LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 TIME - 8:00 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. S. Ashton (Thompson) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the committee present: Hon. Messrs. Bucklaschuk, Doer, Lecuyer, Plohman, Storie Messrs. Ashton, Cummings, Downey, Ducharme , Ernst, Santos APPEARING: Bill No. 67: Mr. Al Delaine, Sno-Man of Manitoba Inc. Dr. Ken MacKenzie, Manitoba Medical Association Bill No. 26: Mr. Jae Eadie, The City of Winnipeg Mr. Brian Pannell, Manitoba Environmentalists Inc. Mr. Alan Scarth, private citizen Mr.

Bud Oliver , the Town of Selkirk Mr. Gordon Collis, the Canadian Manufacturers Association Mr. Jack Penner, the Keystone Agricultural Producers Inc. Bill No. 39: Ms. Susan Thompson, Downtown Business Improvement Zone Task Force Mr. Reeh Taylor , Downtown Winnipeg Association Bill No. 26: Ms . Anna-Lee Yassi, Manitoba Medical Assoc iation Mr. Rob Hilliard, Manitoba Federation of Labou r Mr. Dennis Muldrew, the Naturalists Society MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 26 - The Environment Act; Bill No. 39 -

An Act to amend The City of Winnipeg Act Bill No. 67 - The Off-road Vehicles Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee come to order, please . The first item of business will be to deal with public presentations . I understand there have been a number of suggestions from committee members that we deal with Bill No. 67 first, since there are only two presenters , 70 and then go in order of the bills, which would mean that The Environment Act, which is Bill No. 26 and Bill No. 39 would be dealt with after that. Is there general agreement on that from committee members? Mr. Ernst. MR. J. ERNST: Mr.

Chairman, when we get to Bill 26, The Environment Act , I would suggest perhaps that the city delegation be heard first. Unfortunately, they are unable to stay for a very long time and it would be appreciated if they could be heard first. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the committee in agreement on that particular point? Okay, so we will then begin with presentations on Bill No. 67 and we will adjust the order on Bill 26 to accommodate the city. The first presenter on Bill 26, Mr. Al Delaine. A note for the records, there is an error on the original list - that's Delaine rather than Belaine. Mr. Delaine. MR. A.

DELAINE: I'm sorry, I'm new at this so I don't have any copies of my brief. On Bill 67, my position, I'm president of the Sno­ Man Inc. of Manitoba. We are the mother club of all the snowmobilers and clubs in Manitoba and in Bill 67, we've had a few meetings with the Minister and with Mr. Halbert. As Sno-Man, we deeply oppose the Bill 67; not so much the bill itself, I think it 's a very good bill. It's just that we, as snowmobilers, don't want to be a part of the same act with the all-terrain vehicles, for several reasons .

In past years , there's been a lot of research done with snowmobilers and the environmnent , and a snowmobile, in itself, does not cause harm to the environment; that's already a proven thing.

With the all-terrain vehicles and now with the licensing and registration of dirt bikes, minibikes ·and all off-road bikes being part of the snowmobile clubs, we foresee the act causing problems with snowmobiles for the simple reason that if all-terrain vehicles are heisted out of an area for snowmobiling , our snowmobiling jursidiction in Manitoba is getting thinner and thinner every year, and what we've basically got left is ditches to ride in.

With all these all-terrain vehicles , minibikes and dirt bikes going up and down the ditches, tearing the terrain up in the summertime; and with all of us being under the same act; we strongly feel that if, for some reason, the government comes up and says we're going to abolish the all-terrain vehicles from riding the ditch ways, and with the snowmobiles being under the same act, there would be no choice but the snowmobiles to go out in the wintertime. I just came back from a big conven tion in the United States, with the ISIA, and they have that same problem in severa l of the States right now, where the

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 snowmobiles and the all-terrain vehicles are under the same act, and they have that exact problem right now. They have abolished the all-terrain vehicles in some areas, and the snowmobiles have also been heisted out of the same areas in the wintertime. I have just said, the act itself is written up very well. lt's just that we strongly feel, as snowmobilers, we would like to stay separate with our existing Snowmobile Act which we have. We would gladly endorse 99 percent of the articles in the act into our Snowmobile Act, as far as all the safety, the helmets, everything.

We would gladly endorse putting them into our existing Snowmobile Act, because I think the act is well written. There are some vague areas in it that I think need a lot of clarification in the act, but our biggest opposition here is we don't want to be part of the all-terrain vehicles. That's really all I've got to say on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Delaine. Are there any questions to the presenter? Mr. Cummings. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Mr. Delaine, can you tell us what is happening in Quebec, in terms of the availability of land for snowmobiles to travel on? MR. A.

DELAINE: I guess in Quebec, I certainly wish we could compare ourself to even one-millionth of what they've got for snowmobiling. They have something like 27,000 miles of snowmobile trails, plus they get an awful lot of funding from the government. They get gas tax, they get tax from Parks and Recreation; they get a gas tax from gas companies, and they've got just miles and miles and miles of groomed snowmobile trails. They're also having a problem with the off-road vehicle as well. They deeply oppose the three wheelers and four wheelersr period, in Quebec.

They're trying to heist them out of the province, period, never mind trying to put them in one act. But as far as snowmobile trails, they've 27,000 miles is the exact figure they've got for snowmobile trails, versus in Manitoba, I guess in all of our parks and everything, if we've got 400 miles, we're doing very well. I'm saying, comparing the miles of trails they've got for joy-free riding, it's an awful lot. They've got, I think it's something like 220,000 registered snowmobiles in Quebec. MR. G.

CUMMINGS: Can you explain then, the concern that you have when being controlled under the same act with all-terrain vehicles? How do you see this as being a problem regarding the use of the road right­ of-way in Manitoba? MR. A. DELAINE: Our biggest problem, as I just stated a little bit earlier, if for some reason, and I can see it happ ening with the all-terrain vehicles using our ditchways in the summertime, that there's definitely going to be terrain damage. There are no ifs, ands, or buts, it can't help but happen.

You get the big, knobby tires going in the summertime, they're taking off and going just with their dirt bikes and minibikes, which are worse than the three and four-wheelers, because at least they've got their big, balloon tires and they don't tear up the ground as much. 71 Within a couple of years I could see the government coming out and saying well, we're going to going to close this roadway down to the all-terrain vehicle and snowmobiles. I see, and our whole club sees and people we've talked to would also be heisted in the wintertime.

With our limited amount of trail riding and ditch riding that we have, we don't want to lose what we've already got. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Just for information purposes. How many miles of specifically designated snowmobile trails do we have that are publicly administered? MR. A. DELAINE: The only . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Delaine. MR. A. DELAINE: Pardon? MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to ind icate to presenters that, in order to make sure we have proper records in Hansard, I do have to identify and recognize people before they speak. Please proceed, Mr. Delaine. MR. A. DELAINE: Thank you.

The only government trails we have are such that we have in our provincial parks. The actual trails outside the parks are pretty well nil. Outside of that, we've basically got our ditch riding. We make our own trails along the ditch, because there's no grooming involved or anything in the ditch ways. So most of our trails are in our provincial parks. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I realize that you represent the snowmobilers but are you aware of any ATV trails and/ or areas where they are exclusively set aside for their use in the province? MR. A.

DELAINE: I am aware that the all-terrain vehicles, the four wheelers and three wheelers do need a place to ride. To the best of my knowledge, there are no designated trails, as such, right now for them. In the wintertime, they do use our snowmobile trails; in the summertime, they also use the snowmobile trails in the provincial parks. That's where they're allowed in. Some parks aren't allowing them in, period. MR. G.

CUMMINGS: You stated earlier, regarding the safety regulations that are in this bill that you were in support of, and that you would be quite happy to see those added to the present regulations governing snowmobiles. Is there any aspect of the bill that you would like to point out at this time for the Minister? Is there any aspect of this - other than the combining of all machines under one act - are there any safety regulations or other concerns that this bill raises that you would be unable to live with if they applied only to snowmobiles? MR. A. DELAINE: Yes, there are a few and I think they're fairly minute.

One question that I would have for it is on page 13,

article 20 with the insurance required. Would this

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 insurance be bought with the registration, or would it be an insurance year by year? What type of a cost category would we have defining dirt bikes, mini bikes, trail bikes and snowmobiles? That raises a bit of concern. The other one I have is the muffler system for the snowmobiles which, I think, would be kind of senseless in a way of having spark arresters put into the mufflers on snowmobiles in the winter climate.

I know a lot of the new snowmobiles out, they do comply with a lot of these regulations, but there are an awful lot of the older snowmobiles out in the areas and there would be a lot of cost trying to upda te a lot of the older snowmobiles to put spark arresters into their muffler system, which really, in snowmobiles, isn't needed. I really think that would be a manufacturer's problem. The way I read the bill, it is saying if I don't have a spark arrester in my brand-new snowmobile, I wouldn't be all owed to drive it in Manitoba.

So I think some of the exhaust system is very, very vague and would need some modifying in the bill. You're also saying in

article 25, subsection 2 that "No person shall sell, offer for sale, have in possession for sale, or deliver for sale in the province, a new off­ road vehicle unless it is equipped and components comply with all the safety standards prescribed by the regulations under this Act." You go on to say as well that any dealer or distributor would not be allowed to have a snowmobile if it doesn't have a spark arrester in his exhaust and he would not be allowed to have it on his premises, period. In my particular case, I've got two pipes that meet with the safety regulations as far as the nois e environment, and legally I cou ldn' t trade th at snowmobile in because any dealer - according to the

article as it's written - would not be allowed to have that snowmobile on his lot and legally I can't have it sitting anywhere either, because the exhaust doesn't meet the criteria of the act. Those are only a few little items in the act. The rest of the act is very, very good. There's even one other item in safety which I would like to see changed under the helmets, where you have, for the dune buggies and what-not that have roll bars and seat belts, you're exempting them from helmets and I really think our helmet system should really be enforced.

I've driven stock cars for quite a few years and I've also flipped them a few times and without a helmet you go rolling around inside there pretty quick and you do a lot of bobbing; and a dune buggy, even if it's got a roll bar, you would have the same problem. So I would like to see that one changed. I think, if we can bring a helmet law in, bring it in period and get everybody to use it; because if we start exempting one little category from it, the first thing you know, it's out of control. MR. J. ERNST: Mr.

Delaine, just so I can be clear, is this true? - Your principal objection is being lumped in with ATV's, out of fear that if ATV's are prohibited from using certain areas, the snowmobiles will ultimately be prohibited as well, and that snowmobiles really - operating at a different time of year - aren't creating environmental damage the same as ATV's are. Is that correct? 72 MR. A. DELAINE: Yes, that's correct. MR. J. ERNST: That's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Plohman. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, first of all I want to thank you, Mr. Delaine, for the presentation, and also to use this opportunity to ask you a few questions.

First of all, are you aware that currently, under The Snowmobile Act, it is not possible to treat snowmobilers differently than three and four wheel, off-road or all- terrain vehicles. MR. A. DELAINE: I am aware of that. That was basically a temporary move where they put the three wheelers and four wheelers into The Snowmobile Act - that sort of just slid into there; and again, it was to our dismay that that went into The Snowmobile Act. We were under the understanding, at the time that went in, that was going to be a temporary move because they couldn't license them any other way.

