Manitoba Committee Hansard — 31 May 2005 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 1, 38th Legislature, 3rd Session)

38-3-sed1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Ms. Marilyn Brick Constituency of St. Norbert Vol. LVI No. 1 - 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 31, 2005 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon.

Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tuesday, May 31, 2005 TIME – 6:30 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows) ATTENDANCE - 11 QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Lathlin, Hon. Ms. McGifford, Hon. Messrs. Rondeau, Smith, Hon. Ms. Wowchuk Ms. Brick, Messrs. Cummings, Eichler, Martindale, Rocan, Mrs. Rowat Substitutions: Hon. Mr. Sale for Hon. Mr. Smith at 7 p.m. Hon. Mr. Smith for Hon. Mr. Sale at 7:36 p.m. APPEARING: Mr.

Leonard Derkach, MLA for Russell Mr. Larry Maguire, MLA for Arthur-Virden Mrs. Heather Stefanson, MLA for Tuxedo Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights Mr. John Loewen, MLA for Fort Whyte WITNESSES: Bill 21–The Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act Mr. Manson Moir, GASPE (Group Advocating Safe Petroleum Emissions) Mr. Bruce Campbell, Private Citizen Ms. Wendy Anderson, Private Citizen Ms. Laura Jean Campbell, Private Citizen Mr. Ken Wray, Private Citizen Mr.

Brad Thiessen, Manitoba Committee Chair, Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada Bill 17–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act Mr. Rob Robson, Manitoba Institute for Patient Safety Bill 43–The Regulated Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act Mr. William D. B. Pope, Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba Bill 18–Le Collège de Saint-Boniface Incorporation Amendment Act Ms. Solange Buissé, Asso ciation étudiante du Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface Mr.

Roland Gaudet, Association des professeurs du Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface Mr. Daniel Boucher, CEO, Société franco- manitobaine Mr. John Whiteley, University of Manitoba Faculty Association Mr. Jim Clark, Manitoba Organization of Faculty Associations WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Ms. Raymonde Gagné, Rector, Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface Mr. Jim Anderson, Private Citizen Mr.

Gordon Halls, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 15–The Emergency Measures Amendment Act Bill 17–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act Bill 18–Le Collège de Saint-Boniface Incorporation Amendment Act Bill 21–The Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act Bill 26–The Margarine Repeal Act Bill 27–The Horse Racing Commission Amendment and Horse Racing Regulation Repeal Act

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 Bill 32–The Rural Municipality of Kelsey By- law No. 5/02 Validation Act Bill 42–The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act Bill 43–The Regulated Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act * * * Madam Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order. Our first item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): I nominate Doug Martindale.

Madam Chairperson: Doug Martindale. I do not think your mike is on. Could you do that again, please? Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to nominate the MLA for Burrows, Mr. Martindale. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Martindale has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Martindale is elected Vice-Chairperson.

This meeting has been called to consider the following legislation: Bill 15, The Emergency Measures Amendment Act; Bill 17, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act; Bill 18, Le Collège de Saint-Boniface Incorporation Amendment Act; Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act; Bill 26, The Margarine Repeal Act; Bill 27, The Horse Racing Commission Amendment and Horse Racing Regulation Repeal Act; Bill 32, The Rural Municipality of Kelsey By-law No. 5/02 Validation Act; Bill 42, The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act; Bill 43, The Regulated Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act.

We have a number of presenters registered to speak this evening, as follows: For The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act: Rob Robson from the Manitoba Institute for Patient Safety. For Bill 18, Le Collège de Saint-Boniface Incorporation Amendment Act: Solange Buissé, students association of le Collège de Saint-Boniface; Roland Gaudet, Association des professeurs du Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface; Daniel Boucher, CEO, Société franco-manitobaine; John Whiteley, University of Manitoba Faculty Association; Jim Clark, Manitoba Organization of Faculty Associations.

For Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act: Manson Moir, GASPE (Group Advocating Safe Petroleum Emissions); Bruce Campbell, private citizen; Wendy Anderson, private citizen; I would like to advise the committee that Jim Anderson will not be in attendance; Laura Jean Campbell, private citizen; Brad Thiessen, Manitoba Committee Chair for the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada; Ken Wray, private citizen. For Bill 43, The Regulated Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act: Dr. William D.B. Pope, Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba.

Before we proceed with these presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with staff at the entrance of the room. Second, a written submission on Bill 18 from Raymonde Gagné, rector from the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, has been received and distributed to committee members. Also, two submissions for Bill 21 from Jim Anderson and from Gordon Halls have also been received.

Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in Hansard transcript for this evening? [Agreed] Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of the presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another 5 minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.

Regarding the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have out-of-town presenters in attendance marked with an asterisk on the list. As well, we have had a request from the first three presenters listed for Bill 18 to make their presentations in French. We do have translation staff on-hand to accommodate consecutive translation. With these considerations in mind, then, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr. Doug Marti ndale (Burrows): Madam Chairperson, the normal procedure would be to hear out-of-town presenters first, and so I think we should do that.

Madam Chairperson: Is that the will of the committee? [Agreed] Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Madam Chair, I, too, agree with hearing out-of-town presenters first. However, because of a conflict, I am wondering whether or not the committee would agree, by leave, to deal with three bills at or around seven o'clock so as to accommodate the critic. These are the health bills, Bill 17, Bill 42 and Bill 43, to allow the critic to attend to other matters. * (18:40) Mr. Martindale: Well, we have a slight problem because Mr.

Sale is not expected until seven o'clock, and I think the minister should be here to hear presentations. Mr. Derkach: Perhaps I did not make it clear. I had asked that we deal with these issues at seven or thereabouts, whenever Mr. Sale gets here. An Honourable Member: Oh, no, you were clear. Madam Chairperson: Excuse me. Mr. Martindale: Well, I think that is agreeable, as long as Mr. Sale is in the room before we start. Madam Chairperson: Is there agreement from the committee?

