ministers and other representatives charged with screening all proposals through Government policy as set out in the regu lation leads to a concern that the independen t nature of the review ma y be compromised; that is, that the Technical Advisory Committee may be seen, in the way the regulations are curr ently wr itte n, to be some sor t of quasi-independent source of expertise or expert advice to the panel. You have heard more about that earlier this evening.

Finally, intervener funding programs and criteria are not spelled out in the regu lation excep t to say that funding will be available for major assessments. Again, you have heard some discussion on that this evening. We have me t in fact in the interim with Environment Department officials who assure us that more public consultation will take place regarding the regulation.

However, the regulation will not be completed prior to the vote on January 21 in the House, leaving us all in a gray area as far as the real implications of the Act are concerned, if not otherwise spelled out in amended versions of the Bill that was first presented. We are also greatly concerned by public com men ts of the Environmen t Mini ster (M r. Cummings) that no commitments were made to introduce particular amendme nts to Bill24.

All of our groups agree that it is absolutely necessary that the Government stick to the agreem ents which were made in good faith, gentlemen's agreements, if you were, if we can use that old-fashioned phraseology, before Christmas. lt is our concern that this gentlemen's agreement made in good faith is made on the basis of mutual respect and regard for the other party to a discussion as being principled.

We would feel that any retracti on or any backing-away from those positions represents unprincipled behaviour and would change the tone and the substance of the way the dialogue is carried on in this province, In a co-operative manner up until now, in dealing with these kinds of matters. Just to drive home the point, I would like to repeat yet again the matters of substance that we feel will appear if the gentlemen's agreement is stuck to, that will appear in fact in the Government's amendments to the Bill, or the amended Bill.

We look forward with some optimism to seeing them there, but just to refresh your memory in case they do not appear, the first was that Clause 13 .1 (

b) of Bill 24 would be deleted. This is the clause that allowed for the del egation of the environmental assessment process to another jurisdiction. The second point, further amendment would require that any joint assessment perm itted as a result of Bill 24 would have to be at least equivalent

12 0 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MAN ITOBA January 16 , 19 91 to Manitoba's own environmen tal assessm ent process and in addition, meet the following criteria: First, that it would require notice of the joint assessment to be given to the public through advertisements and the filing of the development proposal in the public registry, the current Manitoba system; second, that there be public hearings in Manitoba ; third, that memb ers of the join t assessment panel are to be appointed jointly by Ministers from the relevant jurisdictions; fourth, that panel members are to be impartial and free of any bias or conflict of interest.

I would say here that, as you have had read out, the curr ent criteria spelled out under the EARP guidelines, which are more stringent than the Manitoba panel member criteria, should be adopted consistent with the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) public assurances that any joint assessment process should be the more stringent of the two rather than the less; fifth, that there be a program of financial assistance for public participants in the assessment. I personally find it continually surpr ising that we refuse to deny persons engaged in legal matters recourse to legal resources.

We provide those at the public expense in the name of justice and equality in our society, yet on the biggest and most significant developments in the province, we would continue to deny citizens who wish to participate that same sort of access to resources. I think that this has to be included in Manitoba legislation. Finally, that there be an opportunity for the Minister or the direc tor, as the case may be, to acquire further information after the report of the joint assessment panel, which information would be used to assist the Minister or direc tor in the decision as to whether or not to grant the licence.

Ms. Cerllll: With the importance of this legislation and the fact that you are a member of the Round Table, can you tell us, did the Round Table review this legislation and what was their opinion of it? Mr. Dubols: The Manitoba Round Table on Environment and Economy is an advisory body to the Premier (M r. Filmon) and on the integration of sustainable development into the way we "do business" in Manitoba legislatively, in the private sector and in our private lives ultimately. The Round Table was not form ally consulted by the Premier, asked for their advice or presented this Bill in any form.

At a meeting of the executive at which I was present, the Premier talked about the possibility of pending legislation and at that time repeated his assurance that he was determined any process that we adopted in Manitoba be the most rigorous of the processes that were combined. That is the extent to which I have heard any discussion between-in Round Table context. Mr. Edwards: I find that quite shocking and disappointing thatthe Round Table was not formally consulted on this legislation.

Going further on your comm ents about the Technical Adv isory Committee, I have just seen this regulation for the first time tonight, and I share some of your concerns about the perception but also the reality of what influence it would have on a panel, as it is contemplated in this regulation. I wonder if you would support what Mr. Carter had said earlier that it should be one tool, one resource for a panel to look to amongst other experts which they may or may not retain, or do you see a need at all for a Technical Advisory Committee? What is your view on the advisory committee as an idea itself? Mr.

Dubols: We ll, I think it mi ght help this committee's deliberations of the regu lations and their potential influence on the Bill and how much of what they say there needs to be in fact reinforced in the Bill, to have someone more knowledgeable than I explain the current role of the Technical Advisory Committees in the Government process. I have some apprecia tion of the role of the Technical Advisory Committees as a process within Government to ensur e that relevant departm ents or indeed all departm ents are consulted on potential impacts. That is one of their major functions.

The concern with the way they are described in the regulation and the way that I have heard their role described sometimes or repr es en ted sometimes in public is that they are perceived to be the source of technical advice to the panel and some sort of unbiased advice. That is why the insistence on the provision for some expertise on the panel itself and also for the independence of the panel. I think the Technical Advisory Committee will continue to be a process used by Government to facilitate the functioning of a panel whether it is mentioned in regu lation or not.

The concern from an environmentalist's point of view or in terms of public perception and public participation is that this will be

January 16 , 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 12 1 seen to be sufficient pseudo-independent technical advice as opposed to the real thing, which is provided in two manners, that is, independent advice: the panel is able to hire on its own or call in for a consultation or even in fact appoint to the pan

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-1-la4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 1st hansardpdf la4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1d18863276fc30566d6c43118d33f0421e9b957e

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).