The only way they could license them was putting it under a snowmobile licence. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, but the fact is they're all in one act at the present time and there is no provision for separate treatment for it. Tha t's to your understanding and that is correct, right? MR. A. DELAINE: Yes. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, I understand your concerns. Mr. Chairman, I'm also wanting to know whether Mr. Delaine is aware that under

definitions, snowmobile is identified separately as one type of off-road vehicle; that there is a separate definition for snowmobile itself on page 5. lt's mentioned separately on page 3. In

section 45( 1) , 46( 1) , as well as in

section 68, there is provision for designated off-road vehicles. By-laws can be made in sections 45 and 46 and regulations can be made in sections 68(f), (j), (k), (

I) prescribing certain conditions for th e opera tio n, or proh ibiting the operation, or permitting the operation for designated off-road vehicles. Are you aware of that provision which allows for the separate treatment in by-laws in the regulation of each kind of category of off-road vehicle? MR. A. DELAINE: Yes I was aware of that.

The only thing is, I saw that very, very vague in there, and that is by-laws can be made if - which I find just a little bit strange in that area - we leave the by-laws as well with the traffic authority, which can be anybody from a community, a municipality, to make their own by-laws governing anything they want. That was the other real area under the by-laws I found very, very vague in one area, and under a Jot of authority in other areas. If they want to stop any off-road vehicle in their municipality, they can come up and say they don't allow any off­ road vehicles in there. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I know we're asking questions to clarify that they cannot pass a by-law which is contrary to any provision or intent of this act, so it is not all-encompassing. They can't just pass any by-

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 law. Every by-law has to be approved by the Minister as well. I just wanted to raise those issues with Mr. Delaine, as well as to ask him whether he's aware that there is a requirement for seat belts, where roll bars are in place and helmets are exempt? MR. A. DELAINE: Yes, that's the statement I tried to cover a little earlier. Even though you've got seat belts and a roll bar - like I say, I've driven stock cars for quite a few years and they've got a very good harness or seat belt - it's like an aircraft seat belt in there.

When you go over, upside down, and roll, your neck and the upper parts of your body are doing a lot of bobbing around - there's a lot of potential for head injury, once you roll with a roll cage and seat belts. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to ask if Mr. Delaine was aware that under the regulation,

section 68(

f) that specific regulations could be made, excluding certain designated off-road vehicles from certain requirements of this act, so that the issue of spark arresters tha t aren 't part of the stand ard equipment could be dealt with for exemptions under that section. MR. A. DELAINE: That particular one, I wasn't aware of. You caught me on that one. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I wasn't trying to catch you on anything, but just using the rules and asking questions to point out to you that I think most of your concerns have been considered very carefully and I believe dealt with.

Also 68(c), the regulations would allow for that special provision. MR. A. DELAINE: Like I had said earlier, I think the act in itself, the way you've got the act written up is very good. lt's just that we, as snowmobilers, have been around for an awful long time. We have worked hard to get what we've got now. We worked hard getting The Snowmobile Act as it is in, to what we have today, and we feel that we certainly would be deprived of our sport that we've had around a long, long time. We don't really want to see it go by the wayside.

Snowmobiles are, let's face it, a winter sport. lt is an actual all-terrain vehicle all by itself. lt's the winter pleasure that many, many Manitobans really enjoy and we don't want to see it go by the wayside, under an awful lot of strict rules that have to be enforced by a lot of other all-terrain vehicles. On the same token, you also get snowmobilers themselves, you know it takes a few of them to ruin things for a lot. If we add to the pot, we've got a lot more numbers in there to bring things to a big boil and it takes a lot to stop it. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Just in concluding, Mr.

Chairman, we're dealing with an Off-road Vehicle Act as opposed to an All-Terrain Vehicle Act; all-terrain vehicles being only one part of off-road vehicles, so it's much more encompassing on a larger scope than an All-Terrain Vehicle Act would be. I just point that out in terms of

definitions so the member could be aware of that. I would also tell him that we also understand the concerns about snowmobilers, and feel that there would 73 be every provision available to any future government, who wanted to make regulations in the sections that I've pointed out, to deal specifically with snowmobiles separately from all other kinds of off-road vehicles. lt would just mean that the Snowmobile Association of Manitoba would have to be in close liaison with govern ment, as you are.

As well, if a particula r municipality wanted to pass a by-law that affected off­ road vehicles and snowmobiles were part of that - we feel they should be part of it again - representation to the mun icipalities because th ey can treat them separa tely. We would make that known to them, because we think that's an important point. But it also allows us, by having one act, to deal with this whole issue administratively as one, instead of having separate acts for different off-road vehicles, and that's very important as well.

So that's why we didn't go as far as you would like in your presentations to us, but we think we've made it possible to deal with your concerns. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I have just one short question, Mr. Chairman. You alluded earlier, Mr. Delaine, to concerns that you had seen happen south of the line. Can you give us what figures you have at the tip of your fingers as to what has happened in banning of snowmobiles from public property as well as all ATV's? MR. A.

DELAINE: In the State of Utah, they have a snowmobile club with 20,000 some odd members in and they were introduced to the new law three years ago, where they put the all-terrain vehicle in with the snowmobiles and right now they've got a large, large problem on their hands. They are banned from pretty near one-third of their terrain, and they've got something like, I think, 6,000 miles of trails altogether, and a big chunk of that has been closed to the all-terrain vehicles. They're also trying to - it's not passed yet - but they're trying very, very hard to stop the snowmobiles in there at the same time.

Nebraska has got part of their trail system as well under the same problem. They've got their all-terrain vehicle and the snowmobiles under the same act and they are also faced with the same problem. They are abolishing some of the areas for the all-terrain vehicles and they're also thinking of doing the same thing for the snowmobiles. Those were the two states that I really discussed it with at the ISIA Convention. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Delaine. The next presentation is from Dr. Neil Donnin from the Manitoba Medical Association. Dr. Donnin. DR. K. MacKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid Dr.

Donnin was unable to make it tonight. I'm standing in, in his stead. I am Dr. MacKenzie. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. MacKenzie. Please proceed. DR. K. MacKENZIE: I represent the Manitoba Medical Association.

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 The MMA, Mr. Chairman, wishes to congratulate the Go vernment of Manitoba and the Min ister of Transporta tion, in particular, for introducing legislation pertaining to off-road vehicles. The Association strongly supports the concept behind Bill No. 67, requiring licensing and insur ance of all off-road vehicles, manda tory hel mets for operators and operator restrictions regarding roadway crossings and shoulder driving. However, two concerns of the Association have not been answered by the proposed legislation.

The act does not contain an operator licensing criteria, wherein all operators are required to hold a licence indicating that they meet minimum competency standards to operate an off-road vehicle. These should be investigated and es tabl ished for inclusio n un der regulations to the act.

Section 26( 1) of the proposed act allows children under the age of 14 to operate an off-road vehicle with parental-adult supervision. The MMA strongly maintains that there should be no exceptions allowing children under the age of 14 to operate off-road vehicles, including the presence of an adult. Both the U.S. and Canadian pediatric societies have endorsed prohibition of children under 14 years driving off-road vehicles.

Safe use of off-road vehicles requires skill, judgment and experience, as well as the physical strength to manoeuvre a high-powered vehicle; traits that cannot be expected to be found in children under 14 years of age. Available statistics of injuries and deaths due to off­ road vehicle mishaps are alarming. In the U.S., in 1984, 86,000 injuries occurred, 30 percent of which occurred to children in the 5 to 14-year-old bracket. From 1980 to 1985, over 560 deaths occurred, 40 percent being children under 16 years of age.

In Manitoba, between 1979 and 1984, 238 children under 16 were injured and 19 died because of mini­ bike accidents; 78 children were injured and 2 died because of other ATV's. Parental supervision of child operators is not acceptable, given safety risks in this age group. Losing control and falling are the commonest accidents. Having the child within view of an adult will do nothing to prevent injury. If children have access to these vehicles, how do you control or monitor parental supervision? In

summary, the primary concern of both parents and legislators should be to protect their children. As adults we have a responsibility to choose recreational activities that are less dangerous and developmentally more appropriate to a child's skill and size then the operation of motorized vehicles. Mr. Chairman, that summarizes my presentation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. MacKenzie. Mr. Ernst. MR. J. ERNST: Dr. MacKenzie, do you have any statistics to indicate how many skateboard accidents there were in the same period of time that you're relating the ATV accident rate to? DR. K. MacKENZIE: No, I don't. MR. J.

ERNST: A friend of mine, who is an orthopedic surgeon, told me that he treated probably 10 or 15 74 times as many skateboard accidents as he did any other kind. Would you advocate the removal of skateboards as well then? DR. K. MacKENZIE: I would find that hard to answer at the moment. I don't think I could say we would remove skateboards or ATV's for that matter. What we are saying is that an ATV is a very high­ powered motorized vehicle that is obviously dangerous to a young person who doesn't have the skill, reflexes or judgment to handle a high-powered vehicle. MR. G.

CUMMINGS: You've stated that you would like to see some operator-licensing criteria. What age would you accept as a suitable age to operate these type of vehicles if there were licensing criteria? DR. K. MacKENZIE: We ask that people under the age of 14 not be allowed to operate these vehicles at aiL Therefore, licensing would come in, 14 to 16, and beyond that they should probably have a valid driver's licence to operate an ATV. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Dr. MacKenzie. The support that you're giving for this, I think, is quite understandable. Mr.

Chairman, the question to Dr. MacKenzie is, to enforce any legislation, we need police officers and officers throughout the province to enforce any act of the Legislature. Would you consider the reduction of RCMP officers throughout the province, who are the control mechanism, as a responsible move to enforce this kind of legislation? DR. K. MacKENZIE: I think you're throwing me a bit of a curve and you're bringing in something else that obviously is being debated at the moment. Clearly, you require enforcement of this. How that is achieved is obviously not covered in what I'm presenting.

I would also say though that it would be very difficult to enforce parental supervision. I think it would be much easier to enforce age rather than supervision. MR. J. DOWNEY: Through you, Mr . . Chairman, to Mr. MacKenzie, I'm not trying to throw a curve. I'm just asking if it would not be in the best interests of the enforcement of this impo rtant legislation that the investigators or the police officers be maintained to enforce such legislation, particularly in areas of high use in resort areas or areas, for example, Winnipeg Beach where there would be, presumably, a high usage by people on vacation.

That would be an area that would probably require enforcement officers. I just asked for your opinion, and you're quite free not to respond. That's one of the freedoms that we have in this country, and I respect your decision. MR. CHAIRMAN: I realize there's no rule against asking cur ve-ball questions or whatever they coul d be described as, but certainly presenters should feel free to answer in whatever way, shape, or form they feel fit. Mr. Plohman.