The agreement being that at seven o'clock we will move toward the presentations that are being done on the health-related bills, providing Mr. Sale is here? [Agreed] On another matter I woul d like to inform all attendants of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment. Except by unanimous consent, a standing committee meeting to consider a bill in the evening must not sit past midnight to hear presentations unless fewer than 20 presenters are registered to speak to all bills being considered when the committee meets at 6:30 p.m.

As of 6:30 p.m. this evening, a total of 14 persons have registered to speak to these bills. Therefore, according to our rules, this committee may sit past midnight to hear presentations. How late does the committee wish to sit tonight? An Honourable Member: Until we are done. Madam Chairperson: Until we are done? Is that the will of the committee? [Agreed] Just prior to proceeding with public presenta- tions then, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript.

Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I need to first say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mikes on and off, and it also ensures proper identification in the transcript. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. Bill 21–The Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: I will now call the first presenter on Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Amendment and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act, Manson Moir, from the Group Advocating Safe Petroleum Emissions. You may proceed, Mr.

Moir.

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 Mr. Manson Moir (GASPE – Group Advocating Safe Petroleum Emissions): My name is Manson Moir. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed. Mr. Moir: Our organization, when it began I was the Reeve of the R.M. of Albert, and I do not really believe that I was affected by oil field emissions, but I was more than willing to help my friends and neighbours who felt that their health was being impaired by emissions.

When I became part of GASPE, my experience in dealing with governments, I tried to instil patience, and after five years we have been very patient in getting to where we are tonight. The other thing I tried to get them to do is understand how government works, and after 45 years I am still trying to figure that out myself. Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation on Bill 21. GASPE is an incorporated, non-profit group that promotes safe oil field emissions. We are not a radical environmentalist group, nor do we oppose the oil and gas production.

Most of our members are directly or indirectly connected with the industry. Our concerns came about in 1997 when we had some problems with emissions from a battery. Our concerns were twofold, th e fact that the Petroleum Branch had allowed a battery to emit sour gas, H 2S to the atmosphere, and only acted after there were several complaints that the industry operated a battery that vented sour gas and only reacted in 1997 to a non-compliance notice to control and mitigate the gas by installing a flare and later an incinerator.

GASPE has participated in the amendments to the drilling and production regulations in 2000, made presentations to the mining and petroleum task force in 2002 and proposed amendments to The Oil and Gas Act in 2003. GASPE has taken the position that the construction of an oil field battery should be considered a Class 1 development and licensed under The Environment Act. GASPE and three families have applied to the Provincial Court to rule on this matter. My presentation would likely take more than the 10 minutes allotted, so I will highlight it and get through as quickly as I can.

If I am going overtime, I will accept that. We were encouraged that some of the proposed amendments improve the act, but let us first look at the objectives. The purposes of the act are to provide for, encourage and facilitate the safe and efficient development and the maximum economic recovery of oil, gas, helium and oil shale resources of the province in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. We feel that the Petroleum Branch is allowed too much emphasis on the maximum economic recovery of oil. It is our percep- tion that the Petroleum Branch was often industry driven.

It is our belief that the lack of enforcement of the act and its regulations allowed the industry to operate in a manner that discharged pollutants that were harmful to public health. In looking at the act and talking about the sustainable development, the purpose of this subsec- tion is that the principles of sustainable development include the following. The decisions respecting the development of oil and gas resources be integrated with the decision respecting protection and management of the environment.

Going on to (b), that the government and the oil and gas industry acknowledge in their respective policies and practices that stewardship of oil and gas resources of the province so that the economy is developed and the environment is preserved. Going on to (c), the industry and the government share responsibility for sustaining a sound and healthy environment and developing a sound, healthy oil and gas industry. We do not have any problems with that, and it goes on talking about the protection of the environment and the ecosystems.

If the government and the industry had lived up to these principles, GASPE would not have been needed. Families in the Tilston area would not have had to leave their homes. Their livelihoods would not have been affected, and the industry would still have been able to prosper. Protection and management of the environment with due regard to the impact on the environment, the economy is developed and the environment is preserved. There is no doubt that the government and the industry are responsible for the protection of our environment.

It is the responsibility of the Petroleum Branch to make sure that these principles are upheld. In 1988, the Petroleum Branch agreed to take the responsibility of ensuring that oil and gas operations

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 are managed in an environmentally sound manner. The memorandum of agreement allows for a working arrangement under the Petroleum Branch and shall review all appl ications for potential adverse impacts on the environment and the use, for example, impacts on surface water and/or ground water, impacts on heritage resources, impacts on wildlife management areas, but there was never mention where is air quality. In fact, air quality is not mentioned in the act, and only in recent amendments to The Oil and Gas Act production regulation was air quality ever mentioned.

The definition of environment may vary, but basically it is the aggregate of the surrounding things, conditions or influences of one's life. Perhaps an additional amendment could be included in

section 1, the definition of environment. Our comments on the amendments will pertain to those that our group feels have or will affect our members the most. General amendment 3,

section 5, General Authority of the Minister; we agree with this. Our experience has been that the minister has often been left on the outside of the loop and had to rely on someone else. It may also encourage the government to have the minister responsible for the Petroleum Branch administer in a more hands-on way. * (18:50) We often feel that the government has allowed the Petroleum Branch to operate on its own. Previous to being included in the Department of Industry, Economic Development and Mines, it was part of the Department of Conservation. This appeared to us as just a place to put it and let it look after itself. Amendment 4,

section 8(1), the minister may refer the matter, and we totally agree with this amendment. We were amazed when the Petroleum Branch told us that they would only act if they received a complaint about emissions. We were equally amazed when we asked the minister to deal with their problems, and there appeared to be a lack of process to deal with our complaint even though the act stated that there was a board to do just that. After several failed attempts by the minister to deal with our concerns about emissions we were forced to resort to the courts to make a decision.

Hopefully, the establishment of an inquiry panel will organize the government and give them an instrument to adequa tely meet the public's expectation of being heard. The minister may direct a hearing; that is what we wanted all along. We requested the Conservation board to hold a hearing. That was denied. We requested that the minister refer our concerns about emissions to the Clean Environment Commission to hold hearings. That also was denied. To be honest with you that would have been our choice, because by this time we felt that the government did not really know how to deal with it.

We had a lot of questions starting in 1997. We still have a lot. We believe that GASPE and the industry understands each other's position on emissions, and a hearing would allow those to be judged by a third party. Application to resolve the matter to a minister is good. Hopefully, it was not his fault or her fault that that request came from.

Section 8(4), in addition, any prescribed application fee; it is not a real concern as long as they are reasonable and similar to other fees. Inquiry panels. We generally agree with this amendment, and we trust that the minister will appoint panel members that will represent fairly all parties involved. The one concern that we may have with

section 27(2), the awarding of cost to be paid by a party in favour of another in respect of the inquiry, it may be a deterrent to some applicants to come forward. We feel that it is only fair that an applicant is made aware of this possibility and, if possible, put the maximum amount it might be and on what grounds it may be applied. If the amendment is accepted please use it. It would have made our journey through your depart- ment so much easier. Taking the route of court action was our last resort. Amendment 23,

section 93(1), director must not issue a well licence when there is a significantly impaired use of surrounding land was deleted. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Moir, you have 45 seconds. Mr. Moir: Pardon. Madam Chairperson: 45 seconds.

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 Mr. Moir: 45 seconds. Okay. I will finish it up then. It goes on to talk about the director to consult the plan with the minister responsible of the environment, but more construction of a battery without a permit, and here again I mention that we do not feel that this should be the director's responsibility, that the Director of Environment should approve that. In closing, I would like to go to the back of the page here and starting with director's powers of pollutants.

If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, and then usually it is a duck. The act and the regulations can have all the right intent and all the right words, but if they are not adhered to and enforced, they are of no value. GASPE feels that the director was not doing what the act and regulations said were his responsi- bility, nor did the Petroleum Branch live up to its terms of the memorandum of agreement with the department of environment. Batteries were allowed to discharge pollutants that were harmful to public health and had a significant impact on the environment.

GASPE is adamant that the Petroleum Branch failed us, and we have very little confidence that any of these amendments pertaining to the battery construction licensing and pollutants would change our belief that a battery should be considered a Class 1 development under the regime of The Environment Act. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Questions? Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Thank you very much for your presentation. You have given us a very good outline again of the concerns that have taken place in the Tilston region. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Maguire, I am sorry. We cannot hear you.

You will have to get closer to the mike, please. Will you start again, Mr. Maguire, please? Mr. Maguire: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and, thank you, Mr. Moir for making your presenta- tion that you have this evening to bring these concerns forward as you have done before. I know you and the folks involved have gone through many, many years here of trying to provide others with information and the circumstances that surround their farms.

I noticed that one of the areas that you were just touching on briefly as you were trying to finish up was in the area of No construction or operation of a battery without permit, and perhaps a single well battery is exempt. I wonder if you could just elaborate on what you would like to see under those amendments and whether you feel that they are pertinent or not. Mr. Moir: The single well production is a well that just pumps into a tank or tanks. There is not any way of controlling the pollutants it is in, but it is vented to the atmosphere.

We feel that, for very little cost and little labour, a scrubber would put it through a solution that would take the H 2S out of it or be flared, and that would allow wells, single wells, that are close to dwellings to meet some kind of a standard. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Maguire, do you have a supplementary question? Mr. Maguire: Yes. Just to 111, I guess Inspector to approve modification to a battery, can you elaborate on what you would like to see the inspectors being able to do there, and just whether or not you feel that that would be a help in this whole process? Mr. Moir: What number was that? Mr.

Maguire: It was 111(6), Inspector to approve modification to a battery, whether or not you would feel that would be a benefit to it, the bottom of page 7. Mr. Moir: The battery that we have the biggest concern with started with producing 12 cubic metres of oil a day. That was in 1985, and the horizontal drilling increased production of this battery up to a 160 cubes of oil per day. The battery was allowed to be renovated and modified without concern about that. It was being allowed to vent to the atmosphere the H 2S that was not being burnt in the fuel in the treating process.

It just did not make sense to us that that would have happened. Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Thank you very, very much for a well-thought-out presentation. I would like to thank you for all the correspondence and the work that you have done over the years to move the industry, this industry, to become more

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 environmentally friendly and moving it forward to become more easily administered. So thank you. My question has more to do with the inquiry panel because we had a lot of discussion about that, again because of your correspondence. I am just wondering whether you have any suggestions as to the maximum amount of money that they should be doing on the hearing, and time lines and things like that, because that is something that we have to put into the regulations and move forward on. Mr.

Moir: Yes, I think it is something that needs to be really looked at because we as a group could not afford to pay the expenses if we were charged with an exorbitant amount of expenses. We are private citizens. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Moir. I am sorry, your time has elapsed. The time being now seven o'clock, by agreement of the committee, we will move into the bills related to Health. Committee Substitution Madam Chairperson: Do we have a substitution? Mr.

Doug Marti ndale (Burrows): Madam Chairperson, with the unanimous consent of the committee, I would like to make the following membership substitutions effective immediately for the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, Fort Rouge for Brandon West. Madam Chairperson: Is there agreement from the committee? [Agreed] * * * Madam Chairperson: Do you want to do one more presenter for Bill 21, or is the critic here?

An Honourable Member: She is here. * (19:00) Bill 17–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: We will now proceed to Bill 17, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act. Prior to moving on to this, I just want to get agreement from the committee that we will hear also this bill, clause by clause. Is that also what the committee would like to do on this particular bill, the two bills, three bills?

Is there agreement of the committee? [Agreed] On Bill 17, the first presenter we have–Bill 17, once again–is The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act–Rob Robson from the Manitoba Institute for Patient Safety. Thank you, Mr. Robson, and thank you to everyone in attendance for being patient with some of the changes the committee is putting forward. Mr. Robson, you can proceed whenever you are ready. Mr. Rob Robson (Manitob a Institute for Patient Safety): Thank you.