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Dr. MacKenzie and the Manitoba Medical Association for their presentation and to just ask Dr. MacKenzie whether he feels that the presence of a safety training program wou ld be equa lly as impo rtant to a licensing requirement. Would he place any greater degree of worth on one or the other? DR. K. MacKENZIE: Yes, we have called for licensing requir ements and certain ly, if pos sible, we have discussed the possibility of a training course. We would certainly consider that a fairly high priority, as well. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: But not in lieu of a licensing requirement? I ask whether Dr. MacKenzie feels that it would be going a sign ificant distance towards accomplishing the same thing if there was a good safety training program such as the Sno wmobile Safety Training Program. Maybe Dr. MacKenzie could even give some opinion as to how effective he thinks that is? DR. K. MacKENZIE: Yes, I certainly do feel that training programs are effective, and we would be happy to see something like that. On the other hand, our main requirement is for licensing and we put that at a higher priority. HON. J.

PLOH MAN: Do you feel pla cing the responsibility on parents, not just an adult, but parents or a person designated by that parent is not an effective way to ensure that children operate safely? DR. K. MacKENZIE: We feel very strongly that having parents in sight of the child operating a high-powered vehicle is not an effective supervision. For instance, a child could be driving one of these vehicles through a field within sight but, say, 500 metres away, go through a ditch, roll it, and what can the parents do about that?

They meet the requirements of the law but, really , there's been no true supervision of that child, and we feel that's very dangerous. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Last question, Mr. Chairman. Does the MMA or Dr. MacKenzie have any statistical information that would show that this activity of, say, families out on a Sunday with a number of children operating these with their parents is such a dangerous practice statistically in terms of the injuries and deaths that have resulted from that practice that this should be banned completely by imposing a strict 14-year age limit? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Dr. MacKenzie. DR.

K. MacKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, we don't have statistics on that. We have a number of statistics from various provinces at various times, but they relate only to ATV use or to trail bike use and they don't say what other activities were occurring at that time. So we tend to gather these statistics from emergencies or from Departments of Transportat ion, and they don't always have all of that material there. So, I'm afraid I don't have that. HON. J. PLOHMAN: So you don't have the circumstances surrounding the accident. 75 DR. K. MacKENZIE: No, we don't. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Dr.

MacKenzie, are you done? DR. K. MacKENZIE: Yes, I'm finished. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We need the correct spelling of your name. DR. K. MacKENZIE: Sure. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The presenters of Bill No. 26 includes, the first ones to come, J. Eadie and Mr. B. Carron, representing the City of Winnipeg. MR. J. EADIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I, first of all, want to thank members of the committee for their indulgence in allowing us to appear first. We will try to keep things very brief for you. In January of this year, Mr. Chairman . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Is this Mr.

Eadie or Mr. Carron? MR. J. EADIE: I'm Jae Eadie. I'm accompanied by Bill Carron, the Director of Waterworks and Waste Disposal for the City of Winnipeg, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in January of this year, the Winnipeg City Council approved and authorized the preparation of a brief on the proposed environment act, which was forwarded to the Minister of Environment, expressing the concerns of the City of Winnipeg on the proposals contained in what, at that time, was a discussion paper. That brief totals 13 pages, Mr.

Chairman, and I'm sure you'll be greatly relieved to know that I don't intend to read it to you this evening. I believe Mayor Norrie sent copies of that brief to all members of the Legislature some five or six weeks ago. So I hope that all MLA's, including members of this committee, will have had a chance to peruse that brief and get some idea as to what the concerns of the City of Winnipeg are with respect to what is now Bill 26. Some of the concerns that we expressed in the brief, Mr. Chairman, at that time on the discussion paper, we don't feel have been addressed at all in Bill 26.

We have a concern that the public hearing process and the existing role of the Clean Environment Commission is being considerably diluted, and we believe that the role of the Clean Environment Commission as we know it today should be retained. We are concerned that the delegation of powers to the City of Winnipeg for control over the discharges to watercourses should be retained and not removed, as the act contemplates. We have requested that The Public Health Act should be amended to delete regulations out of that act concerning sewage treatment, landfill and atmospheric pollution.

All of those kinds of regulations should be under The Environment Act, so that we deal with one Minister and one department and one set of bureaucrats and administrators, rather than running in two or three different directions at once

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 trying to get clarity when it comes to regulations from the province on environmental control. In Bill 26, as we understand it, we don't believe that those concerns appear to be met in the bill. We are hopeful that, before the bill is back in the Legislature for Third Reading, this committee will in fact recommend the kind of changes that we propose. We have a very real concern, Mr. Chairman, with respect to what we perceive as deleting the powers and the authority of the Clean Environment Commission of Manitoba.

I think, not only as representing the City of Winnipeg, but I think all Manitobans should be somewhat concerned that the role of the Clean Environment Commission appears to be reduced in this act. The Clean Environment Commission in our experience as a city - and we've appeared before it on numerous occasions on environmental issues - has been a very thorough, a very objective, a very unbia sed body. They are accountable. They meet in public, they hear representations from the public, and their decisions are made openly after public representation.

What the act appears to be doing now is reducing or almost elimina ting the role of the Clean Environment Commission in that respect, and delegating a lot of that kind of authority to the Director of Environmental Management. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, if there is in this room a Director of Envrironmental Management, I don't want th at in dividual to be offended because I'm not addressing myself to the individual in that position. We are addressing ourselves to the general issue.

We feel it is not proper that someone who is a civil servant, who essentially is not accountable to the public but who is only accountable to a Minister, should be making important decisions in this respect without the kind of public input that all Manitobans have enjoyed and have been able to become a part of and participate in with the Clean Environment Commission in its present form. So we want to clearly indicate to this committee and to the Legislature that we want to see the role of the Clean Environment Commission retained today as we know it.

We believe as a city that we have always been treated fairly by the Clean Environment Commission. They have heard the representations we have made on numerous issues affecting the city and its role in pollution control, and we've always believed that the decisions made by the Clean Environment Commission have been fair and they have been, I think, very reasonably dealt with. Another concern we have, Mr. Chairman, is the provision in this act which takes away, I guess, what you can call the special status that the City of Wiinipeg has had with respect to pollution control within its own boundaries.

The city has enjoyed that particular status since 1935, Mr. Chairman, with the establishment of the Greater Winnipeg Sanitation District. The authority of the city was kept with the establishment of the Metropolitan Corporation in 1960, and it was retained again with the formation of Unicity in 1972. So obviously, over the course of that half-century, successive Provincial Governments have felt that the City of Winnipeg has exercised its responsibilities in this respect with a great deal of responsibil ity.

I think I can stand here and safely say, although I've only been involved on Winnipeg City Council for seven years, that 76 in my experience I believe the city has indeed more than fulfilled its responsi bilities in environmental management and control within the city in a very exemplary way. Certainly, every year in our budget, we are spending multimillions of dollars on environmental and pollution control meausures at our sewage treatment plants, at our water treatment plants, and whatever.

I'm not aware, unless members of this committee or members of your provincial administration are aware, I am not aware of any case since I've been at Winnipeg City Hall where the city has indeed fallen down on its responsibilities in that respect. If anything, I think we've been keeping right up with the times. We have in our staff people who are acknowledged experts in their field. I dare say, Mr. Chairman, that the people we do have on our staff are at least as talented and experts in the field of pollution control as anybody you've got employed here, perhaps more so.

So I mean, we really haven't spared any dollars in pollution control in the City of Winnipeg over the last 50 years, so we really are at a loss, Mr. Chairman, to understand why now it is felt there should be a change. The response we received from the Minister indicated that, from the point of view of the government, they want to have all municipal corporations treated equally. That's not a bad goal. I better add right here, Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to sound lik e we've got some sort of superiority complex, if I can use that term, in the City of Winnipeg or that we think we're better than any other municipality in Manitoba. That is certainly not the case, but we do have and have had for that half-century the authority and we've built up the expertise to manage and to control pollution within our city boundaries. We've built up that expertise probably that no other municipality in Manitoba has.

So while it's probably a worthy goal to try and maintain a standard for all municipal corporations and, in many respects, I support that in many fields, in this particular field, Mr. Chairman, I think the city has shown in the time that it has had responsibility for pollution matters within its boundaries that we have built up a field of expertise that is probably second to none in this province. We believe that expertise should be maintained and we believe, as a city, that we should be able to control and continue to control how we manage our environment and our pollution control measures in the city.

As I said, I don't think we've fallen down on the job. If anything, we're steps ahead of many other people, and we intend to stay that way. lt's going to cost us a lot of money and we're going to spend what it takes and we're going to continue to do what it takes to maintain a quality environment within our city. So on that section, we again appeal to this committee and, through this committee, to the government not to dilute the authority that the City of Winnipeg has had and hopefu lly will continue to have over environme ntal mana gement problems within our jurisdiction.

Again, we remind the members of the committee that we feel that there should only be one statute and not two or three which have regulations concerning sewage treatment, landfill, and atmospheric pollution so that, if changes are made to The Public Health Act and other statutes, we would like to see

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 those kinds of regulations deleted from those acts and contained in one statute where we only have to deal with one set of officials and one Minister, as the case may be. In our brief that we sent to the Minister and to all members of the Legislature, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of other very specific concerns with respect to various sections that I'm not going to elaborate on now.

But I wanted to take this opportunity on behalf of the Mayor and members of council to express before this committee the concerns we have on those three very important issues that the city feels are not being properly dealt with within this proposed act. We would like to hope that this committee and the Legislature will hear our concerns and indeed act upon them in the way that we hope you will. That's basically my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I can try to respond to questions. Mr. Carroll is here to also respond to any technical questions that members of the committee may wish to pose. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any questions from the members of the committee? The Honourable Minister. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eadie, I think that the act, as drafted now, makes no reflection on the past ability of the City of Winnipeg to deal with its environmental issues. In fact, I think that we would have to agree that the city is indeed spending a good deal of money to look after its pollutants. The way the act is presently drafted, nothing would change that. The city would have to continue to do exactly that, to retain its expertise and to look after the environment in the best way possible.

We're glad that the city has the technical staff to be able to do that. it's not the intent of this act to overlay another level of bureaucracy on the existing system. But having said that, it is also true that the City of Winnipeg's exemption only has to do with liquid effluence water systems at the present time, and that's all we're talking about. lt is an exemption which no other inc orporated town or city in the province has. I want to know from you, Mr.

Eadie, why you would object strongly to that when specifically MAUM has passed a resol ution to tha t effect, and all other incorporated cities and towns of the province and municipalities don't have a similar exemption under the act? When development has expanded all around the City of Winnipeg, we're no longer in the same situation as we were perhaps 20 or 50 years ago when a city or a town cou ld perhaps on its own , with a smaller population, less industry, control the impacts of its activities, not only in its own jurisdictional area, but how these might impact on the surrounding ones.

Today, there are much more complex substances and indus tries creat ing all kinds of pollut ants and contaminants which go beyond the jurisdiction that you are responsible for. How do you propose or who would you propose would deal with those if the city continued to be exempted under the act? MR. J. EADIE: Mr. Chairman, first of all, with respect to the MAUM resolution, I am well aware of that 77 resolution. I regret that I was ill that day and unable to be at that particular session when that resolution was adopted, or maybe things might have taken a different course. Mr.