I would like to, rather than read the submission, simply provide some comments and perhaps allow more time for questions. The Manitoba Institut e for Patient Safety supports Bill 17 as presented. You will see in the material that is being handed out that we have provided comments basically about three sections: very briefly about the ins titute itself, some further comments about contemporary issues in the field of patient safety, how the bill relates to that, and then some comments about the bill itself.

Very briefly, the Manitoba Institute for Patient Safety is a not-for-profi t corporation which was founded in June of last year and has a board of 12 members. It is intended to stimulate and co-ordinate activities relating to the field of patient safety and to promote an understanding amongst Manitobans of the issues relating to this area. There are a number of things that we are not intended to do. For instance, we are not providing any direct services.

We are not expected to replace any of the work of professional regulatory or licensing bodies, nor are we expected to act as an organization to gather comp laints or concerns of patients and family members who may have had a less than fully positive experience in interacting with the health care system. We see the principal method of acting being one of developing partnerships and collaboration

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 with other organizations and, indeed, think that this process of developing a broad consensus is an important way in which we can further the work of patient safety and reduce the number of unnecessary injuries and deaths to patients. With respect to the issue of the general field of patient safety, you will see that on page 2 it is important to note that the vast majority of care provided by practitioners, front-line care providers and others within the system is of a high quality and that in the majority of cases patients are dealt with very appropriately.

However, there has been some attention recently to the unfortunate consequences suffered by some patients and family members as a result of their interactions with the health care system. It is important to say that the experience of those who have analyzed these incidents indicate that in virtually all cases we are not dealing with bad physicians, bad nurses, or other bad health-care providers, but rather good people who are attempting to provide high-quality services within a complex and complicated health care delivery system, and this is an important point.

The understanding of health care, critical incidents and other kinds of adverse events leads us to conclude that in almost all cases there are broad systemic issues leading to these problems. We should say that this is an important issue because it affects a lot of individuals not only in Manitoba but throughout the country. The one major study that looked at this issue suggested that almost 7.5 percent of patients being admitted to acute-care hospitals would encounter some kind of adverse event during their stay in the hospital.

In order for us to learn as much as possible from these incidents, we need to be aware of as many of them as we can, analyze them as fully as possible and understand the contributory factors that led to their development. This will then allow us to make appropriate changes to reduce the risk of these happening to others in the future. This requires a major change in the culture, and by that I mean the bundle of attitudes and values and approaches that we have to incidents that have caused harm or even death to patients. Traditionally, we have tended to blame practitioners.

Now that we understand that most of these cases involve broad systems issues and the sequential occurrence of a number of failures and weaknesses in the way the services are provided and organized, we must move away from this culture of blaming individuals toward a culture of understanding as much as we can to learn from these incidents in order to prevent as much as possible future occurrences. One of the ways to do this is to encourage reporting of these incidents. You will see on page 3, discussion of the issues of mandatory versus voluntary reporting.

Bill 17 has developed a system, or is proposing a system, of mandatory reporting with respect to critical incidents which are those that are of the most serious nature causing some significant disability to patients or even death. There are other debates about whether the reporting should be anonymous or confidential. I do not think we will go into those right now. One thing that is important is we must encourage reporting of these incidents so that we can learn from them.

At the same time, we must also encourage a broad disclosure of such events to patients who have been harmed as a result of their interactions with the health care system. So it is important to understand that distinction between reporting the incident to a health authority or a facility or the Ministry of Health and disclosing the events to the patient. One difficulty in learning from these is a relatively low participation of physicians and other health care providers in the committees that analyze these cases because of fear s of exposure to potential litigation.

It is for this reason primarily that we support the intent in the provisions of Bill 17 which will provide conditions that would allow physicians, nurses and other health care professionals to be comfortable participating actively in not only the reporting but the subsequent analysis of these incidents so that we can come to as good an understanding as possible to make proposals for change.

We believe that Bill 17 provides a reasonable balance of the needs of society of Manitoba to move ahead with improving the way we organize health care services to reduce the number of these critical incidents on the one hand and the need for patients and family member s to learn as much as possible about what might have gone wrong in a particular incident. There is always a balancing act between these two values. We feel that the present

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 constitution of Bill 17 ha s reached an appropriate balance in this regard. We think that it is important that Bill 17 has included a

section which requires the revealing or sharing of information about any new facts that might come to light under an investigation or a review of a critical incident that that information be shared with the patient or family members. I think I will stop at this point. There are a number of other issues which have been covered. You will see an appendix A. We have provided a brief list of some of the preliminary activities.

The Manitoba Institute is a small organization with still relatively limited funding, but we have already been quite active in proceeding with very broad public consultations throughout all parts of the province and with professional organizations. Thank you, Madam Chair. * (19:10) Madam Chairperson: By leave of the committee, we will extend the time on questions. Is there leave? [Agreed] Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Thank you very much for your presentation. I just have one quick question for you with respect to this bill. Certainly, we do, as well, agree with this bill and would like to move it forward.

We are, sort of, thinking about ways that, in other provinces, that they have strengthened the bill somewhat. Certainly, in Saskatchewan, when a critical incident occurred and recommendations were made through to the minister, they would then share them with other RHAs that may be affected by similar circumstances. If it may, in that event, sort of, prevent similar circumstances from taking place, would you be in favour of something like that? Mr. Robson: Well, I think it is important to spread any learning or knowledge that comes about as a result of analyzing a critical incident.

On the basis of my reading of the proposed bill, I do not believe that there are any restrictions to doing that, but it is not, as I understand it, actively promoted. I think it is important that that occurs, and that efforts are made to have other sectors in the province who are providing services benefit from the learning that arises. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): As a physician who is in politics, one of the observations that I– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Gerrard, you will have to get closer to the mike. I am sorry, we cannot hear you. Mr.

Gerrard: One of the things that I observed is that, while there are mechanisms even now for physicians to report, and it certainly is an improvement with mandatory reporting and some change in the culture, one of the big problems has been the lack of any real process for a patient to report. My question to you would be, under this new statute, if it is passed, is there an adequate mech- anism for a patient to report an incident. Mr.

Robson: I can tell you that, as director of patient safety for Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, we will intend to encourage and to establish ways for patients to bring their concerns to our attention. There are already well-established mechanisms, to the best of my knowledge, in all the RHAs in Manitoba to allow patients and family members to register concerns, but your suggestion, I think, is an interesting one.

It would, certainly, put Manitoba in the forefront across the country and North America if patients had a formal mechanism by which they could bring these concerns to our attention, but I think it is a very reasonable suggestion. Based on our analysis of critical incidents, we are always surprised by how many positive contributions that patients and family members can make in discussing these unfortunate incidents with us. As a practising physician, I know also that we can learn very much from pa tients by listening to them. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Thank you very much for your presentation.

You reference on page 7, and a bit on the bottom of page 6, about the issues of education. Could you just speak briefly about what you are really suggesting there, because you have a great deal of experience around patient safety issues in a specific health care setting? So help us a bit to understand what you mean there. Mr. Robson: Well, I think it is crucial for, on the one hand, health care providers to understand fully

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 the new legislation, not only the obligations that it creates, but the protections that it provides, as well as the duty to disclose information to patients and family members under this legislation. This is a significant change for health care providers of all levels. One thing that we intend to do within our regional health authority in Winnipeg is to have very active and broad-based educational efforts with all health care providers, but also, very importantly, with patients.

One of the initiatives that we are in the process of undertaking is the formation of patient safety patient advisory councils so that we can learn more directly from those who have been affected by unfortunate incidents in their interaction with the delivery of health care services.

So I think that very active and broad-based education programs about the nature of Bill 17 and also about the nature of the systemic origin of most of the problems which result in injuries to patients will help health care providers be more active in reporting these and be more active in helping us to analyze and better understand the factors which may have contributed to a particular incident happening. It is only if we create those conditions that we will understand what occurred so we can recommend changes to reduce the likelihood of it occurring again. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Robson.

Bill 43-The Regulated Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: The committee will now hear public presentations on Bill 43, The Regulated Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act. Calling Dr. William D. B. Pope, Registrar for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba. Did you have presentations you wanted to distribute? Mr. William D. B. Pope (Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba): It is very brief, Madam Chair, so I will just read it if I may. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed. Mr. Pope: I do have copies if anyone would like it afterwards.

Madam Chairperson: Please proceed Doctor Pope. Mr. Pope: Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to comment on this bill. Madam Chairperson: If you could just speak up just a little, I am sorry. Mr. Pope: I am sorry. It is the height and the closeness to the speech. There are three parts to this legislation that affect the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba. The first relates to preparedness for a medical emergency.

This college st rongly supports measures that will ensure that Canadian- or American-licensed physicians can be registered quickly and efficiently in Manitoba if needed to meet a major public health emergency. We will also continue to work with other health providers and organizations to develop advance planning to assist the delivery of medical care in these circumstances. Secondly, there are changes to permit the collection by the college of information about physicians and the release of information by the college to the government to establish and maintain an electronic registry of health care providers.

The act also permits the minister to release that information to authorized entities, provided that the information is in non-identifying form. This college supports the creation of an electronic health record and the changes to facilitate that project; however, it is important to acknowledge the importance of individual privacy in today's society. The college believes it is imperative that the creation of a system of electronic health records adequately protect the privacy interests of patients and of health care provide rs.

The college considers protection of privacy as integral to its support of this legislation. Thirdly the act also contains changes to The Medical Act which will assist the development of a regulation for a physician profiling, and the college supports these changes. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Prior to proceeding, is it the will of the committee to allow the presenter more time for questions if needed? Agreed?

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 An Honourable Member: He has not used his time. Madam Chairperson: He has not used his time. Mrs. Stefanson: Well, thank you very much for your brief presentation tonight. It is wonderful. Just with respect to the electronic health records, do you see that there is a potentia l there for there to be problems? Is that why you are sort of bringing that forward or under this legislation? I just should ask you that. Mr. Pope: Well, I think that these– Madam Chairperson: Doctor Pope, excuse me. Mr. Pope: I am sorry.

It is extremely important that individual issues that–the college will have a great deal of information about physicians, and so we have the understanding of the government that the use of the non-identifying phrase has been introduced. That is of extreme importance to us so that locked data can be used to allow for health care planning, but anything that might release particular information about an individual physician's prescribing patterns, for example, would not be involved with this because of what it might mean for patients and the release of information about patients.

So it was very important to us to have the non-identifying clause inserted. * (19:20) Mr. Sale: Thanks, Bill. I appreciate the support that the college has provided to, not just this, but the extended practice nurse regulation and the collegial relationships that exist between the pharmacists, the physicians and nurses. The working together is something that may sound trite, but, as you know from your experience across Canada, it is not always so. Manitoba does have an enviable record of its professional bodies collaborating on important issues.

So thank you again for your support of this legislation and the broader support the college has provided to some pretty important stuff that we have worked on together. I appreciate it very much. Mr. Gerrard: My question may not necessarily be covered by the legislation, but it is an issue that deals with emergencies and that the college might have some input on. It was raised with me recently.

It deals with the living wills, and the fact that when a senior arrives with a living will, arrives in an emergency department for an unscheduled visit, it is important that that living will information be rapidly available to the physician s and health providers caring for that individual, and as this person pointed out, that people arrive without their wallets sometimes under conditions and there may not be rapid access. Clearly, one of the things that would be desirable in times of emergencies, and some of this deals with that, is rapid access to information like that.

I wonder if you would comment on your thoughts on this matter. Mr. Pope: It is certainly something that is often raised with the college as well, and it is a very valid issue. I think one of the truly exciting things about an electronic health record is the possibility to have available quickly right across this country, as it is in some of the European countries, the availability of really crucial information for patient safety. By patient safety, I also mean the sort of thing you raised Doctor Gerrard, the importance of dying in dignity for a patient who has decided that is the way he or she wishes to go.