Chairman, I guess in a sense I have to answer a question with a question. I' m aware of the exemption that the City of Winnipeg has had. What we have not heard from this level is why that exemption would now propose to be eliminated. What have we done within our jurisdiction which would cause the government to want to take away that exemption from the city?

I believe and I know that the city has grown and has developed over the years, and I believe and I also know that the city has done all things within its bounda ries with its sewage treatment plants and whatever to keep up with that particular expansion and growth in the city, and to keep up with the increasing load that is placed on our sewer and water systems. We have done that, and I think we have done that very successfully.

I am also aware - and it's not a put-down in any way, shape, or form to those other municipalities outside of the City of Winnipeg boundaries - that most, if not all, of those municipalities do not have the expertise within their administrations to handle similar kinds of problems within their boundaries.

Therefore, you do need, and it is proper to have some sort of provincial regulatory control or however you want to form it in order that those smaller municipalities who do not have the wherewithal, did not have the financial resources or the expertise to look after tho se things in a reasonable way, in order that they are assisted. But we continue to operate, Mr. Chairman, with a great deal of talent and expertise within our administration to handle those problems. I believe we've handled them very successfully. I believe we will continue to handle them very successfully.

We therefore see no need to, all of a sudden, lift the exemption that we have had from some of those particular regulations. We have more than adequately demonstrated that we are able to keep up with the latest in technology with respect to environmental and pollution control. So I'm really at a loss to understand the meaning behind your question, because we really haven't yet had a fully answer from you or your staff, Mr. Minister, as to what we have done wrong within our boundaries to want to have that exemption taken away and control given to outside sources. HON. G.

LECUYER: Well, I don't know if Councillor Eadie had the access to the letter I sent to the mayor in reply to his on June 12, wherein I indeed attempted to reply to that specific question. Is Councillor Eadie aware that, under the proposed new act with the city not exempted, as it has been in the past in regard to liquid effluents or to waterbodies, and that's the only exemption we're talking about because there were no others? Is the councillor aware that we're not going to take over these responsibilities and we don't propose to, by this amendment to the act, take over these responsibil ities.

The councillor says that the city has this expertise and they are doing a good job of it. The city will just continue to do that, have to continue to do that. I ask the question: What does the councillor fear in this proposed amendment? Why does the councillor object to it, that having been said?

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 MR. J. EADIE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister really, perhaps inadvertently, hit the nail on the head. Certainly, the exemption as you propose will be taken away from the City of Winnipeg and, as I stressed at the very beginning of my remarks, you're going to be placing a great deal of control and authority with a director of environmental management. The city will still have the authority to do everything, including pay for regulations that are going to be imposed by a civil servant without the benefit of public hearinags and without the benefit of public input.

That is essentially what you're proposing. You are proposing to really create a very, I guess, a superauthority within your own admin istration, Mr. Minister. Certainly that administration will have all kinds of dictates and the city will retain the right to pay. Those are some of our concerns, Mr. Minister, and some of our fears that I think the council and the mayor and myself have tried to express. We have yet to hear the answer. Why lift the exemption in the first place?

I'd like to hear the answer to that, because all I have in your letter is that you want to ensure that all municipal corporations are treated the same and, in many respects, Mr. Minister, I have no objections to that. In this particular case, we have a concern, and one of the concerns is we have not heard an adequate response in the province as to why you would want to lift that exemption. If you would want to answer that, Mr. Minister, I would like to hear your fuller answer because what I've seen in your letter really doesn't tell us much. it's probably left more questions than answers. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. Instead of directly confronting one another, it is the procedure in committee meetings that they should add ress their concerns through the Chair. That will soften the impact of direct confrontation. MR. J. EADIE: I'm a very agreeable person, Mr. Chairman ... HON. G. LECUYER: Mr.

Chairman, of course the reasons for proposing whatever amendments are in the act have been expressed on many occasions in the numerous public meetings that were held, at which Councillor Eadie or any other councillors at the City of Winnipeg had an opportunity to attend, and of course, in the debate in the House as well.

But, the explanation that is provided in the letter goes beyond what has been provided by the councillor, and, of course, the best explanation, and the first explanation one should give is that other municipalities want to see the City of Winnipeg also abide by the same requirements that are imposed upon them.

But I asked the councillor a question awhile ago, which also has a bearing on the reason why this exemption has to be removed, in tha t the effluents and the contaminants emanating from the City of Winnipeg ju risdiction also ha ve poten tial imp act on other jurisdictions, on which the City doesn't have any jurisdiction.

We're talking about the growing complexity of substances as time evolves, and for that reason, of course, I think that the City of Winnipeg as well as these other jurisdictions who potentially could suffer 78 from these contaminants should be under the same provisions or the same act, and that's also therefore, one of the very important reasons why the City of Winnipeg should be - as well as for all the other areas - brought in under the act as far as effluents to surface water. And I repeat - that's the only one we're talking about. MR. CHAIRMAN: You still have the floor, Councillor Ea die. MR. J. EADIE: Mr.

Chairman, that's a little bit more explanation, but let me say, through you to the Minister, that we are more than well aware of the fact that the waterways that flow through the City of Winnipeg flow out of the city and they do flow by other municipalities. We are certainly very cognizant of our friends to the north of us, the Town of Selkirk, and the ongoing discussions that we have had with the Town of Selkirk, and with the mayor and the council of Selkirk with respect to the Red River, for example.

Let me indicate to the Minister with respect to an issue that his government and our government has been deal ing with, with respect to the proposed disinfection of the effluent of the City of Winnipeg water in the river that flows north to Selkirk. I want to say to him that if, for example, a number of his officials had had their way, the city would be spending some $8 million or so a year to put disinfectant in effluent; the end result of which would not make the slightest modicum of difference to the quality of the Red River water as it reaches the Town of Selkirk.

The Min ister and I both know that our two governments, together, hired independent consultants, who indeed proved that very fact; that our spending $8-odd millions to disinfect the effluent of the City of Winnipeg sewer plants would not make one modicum of difference to the quality of that water when it would reach the Town of Selkirk. lt would still be muddy and it would still be dirty; in order for the people of Selkirk to drink it, the water would have to be treated. Now, I don't think we'v e fallen down in our responsibilities there, Mr. Chairman.

We are prepared to do whatever is reasonable; and we do do all things that are reasonable and proper and prudent to treat the effluent as it leaves the sewer tr.eatment plants of the City of Winnipeg. I believe that today we do follow all of the regulations, all of the guidelines that are imposed upon us, either by the province or by the Clean Environment Commission. So, with respect, I see no reason why now there should be a change to lift the exemption that we have had.

Because, I don't think in essence we have done any thing di fferent ly, except that many of the undertakings that we have done as a city over the last number of years have been done after consultation with the Clean Environment Commission and after public represen tation; not only by us, but by all interested citizens of Manitoba who have a concern about their environment. So we think that we have been more than responsible in maintaining our control and our responsibility. I guess, in essence, Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister and I are going to have to disagree with respect with this particular

section of the act. If the Minister is intent

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 on, indeed, lifting that exemption, well so be it. But we wanted to make our point known here tonight, before the act proceeds any further, that we have a concern with that and we really have not had an adequate response as to why that exemption would want to be lifted. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any other comments or questions? Otherwise, thank you Councillor Eadie. MR. J. EADIE: Thank you Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The next presenter will be Mr. Bill Garang, (sic) representing the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association. Mr. Garang, third call, Mr. Garang?

We go to the next presenter, Mr. Brian Pannell, representing the Manitoba Environmentalists Inc. MR. B. PANNELL: Good evening Mr. Chairperson, members of the Legislative Assembly, Honour able Ministers. I have brought a paper that we produced in response to the original discussion paper. it's rather long and I will only address it later in my comments. To begin with, I'll make some general overview of the act as our group sees it. Generally speaking, you can divide this legislation into two purposes. One purpose is the licensing of new developments, which are going to have some sort of impact on the environment.

The other

section really deals with abatement procedures and is no change from the previous act. In changing the licensing process, I have given long consideration to whether we are making a step forward here or a step backward, or something not quite either one of those, and I think I've fallen decidedly in the middle. This is change, but I'm not sure whether it is positive change and I'm not sure whether it's negative change. I think we will only know, depending on how it's administratively put into effect.

The act itself does not really give us a sense of a positive step forward in environmental legislation in Manitoba. 1 might add, this is quite in conflict, in the sense the langua ge that has gone along with this bill, that this is a major step forward, that this is a change of significant magnitude. lt isn't. What this is is a change in a licensing procedure that we already have and it's a modest change in the licensing procedure. The major positive change is that we now have better enforcement procedures. That is, that a person upon conviction will now face larger penalties.

In particular, they'll face the penalty of being incarcerated and that will include individuals, as well as corporate directors, and that is a major useful change to the legislation. (Mr. Chairman in the Chair.) Where it takes a step backwards is on public participation and who is overseeing the whole administration of the licensing process. And here, under the old act, we did have, in certain circumstances, the ability of the public to demand a hearing.

On the variance of an order, the public could demand a hearing under the current Clean Environment Act and not be denied it. 79 Under the current legislative proposal there will be no opportunity at which the public may demand a hearing and get it. In fact, the only person who can ask for a hearing is the Minister. His director can recommend the hearing, but only the Minister can ask for a hearing. So the public has largely been removed from this act, and it will be only upon the good wishes of the incumbent Minister, that the public will continue to have a role in the legislation as it goes into the future.

I particularly think this is a very bad thing, and speak strenuously against it, and in that, echo the words of Mr. Eadie, who is representing the city. I'll stay on the topic of the public participation, because I think that is perhaps the most crucial issue in this whole legislative process. lt seems to me that when we adopt a new way of dealing with our environmental problems, we have to make a major departure from the past. I take issue with Mr. Eadie, in that all the city's practices have been in the best interest of a clean and good environmental policy.

I would take issue with anyone who said that all our practices outside the city have been of the same nature. it's quite the contrary, that's why we're addressing this act today, is because we have a community feeling. I would say the public is way ahead of government on this, that we, in fact, do not use the proper procedures in the way we interact with our environment. So we're looking now at finding a new way of interacting with the environment that is different, that is better than the way we've done it before.

Now, it seems to me that the way a licensing procedure has worked in the past has been that an advocate has stepped forward, saying I have a development that I wish to proceed with. In the past, they have stepped forward to the Clean Environment Commission. Then the Department of the Environment has played a role as well, coming forward and putting forward its perspective on the developmental proposal. That is essentially where it stood. There have been two parties involved.

Occasionally, a member of the public steps forward, voluntarily, and without resources, and provides some personal input into the situation, into the appli cation. But very generally speaking, we have had two parties to these proposals and two parties only. 1t seems to me that the most significant improvement in the way we deal with environmental licensing, would have been to add a third party, to add the public in a significant way. The way to do that is not by removing their ability to initiate their own participation, but strengthening that.

In addition, providing the public with the resources, so that they could make educated and informed commentary onto each application as it comes forward. Now that might not be able to be done in the smallest applications, or the applications with the smallest impact, but it most certainly should be done with the applications with the largest impact; in this act, it's done in no situations. Not only does the public not have the abil ity to call for hearings, but there's no funding of the public, in any manner whatsoever, for public participation. That is a huge omission from the act.

I'l l tell you one of the reasons why it is a huge omission. it's because good criticism is only good criticism if the alternatives can be put forward to the

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 proposal on the table. We're going to have developers of large magnitude, the City of Winnipeg, coming forward with ideas, which someone may think are bad, but they really can only provide effective critical commentary, if they put forward useful alternative suggestions. The public will not be able to really engage in that kind of criticism, unless they are provided with resources. I have spoken with the Minister on many occasions, and he's left me with no doubt that there are no new resources going forward at this time with this piece of legislation.

That is, there will be no new money behind enforcement of this legislation. There'll be no new money for education of the public under this legislation. lt seems to me that simply the influx of money would perhaps have a more positive impact on the way we handle our environmental situations than some of the changes that are being suggested in the act. I might add, in terms of the funding of public, it need not be governmental money that's pumped in and need not be taxpayers' money.

There are many jurisdictions outside of Manitoba that require the proponent of a development to develop the funding for the criticizm of the proposal. That is a possible way of at least pr oviding the largest projects with thir d-party intervention, so that they're fully and totally vetted or fully before the public eye. I see that nowhere in this legislation and it leaves me with the impression that the public will not be participating anymore than they have in the past, and that means, in my view, that this is not a significant change in even the licensing process.

There will always be two parties in the future, as there have been in the past, and the environment will continue to get short shrift, as it has in the past. I'm not convinced that this will change under this legislation. lt may be perhaps why the act shifts control over the decision-making process, from a quasi-judicial body , the Clean Environment Commission, to an administrative arm, in the belief that the administrative process will somehow take account of public opinion; but I personally don't have that feeling.

Now, in this respect, I take your attention to the recently published, "Our Common Future," which is - by the more common usage - "T he Brundtland Commission Report" brought out by the United Nations under Madam Brundtland. The Canadian participant on the Brundtland Commission was Murray Strong from Manitoba and I quote on page 64: "Free access to relevant information and the availability of alternative sources of technological expertise can provide an inf ormed basis for public dis cussi on.

When the environmental impact of a proposed project is particularly high, public scrutiny of the case should be mandatory and, wherever feasible, the decision should be su bject to prior public approval, perhaps by referendum.'' Now, they take it a lot farther than I'm taking it, but the Brundtland Comm ission has said that public participation is crucial and this bill does not give appr opriate recognition of that. I might point out that in the introduction to the act, public participation is referred to as public consultation, so public participation is played down throughout the act.

Now there are a number of comments that I will make, despite the fact that this legislation is more or less set 80 in place. When we came forward, you'll note in the documents I have handed out, we spoke very strongly for the establishment of a right to the public to a clean environment and the ability of the public themselves to enforce that right. That does not appear anywhere in this act, and in fact nothing approaching it appears in the act.

I brought to the Minister's attention the fact that in Ontario such a bill is now going through the Ontario Legislature, sponsored by the NDP. lt establishes a right to a clean environment and then gives each individual the right to sue in a court of law upon that right, so that an individual, not just government, now takes on the obliga tion of keeping the environment clean. This was sponsored by a Mrs. Greer, MPP, and it has received Second Reading, so it's been approved in principle.

This is the kind of innovative forefront type of legislation - the words which have been used to describe our legislation - which is more appropriate. I wou ld recommend that to you for consideration as to, if not this legislation, legislation in the future. With respect to the City of Winnipeg submission, I've already indicated I take issue with Mr. Eadie's contention that the City of Winnipeg has done everything within its power in the past to comply with the highest - or perhaps in his words - the reasonable level of environmental protection. I don't believe that has been the case.

I am concerned that it won't be the case in the future and I applaud the government for including the City of Winnipeg within this new legislation. I'm not sure that it is in fact wholly included. I note The City of Winni peg Act empowers the city to undertake environmental assessments.

I don't have an opinion on this matter, but I would suggest there is room for conflicting environ mental assessment procedures under two provincial statutes allowing for the possibility of unresolved conflicts, and I would suggest that that be corrected either by removing the City of Winnipeg's power to conduct environmental assessments, or by making this act the act that will prevail in the event of any conflict.

I know that what we have before us today has been arrived at with great internal discussion between governmental departments and that there's been compromise on all sides; and on those issues, I'm tempted not to be too vocal. However, at the same time I would hope that the necessity of making agreements between different departments that have an effect on the environmental decision-making process to al low tha t to func tion, should not allow large loopholes to appear in the act. I bring to your attention

section 11 .2, for instance, which states: ". . . notwithstanding the previous

section where development or type of development is subject to an existing approval process, that to the satisfaction of the Min ister, involves interested governmental departments and agencies, includes public consultation, and add resses environmental issues, the Minister may, by agreement with the Minister responsible for the Reviewing Department exempt the development or type of development from this section." In other words, certain existing processes may take precedence over this act, if an agreement could be reached between Ministers. And I would suggest that the agreements which are poor should be open to chatlenge by .the public and there should be some

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 opportunity for public challenge of these kinds of agreements. I'm going to go through some other sections of the act at this point in time. I'l l begin with the introductory clause which is 1.1 and I must say that it doesn't strike me that this is an introduction to an Environmental Act, it doesn't refer to protecting the environment anywhere in the int roductory sta tement. This is a mode st improvement over the previous draft because there the - well I won't refer to it - but it is a modest improvement. I would suggest that there's some way to go, in providing a

section for the intent and purposes of the act, that actually claims that the intention is to protect the environment. I bring your attention to the Federal Environmental Protection Act , which is currently undergoing discussion and obviously sponsored by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I have a copy of that here with me. I note that they've managed to get most of the things in, that you would expect to find in an Enviromental Act,

an act to protect and enhance the quality of the environment, and I could go on. Our particular proposed act, Bill 26, really down plays the role of the environmental protection and raises up our economic policies, and raises up past practice, and raises up the status quo, so that there won't be too much impinged by an environmental ethic. I would suggest tha t all tho se thin gs are properly to be considered, but this

section should be strengthened to remind us what this act is about. Another irony I think is worth pointing out - it's in keeping with most of my other comments - is that you'll find later on in the act, sections dealing with abatement. For those of you who may be unaware, abatement is a type of agreement between municipalities and the province, whereby polluted lands or poor pollution situations can be cleaned up, partly at the expense of the Provincial Government. I think you'll find, if you read those sections, that a proposal for abatement has to follow specific guidelines.

You just can't wander in, wade into it, and do it. You have to follow specific concrete, spelled-out guidelines you'll find in

section 48. You'l l also find that for an abatement project, a project to clean up pollution, you require public hearings. Now, go back to the licensing process. This is a licensing process of developments that we fear will pollute our land.

Now we have no specific guidelines; everything is at the dis cretion of the director or the Minister, and no need for public hearings, only if the Minister requests them. lt seems ironic to me that when we clean up the land, we need specific guidelines and public hearings; but when we're prepared to allow for its pollution, we don't need specific guidelines and public hearings. Those are all discretionary. lt seems to me that we have reversed our priorities in the act, and we should reverse them once more to get them right. Another topic of primary concern in this act is who is making the decisions? Mr.

Eadie, of the City of Winnipeg, brought to your attention the fact that it's now going to be changed from a quasi-judicial body, which is the Clean Environment Commission, over toward adminis trators in the Department of Environment, and specifically a director and the Minister himself. I almost hesitate, if the city's in favour of it; 81 I'm not sure if I should be, but nonetheless, I also agree that decisions, at first instance, should be made by a quasi-judicial board. I would hope that that board reflects a diversity of interests, both developmental and environmental.

I would hope that the whole procedure can be put forward before that board. As it stands now, a director will view an application, think about it; decide what he's going to require in terms of information from the applicant, decide whether he's going to have a pu blic hearing; if he decides to have a public hearing, he'll refer it to the Commission. The commission will sponsor public hearings, find out what the public has to say, if anything, report back to the director.

If the director and the Minister don't like the recommendations coming out of the public hearing, they have to put the reasons in writing. it's all a sort of convoluted process, which makes sure that the decision-maker is removed from the complainants, and I think that it would be proper to put everyt hing back in the hands of the Clean Environment Commission with this important proviso.

That is, if you don't add the third party, the public, in a way that's financed, in a way that they have resources, so they can make significant contributions, so that they are, in fact, the third party of the hearing, then we're going to continue on, as we have in the past, without significant environmental change in Manitoba. I'm sure there's a lot of other things I could say. I'm not sure what impact they would make. I'l l conclude by referring to the Government of Manitoba's policy on the environment.

There's a policy statement that was developed in the spring of 1986, and I think you'll find it somewhat at odds with the legislation that is proposed. The general philo sophy reads as follows: "The Government of Manitoba views the preservation of environmental quali ty as a matter of the highest importance, both in terms of human needs, and in terms of the intrinsic value of the environment, beyond the immediate and foreseeable human uses which it serves.

Humans are not viewed as above or separate from the environment, rather humans are seen as an integral part of the environment, capable of altering it in both negative and positive ways. Human impacts on the environment are inevitable, which should be managed in a manner which ensures its continued viability." With respect to public participation, the policy goes on to say: "Public knowledge and commitment are fundamental cornerstones of sustained attention to environmental qual ity.

Due to the emotionally-charged nature and complexity of environmental issues, a properly informed populace is critical to effective, collective decision-mak ing. The organiza tion of entrusted members of the public into highly skilled and effective interest groups has proven to be an important stimulus to the development of environmental ethic, which has facilitated more comprehensive and equitable decision-making by all sectors of society." I would point out that all through the discussions leading to this bill, statements by the department have been made quite in contrary to this policy.

That is, this policy states that there should be the development of public-interest groups concerned with the environment, publ ic-advocacy gr oups concerned with the environment. That is quite diametrically opposed to the policy of the current department, and it's reflected in

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 the fact that no funding and no attention to public participation is paid in this act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Pannell. Are there any questions? Mr. Santos. MR. C. SANTOS: Mr. Pannell, you mentioned that you differed with the councillors presentation, and that you do not agree that the exemption should continue, with respect to the city being exempt on liquid effluent. Is it because it would be a situation of direct conflict of interest, where the city itself would be a regulator and, at the same time, a regulated agency? MR. B. PANNELL: That's certainly true enough.

Also, in addition to that concern, it would be the fact that I don't personally believe the city has, on every occasion, at every opportun ity, made the decision that's been most favourable to harmonious co-existence between people and the environment, I suppose would be the best way to put it. Whether it's water waste management or any numb er of other issues, I think that there's many occasions when you can suggest that the city might have done something different than what it did. MR. C.

SANTOS: In other words, if the City of Winnipeg is, itself, a potential source of liquid pollutant, do you think that despite its possession of resources and expertise, it will not be in a position to effectively regu late itself, un less it is su bject to the same environmental standard and the same environmental procedures? MR. B. PANNELL: Mr.

Chairperson, in the matter of environmental issues, expertise and experience is not divorced from values, and what we are seeing today in the discussion of this bill is disagreement over environmental values and that's what comes up every time when environmental issue is discussed between two parties; and it doesn't really matter what expertise and experience the city has, the problem is that their value system is different than the value system held by some others, who would think that the city should go to greater lengths than they have in the past to make sure the environment is protected, either from city activities or from activities of groups within the control of the city.