I would hope that a national electronic health record would have the availability, as well, of including the kind of information you raised. I think it would be a very positive action nationally. I think that you would find that the regulatory authorities across this country would support it very strongly. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Doctor Pope. Mr. Pope: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: By leave of the committee, we will go now to clause-by-clause consideration.

During the consideration of the bill, the table of contents, enacting clauses, schedules and titles are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order. Also, if there is agreement from the committee, for the longer bills I will call clauses in blocks that conform to pages, with the understanding that we will stop at any particular clause or clauses where members may have comments, questions or amendments to propose. Is that agreed? [Agreed] We will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bills.

Bill 17–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: Does the minister responsible for Bill 17 have an opening statement?

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 Mr. Sale: I think, Madam Chair, we have had a good discussion about the bill. I believe it is an important piece of legislation that all parties support and I look forward to clause by clause. Madam Chairperson: We thank the minister. Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement? Mrs. Stefanson: No, thank you very much. I think in lieu of the fact that there are many presenters here waiting to present tonight that we will move on. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much.

Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clauses 3 and 4– pass; clause 5–pass; clause 6–pass; clause 7–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported. Bill 42–The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: Does the minister responsible for Bill 42 have an opening statement? Mr. Sale: Very briefly, Madam Chair. It is simply

an act to strengthen and bring up to date primarily the enforcement provisions of this act, The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act. I think the bill is relatively uncontentious and that we should move to clause by clause. Madam Chairperson: We thank the minister. Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement? Mrs. Stefanson: In view of the f act that there are many people waiting here to present tonight, I will reserve comments for third reading or next. Madam Chairperson: We thank the member.

Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clauses 3 and 4–pass; clauses 5 and 6–pass; clauses 7 through 9–pass; clauses 10 and 11–pass; clause 12–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported. Bill 43–The Regulated Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: Does the minister responsible for Bill 43 have an opening statement? Mr. Sale: Briefly. Again, Madam Chair, this is a companion piece to my colleague, the member from Brandon West's bill in regard to public safety really, and, again, I think it has the support of all sides of the House and that we may proceed to clause by clause.

Although this one has got a lot more clauses, it actually does not do a whole lot more. It is just that there are 17 acts that need to be amended out of 19, and the 2 that we are not amending are ones that are not likely to be called on in an emergency. It also enables physician profiles to be developed, and the third thing that it does is to deal with the electronic health record which was just the subject of a question from the member from River Heights. Madam Chairperson: We thank the minister. Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement? Mrs.

Stefanson: Again, I will pass on the opening statement. I do, however, just have a quick question for the minister, if that is okay. Madam Chairperson: We need leave from the committee for you to have that at opening statements. Is there leave? [Agreed] Please proceed, Mrs. Stefanson. Mrs. Stefanson: Just with respect to the Patriot Act in the United States which, again, if health care workers are to come to Manitoba and work here, the Americans have access to, sort of, what goes on in Manitoba. I am just wondering what will happen there.

Will Americans, therefore, have the access to Canadian health care worker information, and how will that be protected? Mr. Sale: My understanding of the Patriot Act is that it applies in the United States to data held in the United States. So the problem for Canada would be, for example, if we have a data system that is backed up in the United States.

Under the act, the data in that system might be subject to the Patriot Act's requirements, but someone coming into Canada, by nature of being an American citizen working here, would not have the right to access the health information record about anybody whether it was a caregiver or a patient and use the Patriot Act as a cover for the process of accessing that information,

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 because the act is limited to the territory of the United States. It cannot be applied in Canada, which was a real concern in British Columbia, by the way, and that is where it first came to everybody's attention. It was when B.C. was looking at the question of where some of its data were stored in terms of their backup systems, and that is where it first arose.

I believe that the member's concern is very valid, but I do not believe that it is an issue. * (19:30) Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, clauses 1 and 2–pass; clauses 3 and 4–pass; clause 5– pass; clauses 6 through 8–pass; clause 9–pass; clauses 10 through 12–pass; clauses 13 through 15– pass; clause 16–pass; clauses 17 and 18–pass; clauses 19 through 22–pass; clauses 23 and 24–pass; clauses 25 and 26–pass; clauses 27 through 29–pass; clause 30–pass; clauses 31 through 33–pass; clauses 34 and 35–pass; clauses 36 through 38–pass; clause 39–pass; clauses 40 through 43–pass; clauses 44 through 46–pass; clauses 47 and 48–pass; clauses 49 through 51–pass; clause 52–pass; clauses 53 through 55–pass; clause 56–pass; clauses 57 through 59– pass; clause 60–pass; clauses 61 through 63–pass; clauses 64 and 65–pass; clauses 66 through 68–pass; clause 69–pass; clauses 70 through 72–pass; clause 73–pass; clauses 74 through 76–pass; clause 77– pass; clauses 78 through 80–pass; clause 81–pass; clause 82–pass; table of contents–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass.

Bill be reported. Thank you. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Madam Chair, just in the interests of fairness and understanding our process, I noticed that with the last two presenters the Chair was offering to extend the time without, what I noticed, any prompting from the table or from the presenters. I do not think we offered our first presenter that courtesy. I just wonder what process do you intend to follow with the rest of the presenters. Madam Chairperson: What we did with the first presenter was the first presenter actually went over by 30 seconds.

The second presenter did actually ask for that leave, and since we had already granted it to the second presenter, I continued with that process. If it is the will of the committee to change that process, please advise me. Mr. Cummings: I do not intend to get into a wrangle, Madam Chair. You are doing a fine job. I just think that, in the interest of fairness to our presenters, we should know whether or not we need to request opportunity to extend, and if that is understood, that is all I want.

Madam Chairperson: I will wait till you request then, if that is the will of the committee. [Agreed] Bill 21–The Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: We will now return to Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act. Committee Substitution Mr. Doug Marti ndale (Burrows): Madam Chairperson, with the unanimous consent of the committee, I would like to make the following membership substitutions effective immediately for the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development: Brandon West for Fort Rouge.

Madam Chairperson: Is that agreed by the committee? Agreed? [Agreed] * * * Madam Chairperson: Once again, we will return to Bill 21. The out-of-town presenters for The Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act. Mr. Bruce Campbell, private citizen. You may proceed, Mr. Campbell, whenever you are ready. Mr. Bruce Campbell (Private Citizen): Thanks for this opportunity to express some of my views and opinions with regard to amendments to The Oil and Gas Act. The proposed amendments to The Oil and Gas Act, which are designed to protect the environment, are inadequate.

The Oil and Gas Act should be amended in such a way to make the operation of oil field development, such as batteries, subject to the rules of The Environment Act. The Petroleum Branch is responsible for promoting the sustainable development of Manitoba's oil resources. All developments have an environmental impact. The conflict between promoting the development and ensuring the safety

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 of the surrounding environment indicates the error of having Petroleum Branch regulating both sides of the conflict. Back in the mid-nineties, when my father first complained to the Petroleum Branch about the H 2S levels in our yard, the Petroleum Branch Inspector Lorne Barsness came to visit us. It was on a day when we were downwind of the battery. We could smell H2S in our yard.

Although I cannot quote the conversation verbatim, he led me to believe that he agreed that the smell in our yard was not very nice, that it should not be at high enough levels to hurt us, that he had the power to shut the battery down because of the problem, but did not want to because of the trouble it would cause the oil company and him, that he had ordered them to fix the problem, and that we should continue to tolerate the odour until it was fixed, that he had never heard of air ambient level guidelines for H2S and sulphur dioxide, that the only guidelines that he was aware of were workplace safety levels. * (19:40) Oil field emissions are poisonous and deadly.

The traditional methods of venting and flaring these emissions are relying on atmospheric air movement to dilute the poisons to a level safe to live in does not always happen. I was at a meeting of the southwest planning district on April 19, 2005. At this meeting, John Fox, the director of the Petroleum Branch, stated that they had done air quality testing in some of the communities in the oil fields of southwest Manitoba. He went on to say that tests showed that the levels of pollutants in the air were below air quality guidelines 90-some percent of the time.

He was not accurate on the number; he was going from memory. If the percentage at the time was 96 percent, there was 4 percent of the time the air was not acceptable or dangerous, not a very big number, but equivalent to one hour a day or 14 days out of a year. Oil companies have developed innovative and high- tech ways of extracting oil from the ground. It is reasonable for us to ask them to do the same when disposing of their waste products. The poisonous effects of oil field emissions are not a problem unique to the battery at 8 of 8-6-29 or unique to Manitoba.

Since we discovered that oil field emissions were causing our problems, we had been told others in the area and in Alberta and Saskatchewan have similar problems while living downwind of a battery. In a letter that the Honourable Jim Rondeau wrote Neil Hathaway, the Arthur-Virden Constitu- ency NDP Association President, he states that the issue of the oil field emissions was raised by a small group of residents in the constituency.

He is perhaps unaware that resolutions have been passed by six rural municipalities covering most of the oil fields in this same constituency in southwest Manitoba supporting the idea of having the oil industry governed by The Environment Act. If the RCMP catches us not obeying the rules of The Highway Traffic Act, we get fined or jailed depending on the severity of the offence. If the Petroleum Branch inspector discovers that an oil company is operating in a manner contradictory to the regulations, he can only order them to fix it or be shut down.

There are no penalties for non- compliance to regulations or rules. This is like a police officer catching us with no seatbelt on while driving, and only having the authority to tell us we cannot drive until we put it on. If mechanical equipment is necessary to abate the effects of an oil development on the environment, there will be times when it will fail. If this happens, the oil company should be compelled to shut it down, rather than continue to operate with malfunctioning equipment, until such a time that it is convenient to fix.

As a cattle producer, I was originally unaware of the devastating effects that oil field emissions have on livestock, and the health problems of my cattle had while living downwind of 8 of 8-6-29 battery were many and varied. They included an increase in cows not getting pregnant, abortions, digestive upsets, deformities at birth, respiratory problems, downed cattle, runny eyes. After moving them away, the incidents of th ese problems decreased dramatically. Dr. Allan Preston, a veterinarian working for Manitoba Agriculture and Food, met with 13 Tilston area cattle producers on March 23, 2000.

In one of his reports to the environment branch, Doctor Preston stated, "As for the cattle side of things, I will continue to collect what info I can. It may be only anecdotal, but the large number of common concerns seems to point to a problem where there is smoke."

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 At present Doctor Preston is representing Manitoba Agriculture and Food in the Alberta study on the effects of oil field emissions on livestock and wildlife. The results of this study are coming out this fall. The development of the oil industry in the province benefits everyone in the province. We should amend The Oil and Gas Act in such a way that the effects of this development to the surrounding people and the environment are minimal. I have lost all my faith in the Petroleum Branch to develop and enforce regulations to achieve this goal.

Protecting the environment is the responsibility of The Environment Act. Let us make it include the petroleum industry. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you, Bruce, for making a good presentation. You have certainly been through quite a lot over the years, and you speak from a lot of personal experience. My question, really, is you point out that there are six rural municipalities which have passed resolutions, and that represents a lot of people in those rural municipalities.

How many people would it be all told in those municipalities who are represented in the concerns that you are raising here? Mr. Campbell: I am sorry, I am unable to answer that question. The population of our municipality that I formerly lived in, I think, is around 400, and that is one of the smaller ones. So, if you took 500 times 6, it would be representing about 3000 people. I think that is a minimum number. Maybe Larry Maguire has a better answer for that question. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Well, thank you for your presentation. You certainly raised some serious concerns.

As someone who has got an ongoing interest in the productivity of our livestock industry, can you give us any sense of how commonly we saw some of the concerns that you are raising? I am interested in things such as downer cattle or deformities. Is this 1 out of 100, or is this 2 or 3 out of 50? Can you give me any sense of what the frequency might be? Mr. Campbell: Deformities, I would say I had 1 out of 100 every year for about four years even when the production was at its highest. Abortions as high as 10 out of 100, when I would say 2 is considered normal. What were some of the other ones?