MR. G. CUMMINGS: Mr. Pannell, through the Chair, do you feel that there has been too much authority put in the hands of the bureaucracy with this legislation? MR. B. PANNELL: Well perhaps it's a judgment call, but I would have much preferred to have professionals who are solely emplo yed, making environ mental decisions on a day-to-day basis, who stay there whether one government comes in or another government goes, be making the first level of environmental decision. lt leaves the Minister open to change the decision, but it means the change has taken place with a first level decision having been made. MR. G.

CUMMINGS: How does that jibe with your request for more public input? 82 MR. B. PANNELL: Well, under either system I think there's a need for more public input. If we do not have more than the applicant and the department present for these decisions, then we're not going to have, in my estimation, improvement in the decisions. When I say an improvement, I mean decisions which are more weighted in the future to protection of the environment than they have been in the past.

I think that the public, at this point in time, as I said earlier, is way out in front of administrators and of politicians on their belief that something should be done to protect the environment - they're not quite sure what - but they believe that something should be done to protect the environment.

If we give interested members of the public the resources to come up with the ideas of how that environment should be protected, I think they'll do so, and I think for the first time we'll have, not just the department and not just the applicant speaking to a specific development proposal, but we'll also have a very good environmental perspective put forward by the public. HON. G. LECUYER: Am I correct, Mr. Pannell, that you would prefer not to see the

section on the intents and purposes put in there? MR. B. PANNELL: No, when we first met with your departmental officials we, in fact, suggested that a intent and purpose

section be put in, so that the act would have youthful interpretative device if it reached the courts, but also so that anyone reading the act had a general idea of the thrust of the legislation. Unfortunately , my view is that the intent and purpose

section more reflects the concerns of the government not to place too much of an emphasis on environmental protection than it does in fact on environmental protection. So I would like to see an environmental protection ethic strengthened in the intent section, much more so than currently exists. You know, it's quite easy. We can read it. it's right there now, and I won't read the first paragraph, but for instance . . . HON. G. LECUYER: Read the first paragraph. MR. B. PANNELL: Okay.

"The intent of the act is to develop and maintain an environmental management system in Manitoba, which will ensure the environment is maintained in such a manner as to sustain a high qu ality of life including social and economic development, recreation and leisure for this and future generations, and in this regard, the act ... ", and I'l l stop there because so far it could encompass exactly the way we've been carrying on life today. We can make no changes whatsoever and we're in compliance with the description that I've just read. And then, "(

a) is complementary to and support for existing and future provincial planning and policy mechanisms." Well, it doesn't say environmental policy mechanisms, it's all policy mechanisms, which means it's economic policy mechanisms, it's all the policies of the government must now be taken into account in interpreting this act. In other words, a judge reading this says this act was designed not to rock the status quo too much

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 because they said it's complementary to and support for existing and future provincial planning and policy mechanisms. So if you take a pol icy which is diametrically opposed to the environment, or you've got one now, you've said that that's taken into account when you brought this piece of legislation forward, and I say that's not a very strong environmental intent that you put forward in your act. "(

b) provides the environ mental assessment of projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment." So the only concerns you've specified in your intention

section is "significant effects" from the environment. Anyth ing that do esn 't have a significant effect that might be cumulative, in small doses as time goes on, is not being add ressed by your intent section. "(

c) provides for the recognition and utilization of existing effective review processes and adequately address environmental issues." So what that

section tells me is where we've got an existing system and someone already has a vested interest in it and they don't want to give up departmental responsibility, and they're going to find some way of negotiating the continuance of that review system with the Department of the Environment, then we'll keep it. So again this is another

section that says, what we've got we'll keep and we won't make a change in that area. "(

d) provides for public consultation ... "not public participation, "public consultation in environmental decision making while recognizing the responsibility of elected government including municipal governments as decision makers." I sort of take this one personally. I figure that this one was put in dir ectly because I've been screaming about public participation so much and just to cap if off, we'll say that you reminded Mr. Pannell that the government makes these decisions, not the public, and we'll put this in writing, that it's the government that will make the final decision. The public will only have a consultative role. So here we have our intent

section and it seems to me that it's as lukewarm as you can get. Since you brought the issue up, I can't read the whole thing, as it goes on for pages in The Environmental Protection Act, and I would add that The Environmental Protection Act is no model for just about anything else, except this, so it's a more useless piece of legislation than some.

"lt is essential that the Government of Canada act to protect and enhance the quality of the environment, provide leadership in the establishment of nationally consistent standards of environmental qual ity, give due regard to making decisions to environmental values, encourage the participation of the people of Canada in the making of decisions that affect their environment, encourage the development of a social and economic plant that accords environmental values, a fundamental role in the making of decisions in the public and private sector, and provide information to the people of Canada on the state of their environment." I don't know how you compare them, but that's leaps and bounds ahead of our statement of intent, and I'm sure we could improve upon it.

MR. CH AIRM AN: Oka y, thank you for your presentation, Mr. Pannell. 83 The next presentation is from Mr. Alan Scarth. Mr. Scarth. MR. A. SCARTH: Mr. Chairman, I've observed that the protocol before this committee is like that at the Wimbledon Tennis Tournament where, if the Duke takes off his coat the common people can take off their coat. I notice the Minister has taken off his coat, so I assume it would all right if I take off my coat, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, Mr. Scarth.

I hope it's unlike Wimbledon in one respect and that is that we don't have the John McEnroe syndrome with the Chairperson of Committee. No arguments. Thank you, very much. Please proceed, Mr. Scarth. MR. A. SCARTH: I undertake not to dispute the decisions here. MR. CHAIRMAN: He didn't play this year. MR. A. SCARTH: I appear as a private citizen, Mr. Chairman.

I have the privilege of being Chairman of the Fort Whyte Centre for Environmental Education which, if I may remind those present, is supported by the government and governments in the past and has been responsible for giving environmental education to something like 25,000 school students a year. Also I happen to be trustee of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, but I don't appear in either of those capacities here. The environment is my avocation as a lawyer, not my vocation. I have no apology and the committee would, I think, ask none for a substantial brief on this important bill.

If it's an important bill for us it, and other environmental legislation across the world will be, literal ly, Mr. Chairman, a matter of life and death for our grandchildren. This brief reviews Bill 26 in a number of aspects, but the prime purpose is to make the members of the Leg islative Assembly aware of a sign ificant and fundamental change in approach to environmental legislation, recommended by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its very recently published report, Our Common Future. I don't know whether the members are familiar with this report.

The previous speaker referred to it briefly. I think it will come to be looked upon as a critical piece of writing for our generation. This basic change in approach would make the central agencies and major sectoral ministries of government respons ible for the qu ality of those parts of the environment affected by their decisions; that's the critical change. The relevance to Bill 26 lies in the intent of the bill to empower the Department of Environment to license and control farming. The World Commission would place the mandate for environmental control of farming with the Department of Agriculture.

This brief documents the rationale and recommends appropriate amendment of the bill. The un derlying principle on which the World Commission report is based, is the need to achieve sustainable development. And, Mr. Chairman, those two words will be the watch-words of the future.

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 To this end each central, economic and sectoral Ministry, be it Manitoba Hydro or the Department of Agriculture, must be responsible to control developmental activity in the area that the Ministry understands and can plan for, so that the environment is not degraded by the development. The agriculture minis tries should be responsible for dir ecting agricultural practices toward sustainable development of the land base. Now I've commented, in the printed brief which I've submitted, on our common future, the Report of the World Commission. I'll just briefly highlight those comments.

As has been noted, the Prime Minister of Norway has given her time as Chairman of this Commission. The other 20 people are all prominent people from different countries of the world. The Report of the Commission has only been delivered in May of this year, so what we'r e seeing in this report is a new development in environmental policy law.

And to quote a commentary: "Most of today's decision-makers will be dead" - and I suppose that means us, it certainly means you - "b efore the pl anet suffers the full consequences of acid rain, global warming, ozone depletion, widespread desertification, and species loss." The comment is made: "Most of today's young voters will be alive." And moving to the essence, because we are in the process on page 3 of reviewing our environmental legislation, the Brundtland Report could not be more time ly.

Our Mani toba population of 1, 000,000 is qua ntitatively a small com ponent of the world population, which is now rapidly approaching 6 billion. But we, in Manitoba, have a reputation for forward thinking and we can be among the first to bring our environmental legislation to the new world standard. The brief refers to the Canadian federal-provincial jurisdiction. I want to get to the nub of the brief, so I'll just again highlight the references to the Federal Act which, as we all know, was tabled only 10 days ago, on June 26th in the House of Commons.

I make the comment that the Federal bill illustrates both the reach and the limitations of the Federal legislative power. Basically , it deals with the control of chemical substances and empowers the Federal Minister to develop environmental quality objectives. lt's the task, it's the responsibility of this Legislature, to control developmental activity.

To the bottom of the page, page 3, from an agricultural perspective - and this is part of the essence of the problem dealing with agriculture - the federal bill also holds out the prospect that the federal department will achieve gr eater certainty about the safety of the herbi cides and pesticides essential for sustained development of food production. And I make the comment, the recent uncertainty about chemical formulations, which have long been registered, and which have become a routine part of farming practice, is una cceptable. Agricultural inputs are not elective in today's cost squeeze.

Each chemical has been selected by the farmer on a cost-efficiency basis. Farmers do not need additional concerns as to the safety or availability of essential chemicals and I comment, in

summary, that the federal bill does make possible a program for re-evaluation of herbicides and pesticides, and this is urgently required so that all concerned will know how to forward plan. 84 Going to the bottom of that segment of the brief, all of this, that is the Federal jurisdiction, is a further and uniquely Canadian argument for the Brundtland Report recommenda tion, that industries be environmentally controlled by their sectoral ministries, so that industry growth policies will make sustainable development possible within environmental standards, and we now know those standards will be both federal and provincial.

Moving to the bill, specifically, and looking at the basic legislative plan, Bill 26 requires most citizens of Manitoba who grow, process or manufacture products, to obtain a licence from the Department of the Envi ron ment. Mr. Chairman, that's a star tling propos ition. No other statute, to my knowledge, purports to legislate anything like this degree of control over the livelihoods of citizens without built-in statutory safeguards. This control is being proposed under the best auspices, as such things always are, in the name of environmental protection, which is, of course, urgently needed.

But the unqualified right to administratively limit or prohibit virtually all productive enterprise, including traditional occupations, such as, farming, endangers the credibility of the environmental process. This brief will suggest a number of ways in which the bill can be modified to avoid the infringement of rights, which would result from what is, in essence, a simplistic approach to a complex problem. The following

section of the brief I've taken out the words "which effectively require a licence for every environmentally-related enterprise". All members of the committee are familiar, very familiar with the bill no doubt. I've just extracted four sections and I'll again distill the sections. Basically, "no person shall operate any development unless the person obtains a valid and subsisting licence." So immediately we ask, what does development mean? We move to look at development. lt means any activity which causes the emission or discharge of any pollutant. We look to see what pollutant means.

Pollutant means any solid, liquid, gas, smoke, waste, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation, or a combination of any of them, in excess of the natural constituents of the environment. Waste includes human or animal wastes, solid or liquid manure, or waste products of any kind. Within the parameters of those four provisions, in effect, this bill would require a licence for all economic activity in any way impacting the environment.

And in the second paragraph on page 6, I make the point the reach of the bill is such that unless permitted by licence or regulation, a farmer would be prohibited from spreading a load of manure on his field; nor could he get through his day without meeting a dozen other prohibitions.

I should now deal with what I call the trust in the regulations argument because I've seen it in Hansard, and I've seen it in the newspapers, and I make the comment that it must in fact be argued in order to make the legislation work at all, that traditional activities like farming will be exempted, or in part exempted from the licensing requirements in the proposed statute. The unacceptability of this proposition is obvious. The traditional right to make a living, once removed by a statute, cannot be replaced by a regulated exemption which itself might be amended or removed at any time by future governments.

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 By way of analogy, and I think it's a fair analogy, it might equally be proposed in the name of truth that all expression of media opinion be prohibited unless licensed. The media would be assured that regulations would be passed exempting traditional freedom of expression. I suggest the media would not be persuaded to trade a right for a regulation and, Mr. Chairman, nor should farmers. lt should be understood that current government policies or intentions are not an issue. This environment bill looks a generation ahead.

As our population becomes increasing urbanized, governments can be expected to be increasingly urban elected and oriented. Farmers need a long-term guarantee of the right to farm. And I should deal with a parallel proposal which arises by inference from

section 11 , which acknowledges that control by other departments may be acceptable in the Minister's discretion. This has the same problem as the regulations' argument. To guarantee the right to farm, farming should be excluded from the licensing requirements of The Environme nt Act. The ma ndate for environ mental control of farming practices should be left to the Department of Agriculture, indeed as recommended by the Brundtland Report. In the next

section of the brief I have quoted for the record, segments of the Brundtland Report. I won't read them at length here.

I want to suggest that especially worthy of note are the two quotes on the top of page 8: "E nviron mental agencies, says the Brundtla nd Report, with world experience behind them, usually learn of new initiatives in economic and trade policy, or in energy and agricultural policy, or of new tax measures that will have a severe impact on resources long after the effective decisions have been taken ." And the report goes on at length, describing what we know so well to be a catch-up process, that the Department of Environment in the past has had to pursue.

The report goes on: "Sectoral Ministries such as agriculture must be given a mandate to pursue their traditional goals in such a way that those goals are reinfo rced by a steady enhancement of the environmental resource base of their own national community, and of the small planet we all share." And the most obvious application of this Brund tland principle in Man itoba is to make the Department of Agriculture responsible for the farm environment. From a policy point of view the inter-relationship of government programs and environmental impact is everywhere evident.

Programs for opening up marginal land or for taking it out of production are related to soil degradation and erosion. Programs influencing fertilizer use also influence downstream water qual ity. Livestock programs must take into account the capability of land and water to accommodate wastes. Equally important, th ere is the very practical consideration that a Department of the Environment structured primarily to police urban industrial pollution, does not have an extensive rural administrative network qualified to serve thousands of rural farms.

Farmers are rightly concerned about environment department inspectors attemptig to regulate farming practices. A recent

article in the Manitoba Cooperator quoting Environment Department officials was headed, "Don't 85 Fear Environment Bill." it's the wrong heading. The

article states in part, to quote: "lt is currently illegal to let livestock waste drain into waterways, even though such is the case on hundreds of Manitoba farms. Officials will enforce the law when they spot infractions or receive complaints, but with only 40 inspectors looking at everything from restaurants to swimming pools, it's impossible to inspect every farm." That was under the heading: "Don't Fear Environment Bill." In fact, it raises the very concern that the Brundtland principle has raised in a more formal way.

If there are in fact hundreds of farms which are subject to a Department of the Environment regulation which makes their operation illegal, then there's something wrong with the regulation, not something wrong with the farms, Mr. Chairman. We should start with the proposition that farmers should be entitled to conduct their operations as they have traditionally done.

If agricultural experts and farm organizations can be convinced that a change is required in those practices to achieve sustained development of the land base, then a long-term program to encourage a change in those practices should be funded through the Department of Agriculture. Certainly, the farmers can't afford it. On page 9, I've dealt with the farmers as managers of the environment and the point that I make there is the one that's well known to you all, that in southern Manitoba, outside the limits of our cities, farmers are effectively managing the environment.

By and large, they know what needs to be done. Ideal farming practices, however, are almost always more costly and these days there's no room in the budget. The answer as most recently recommended by the Senate Committee, the Sparrow Committee in a seminal piece of writing lies in pol icy init iatives by the Departments of Agriculture rather than in another layer of well-meant but unaffordable policing from outside the agricultural sector.

For all of these reasons, it's not to be expected that farmers will willingly give up their traditional right to farm in return for the tempor ary assurance of a regulatory exemption. This Legislature, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, should act now on the Brundtland Report to exempt farms from licensing and to make the Department of Agriculture responsible for controlling any environmental impacts of farming which require control in order to maintain the land base. On page 10, Mr . Chairman, I have dr afted amendments which would guarantee the right to farm.

What's required, I submit, is a simple provision subheaded "No licence required to farm," which by itself will be reassurance to the farming community. Notwithstan ding any other provision of this act: (

a) No farmer is required to obtain a licence from the director for a farm or for any farming operation; (

b) No farm or farming operation is or shall be deemed to be a development within the meaning of the act; and (

c) Subject to paragraphs (

a) and (b), that is no licence and no deemed development, the Minister of Agriculture is exclusively responsible to determine what provisions of the act and regulations apply to farmers, farms, and farming operations, and the Department of Agriculture is exclusively responsible to ensure compliance with those regulations.

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 Now in no sense, Mr. Chairman, would this provision dilute control over farming operations. What it would do would be to put the control within the policy purview of the Department of Agriculture, the sectoral ministry. Then we would be up to date in our environmental law. We cannot really be faulted for the draft because the concept of sectoral responsibility is only a very few months old.

But it's timely that we see the Brundtland Report and understand where they're coming from and it's timely that we amended, I suggest, the act, both to reassure farmers that they do have the right to farm without a licence and, secondly, to give the Department of Agriculture control over the environmental impact of their policies. I would like to move from agriculture to two other aspects, two other major aspects, practical aspects of pollution which have been of interest to me over the past several years.

First of all, these vehicle emissions and ur ban pesticide programs are two major sources of pollution which are not directly related to development, and these should be appropriately dealt with by the Department of Environment in Manitoba in conjunction with the Federal Department of Environment. I want to acknowledge that Manitoba has made a pioneering contribution to reduction of vehicle emissions. lt is now well accepted that the lead component in regular gasolines must be phased out for health reasons and the Federal Government is doing it, not as quickly as the United States Government but it is doing it.

The substitution of grain alcohol, or ethanol, for the lead in order to produce a higher octane, efficient, lead­ free fuel, has been encouraged by the Manitoba Government and it pio neered in th is. Gasohol is exempted from the full impact of the provincial gasoline tax; gasohol is the 10 percent ethanol/gasoline blend which is achieving increasing acceptance in the North American market. The tax exemption brings the cost of gasohol, under today's crude prices, close to that of straight gasoline, and the Mohawk Oil Company has been marketing gasohol in Manitoba as a result.

The result of the exemption has not only been to reduce the percentage of lead in Manitoba's atmosphere, but to make possible the establishment of an ethanol distillery at Minnedosa by the Mohawk Company. And that company, as you know, is using off-grade grain and providing a cash crop to farmers.

That kind of leadership, since this 1980 initiative by Manitoba, has brought first of all Alberta, then B.C., and now Saskatchewan close to being on-side. lt would not be surprising if, within six months or a year, all four provinces have exemptions of road taxes or gasoline taxes which would permit ethanol mixes, if that ethanol is produced by biomass to go relatively tax free, sufficiently so that they can compete with straight gasoline. The government is to be congratulated on maintaining this tax exemption. Further comment deserves to be made on pesticides in the urban environment.

This is the third serious case that must be dealt with under The Environment Act. Man itoba's cities experience un usual seasonal concentrations of these insects, mosquitoes and cankerworms; this is particularly true of Winnipeg. There are some southern United States cities which have a similar environment, but Winnipeg is almost unique· in Canada.

The resultant ground and aerial spraying of 86 pesticides in the cities has given rise to continuing controversy between those who are concerned about the insects and those who are concerned about the effect on the urban environment and on human health of the chemical pesticides. I just heard recently that a lecturer in the medical school was saying that if he had to make a list of the four potential carcinogens to be identified by the medical profession, his No. 1 choice would be the use of chemical pesticides.

Bill 26 addresses this problem in part by bringing pesticide programs clearly within the licensin g jurisdiction, and setting adequate penalties for failure to comply with licensing requirements. That's very healthy and useful. What is missing is a statement of the principle upon which assessment of proposed programs and appli cation is to be made by the Department of Environment, and essentially I say this is a question of onus of whether the applicant has the burden of proof to establish safety, or the objectors have the burden of proof to establish potential danger.

Now, in Winnipeg, this controversy has a history of almost 20 years, since The Environmental Protection Act of 1969 in the U.S. Sh ortly after that, the requirement for an impact statement was introduced in The City of Winnipeg Act. In 1974, in the court case Stein versus the City of Winnipeg, the plaintiff took action to prevent the spra ying of methoxychl or. Basically, what she was saying was that the scientific result, the scientific medical effect of methoxychlor was uncertain. There was a harmless pesticide called Dipel.

In those circumstances, an environmental impact statement should be filed with the City of Winnipeg, and, in the result, if safety can't be established, the pesticide shouldn't be used. An interim injunction was refused by the courts in a split decision. Before the issue could be further tried, the City of Winnipeg petitioned the Legislature for, and obtained an amendment to The City of Winnipeg Act, removing the requirement for environmental impact statements.

The amending bill, with the required unanimous consent, received-all three readings in the same day; a commentary on the level of interest and appreciation, only 13 years ago. Now public opinion has shifted since that time. I give you a reference from a scholarly journal, establishing that it is now moving back to midpoint, and that there is increased evidence of potential environmental and health problems resulting from chemical pesticides, and this is inducing a more cautious approach.

There's an increased recognition of the rights of individuals in our cities to avoid contact with these chemicals in public streets and parks, as well as on their own property. The current view- and we're getting now to the point of this sub mission - the current view of the appropriate decision-making process is that where there is a scientific uncertainty as to the dangers of a proposed program, the principle of benefit risk analysis should be applied.

This principle requires that where the benefit is significant, as in the prevention of possible equine encephalitis by killing a hatch of mosquitoes - and we've seen that - when the Provincial Health Officer certifies that there's a dang er, the risk of using a chemical of some potential danger itself is justified. Parallel cases that are in the rural environment arises where a chemical pesticide is essential for crop

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 production. The Department of Agriculture establishes a policy that if farmers are taking appropriate personal precautions, and no other persons will come in contact with the pesticide, the benefit then, un der those circumstances, outweighs the risk. At the other end of the scale in the case of spraying programs to prevent da mage to tr ee foliage by cankerworms, where the benefit is essentially aesthetic, the risk to the environment and to health of using a chemical pesticide of scientifically uncertain effect, in heavily popula ted urban areas, is simply not justified.

We've seen this come and go. Twenty years ago, we were spraying DDT in the city, and we were spraying it generously. There were doubts about it, but it wasn't until we saw severe effects on the environment, and we recognized that DDT was being concentrated in the livers of those who are at the top of the chain, including ospreys and the human animals and we realize that we ought not to have taken that risk. I'm suggesting we ought not to take the risk of using chemical pesticides in circumstances where the benefit is simply aesthetic, such as a cankerworm program.

An instance this spring, so you'll know that it's a practical problem, the Department of Environment is without statutory guidance in this important area of decision making. Aerial spraying of the chemical pesticides, methoxychlor and malathion over public streets and park areas in the City of Winnipeg was actually licensed by the department for a cankerworm program just this spring. There was public objection. (Mr. Chairman in the Chair.) The avai labili ty of the harm less Dip el and the preferential use of Dipel by the City of Winnipeg in its public area programs were both made known to the department.

But the department, without statutory direction to apply benefit-risk analysis, felt that it had no alternative but to permit the aerial spraying. The aerial spraying of malathion, in fact, proceeded over public streets and park areas. The Department of Environment deserves direction and support in the form of a statutory statement of the benefit-risk principle.

The required amendment follows: On page 15 , I've drafted a provision which would, in effect, guarantee that where a program is essential it won't be denied, but where it's non-essential and there's scientific uncertainty about the result, it will be denied.

You see the draft - no doubt Legislative Counsel would like to break that paragraph up into segments, but effectively what it says is that when there is risk inherent in the development, by reason of scientific uncertainty about the effect of a pollutant, which will be cause to be discharged into the environment by the development on the quality of the environment, or on health or safety, the director, and these are the key words, "shall not issue a licence for the development unless the economic benefit of the development, or the benefit thereof to the quality of the environment or to the health or safety of persons justifies the risk in herent in the development." The reason we use the word "development" is because that is the key word in the act.

Effectively, that would put into the act the principle of benefit-risk analysis, which would be the guarantee that where a 87 program is needed, it'll be done; where it isn't needed, it won't. General commentary on the bill, there are two points which deserve mention here. Bill No. 26 is well designed for control of pollution by industrial developments and I want to emphasize that.

There's a tendency, when one makes a submission about a piece of legislation, not to recognize the hard work that's gone into it, because in the short time available, we have to look at the various segments which perhaps need attention. But it's well designed for its purpose. Extensive powers of enforcement are necessary in this area.

Section 16, however, raises a question of principle governing legislative drafting. This is a

section that's called "Deemed development" in the sub-head, and it's brief: "16. Where there is a disagreement as to whether any project, industry, operation or activity, or any alteration or expansion thereof is a development, the matter shall be determined by the minister." Since all developments require a licence, the definition of development is central to the act. To authorize the Minister to decide whether any activity, harmless or injurious, is a development, is in effect a delegation of legislative authority to the Minister.

I hardly need emphasize that we're not talking about the Minister in office, we're talking about the Minister for the next generation. To have it in the power of the Minister to determine that an activity is a development, in effect, enlarges the ambit of the act at the discretion of the Minister. In fairness to industry, and to assure the credibility of the act there should be certainty about what is or is not a development. The definition of development seems clear - somebody's done a lot of work on it - and it covers any activity which causes or is likely to cause pollution.

If there is a valid question whether any industry or activity is covered, it is the function of the courts to determine it. lt ought not to be a matter of discretion and it's recommended that

section 16 be deleted from the bill. Lastly, to make this act as forward-looking as it ought to be in 1987, the mandate of the department, in the light of the Brundtland Report should recognize the principle of sustainable development. lt isn't sufficient, Mr. Chairman, for the act to dwell upon control. The act ought to be aimed toward maintaining sustainable development. Un less we can do that, unless we can develop resources without damaging the heritage of the future, then we'll have failed.

So, as an additional function of the department, I'm recommending that the aims and objectives of the department include: to act jointly with other government departments, other governments and other citizens of Manitoba to create a system of environmental control which will permit sustainable development of the resources of Manitoba. Essentially, we have to put environmental control positively in the next generation. The very words "environment", and "environment organizations" have become degraded by the fact that they're constantly in the position of criticizing.

In the next generation, we'll have to establish a system which will provide for sustained development. That does not mean that developm ent should be hinder ed; it should be

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 encouraged. But unless it's encouraged - according to the Brundtland Report - on a sustainable basis, within 20 years, in the early years of this next century , we'll have gone beyond the point where we can reverse the damage to the environment. So the objective is just not applicable in this province, it is a world objective . There are some minor drafting suggestions which I have but I'll convey them directly to the Legislative Counsel. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Findlay . MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would certainly like to thank Mr.

Scarth for his very complete, precise and timely presentat ion on this bill. Certainly , my own feelings are expressed there, too, because we've been asking the Minister for specia l consideration for agriculture , to recognize the unique status that it needs to have in our society , and your drawing parallels to the Brundtland Report helps very definitely to emphasize what you're bringing forward here as proposed changes in the present bill.

I agree with you that licensing and control of farming will eventually occur, even though the Minister has repeatedly given us assurances that the regulations of exemption for certain aspects of agriculture will remain in place . But, Mr. Scarth, having heard the person who presented before you, I am quite convinced, even more convinced now than I was before, that there are people in society who want to see very strict regulations on the activi ties that occur out in the environment . And , Mr.

Scarth, as you well know , and I would like the Minister to read your brief very carefully because agriculture is the environment and agriculture needs the freedom to carry on its operations . It needs the right to farm. I would certainly hope that the Minister will read very carefully what you say on the bottom of page 9 about exempting farms from the licensing, and make the Department of Agriculture responsible for controlling any environmental impacts of farming which require control in order to maintain the land base, and your recommendations for amendments regarding no licence to be required to farm .

I would clearly hope that the Minister will act responsibly and remove agriculture or any reference to licensing in agriculture from this present act. But what I'd like to ask you, Mr. Scarth , is do you have any idea why the Minister of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture wouldn 't be asking for this responsibility by themselves, why they wouldn't ask for it and had it removed already from this bill? MR. A. SCARTH: Through the Chair, Mr. Findlay, I think the reason for that is simple and practical.

We're at a watershed in environmental policy law; we're living in a time when the concepts of environmental control are changing almost overn ight . The Brundtland Report , which I commend to you all, it's not yet available here to my knowledge - it may be - is telling us that after three hard years, 21 good minds have concluded that the old system of environmental control by environmental departments is simply out of date.

Now, since this report was only pub lished in May and certainly wasn't available during June here, it may 88 be now, it's understandable that we, as a Legislature and the government people, have not had an opportunity to absorb the new concepts. This would also apply to the Minister of Agriculture. There's always been an assumption that the Department of Environment is going to be policing the environment. What we're hearing under the Brundtland Report is that that is no longer the wave of the future because it's not an effective way to do it.

If we want to alter the way people act, we have to, in that sector such as agriculture, establish policies which will permit farmers in that case to function effectively withou t damaging the environment. It's no longer on to let them proceed , to warn them you're illegal and then to send somebody out in low shoes to walk around a feedlot and threaten somebody with a fine or jail. That is not the way to do it. We hardly needed the Brundtland Report to remind us of that but they're doing the thinking and we're not.

So, I don 't think it's ever occurred yet to provincial Legislatures that that's how development will have to be regulated in the future. Now's our chance to move with the times. MR. G. FINDLAY: In the future, should this bill go ahead as it is and farmers are required to have their various operations licensed , there would naturally be a number of restrictions put on the way operat ions are done . Can you see any way in which farmers can afford the cost of the licensing in the regulation, either now or in the not too distant future? MR. A.

SCARTH: Well, really, I'm unable to comment on farm economics with anything like the expertise that is brought to this table, Mr. Chairman, but it's common knowledge that there is no money to alter farm practices at the present time. If that money is going to be found, it has to be found within government programs. HON. G. LECUYER: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Scarth . Mr. Scarth, there are some very intersting suggestions made in your brief, which I will obviously read carefully.

I would like to comment on one of the points that you make in regard to the Brundtland Commission and I want to indicate to you that I Chair .a task force which is the follow-up to the Brundtland Commission; and I would like to suggest that perhaps in some ways you make a narrow

interpretation of some of the recommendations of the Brund tland Commission, which, in effect, doesn't say, yes, indeed , it does put an emphasis on the sustainable development aspect , because in as much as we do that , therefore we will guarantee production in the environment for future generations. If we want to guarantee that there's something to develop , we will have to look after the environment.

But it does not say and it doesn't suggest that the Department of Environment be less involved in the decisions or the environmental impacts that might be caused by other activities in, especially agriculture, or any other activities. In fact, it says that the environment should be central to the decisions that shall be made in all economic areas . All economic decisions should take into

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 consi deration environmental impa cts and hopes strongly that all countries are going to move along the route where they will make the environment more central to the decision-making process in all spheres of socioeconomic development.

At one time all farming activities which are now under regulation, required a permit or a licence, but because of the fact that most of these were of similar nature - we're talking primarily about dealing with wastes in the farming sector - they were incor porated under a regulation which can deal with these more expeditiously and effectively and with a greater degree of flexibility. And in there it says, for instance, that the farmers can spread their manure on the fields.

But to say that that has now to be removed from the act and none of the farming activities should appear in The Environment Act - we did not also suggest that, for instance, all mining activities should be under The Mining Act and all of the manufacturing activities should be under The Trade Act or the Trade and Technology Department, etc., all of the forestry activities should be under Natural Resources, and th erefore the Department of Environment no long er is responsi ble to be an independent body interested for the interests of all the people of Manitoba and seeing or being concerned about the environmental impact of these various activities under these various departments.

I hope that you realize, Mr. Scarth, that when a proposal comes in, this act that we pr9pose now would require the department, as part of that screening, to submit the proposal, not only to the public registry, but to all these departments that would be concerned. And therefore, they would have a major say in the analysis of that proposal. 1 hope that you also realize, Mr. Scarth, that presently, for instance, the whole of the pesticides is not in the Environment Department, as far as farming activities is concerned. 1t is under Agriculture.

You start by saying that progress is being made as a result of federal­ provincial pressures in that regard. But it is as a result of problems that have been underlined and have taken long in overcoming in making Agriculture Canada realize that perhaps it was not looking at this with the best interest, I would surmise, of even farmers; and perhaps therefore had to not only look at this independently, but also with some input from Environ ment Departments. I would also add only this, Mr.

Scarth, you who are in an urban sector, to say that the farming sector, for instance, should be removed from this and all of the impacts therefore removed from the purvey or of the Environment Department, what is the rural sector? What is the farming area versus for instance, the towns, the cities, and the expansion of the urban areas, or the manufacturing industries in the rural communities? How do you delineate if you are going to simply write out of the environment purvey, all of the farming sector? Do you not see