Downer cattle, I would say 1 out of 100 per year. Mr. Cummings: Well, thank you. That gives me some understanding of what you feel you have had to unfairly deal with. My next question is not intended to be a quick question, but it is meant to illustrate a point. Under the current structure of government, we sometimes also have difficulty finding out who is administering The Environment Act. Can you give us any sense of whether or not you have had any contact with the environment personnel, and how easy it was to get in touch with them? Mr.

Campbell: I was not personally involved in contacting the environment department when they first came out. I was involved with the community advisory group that was fo rmed; I was satisfied with their response. They were inexperienced; they had never dealt with anything like that before. Although it does not state it in the report, I was left with the impression that the oil company was chastised at times for their equipment failure when there were readings on the monitors. Mr.

Cummings: Perhaps at this point, because I have asked a couple of questions already, and I know my colleagues wish to ask him a question, if we exceed time, would you, by leave, grant time for more questions? Madam Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee to extend the qu estion to encompass the 15 minutes totally? [Agreed] Mr. Cummings: A question would be were you aware of which department the officials that you dealt with may have represented. Were they the Petroleum Branch, or were they, in fact, environment officers, or were they of some other professional background?

Again, I am not trying to give you a trick question. I want to get a feel of whether or not you received response from either past or current governments on this. I mean it is an important question in the sense of whether or not government has responded adequately. * (19:50) Mr. Campbell: The answer to the question, has the government responded adequately, would be no.

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Thank you, Mr. Campbell, for your presentation. There are some concerns I have from your presentation. Have you made application for loss with either the industry or with the Department of Agriculture? Mr. Campbell: I do not understand the question. Mr. Eichler: With your losses, financially, do you have an amount on that, and have you made a request for reimbursement of any of those losses through the Department of Agriculture, or with the petroleum company? Mr. Campbell: I do not have a number on it. It is an ongoing thing.

No, I have not made a formal request to the industry or to the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Eichler: One last question. Do you have any idea of how much money we are talking about in your losses just on your farm? Mr. Campbell: I find this very difficult to talk about. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Campbell, we can stop at this point, if you wish. Mr. Campbell: I am nervous. Mr. Eichler: I will withdraw the question. We can talk about it later. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Eichler. Hon.

Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): I just would like to say thank you very much for keeping us informed, keeping the government's foot to the fire, as far as considering the environment. I know in 2001 we tried to make improvements to batteries, and this is trying to make improvements to the oil and gas regulations and what is done there. About $3 million of improvements of batteries have happened, and we had to re-permit them all. I am just wondering has there been a difference between the airs where thi ngs are starting to get better. Mr.

Campbell: Oil production at the battery has dropped significantly, and there have been some improvements made since the early years when they were venting directly to the air. I am not living there anymore. I cannot really comment on that. I have moved out. I had to move out. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Campbell, at this point, I want to thank you very much for coming before the committee. You did an excellent job. Thank you. Mr. Campbell: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Wendy Anderson, private citizen. You can proceed whenever you are ready, Ms. Anderson. Ms.

Wendy Anderson (Private Citizen): Thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to speak to this bill. My name is Wendy Anderson, and I want to start out by apologizing for my husband, Jim. He could not be here tonight. He had a prior commit- ment. He actually has a presentation that I hope you will have time to consider as well.

In our opinion, these new amendments to The Oil and Gas Act are not the answer to controlling oil field emissions, and I apologize for that attitude because we have been reminded many times by governmental officials that you, the government, have already spent a great deal of money on a few families in our area. We do appreciate the Petroleum Branch's efforts to improve The Oil and Gas Act, and the fact that they have made an effort to involve us in the process.

However, we lack confidence in the ability of the government to both promote the oil industry and to look after us, the families living in close proximity to the oil industry. We feel that this creates a conflict of interest for them, in that, as hard as they try, it just does not work for us. The reason we feel this way comes from our real-life experience of living downwind from an oil battery for nearly 20 years. I have lived with my family on a farm in Tilston, Manitoba, for more than 30 years now. In 1983, there was an oil well drilled a little more than a mile to the northwest of our home.

A few wells later, and soon there was a battery built on the same site to process the oil from this and other wells that had been drilled in the area. In 1993, expansion and construction began in this field with the drilling of

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 many horizontal oil wells. In 1985, this battery handled 12 cubic metres of oil a day, and in 1996, it was handling 160 cubic metres of oil a day. Now, while there were modifications made to the battery to handle the processing of the oil from the salt water, there were never any alterations made to handle the gas that was produced with that oil, and this gas is just a little bit unique. It contains over 13.5% hydrogen sulphide, among many other components. It became clear to the operators of the battery pretty quickly just how dangerous a chemical H 2S was.

However, the effects of the gas on anyone or anything outside the lease site were apparently never considered. The gase s from this battery were simply vented to air and allowed to disperse at the will of the atmosphere. That will of the atmosphere put that stinking rotten-egg smell in our yard and the yards of our surrounding friends and neighbours a lot in those years prior to 1997. We now know that it happened way too often to be any good for our families. The odour was always somewhere. It just depended on the wind direction where it was, and we never questioned this smell. It just became a fact of our lives.

Never, ever, did we think that the oil industry would do anything that would harm its neighbours, and, surely, the government would never let them, but, by 1997, we and our neighbours were gradually starting to sort out what was maybe happening to us and to our livestock. We are mostly cattle farmers in our area. We became certain that the emissions from the battery close to us were making our families and our livestock ill. We started trying to talk to someone, either the company or the government, and try and talk them into helping us.

We learned that the Petroleum Branch only operates on a complaint system, so we started registering complaints with them. The Campbells and ourselves had several meetings around our kitchen table with the oil company. In the end, it actually took about 40 people staging a blockade at the battery to really make anyone listen and do anything constructive. That still amazes us that people have to get radical in order for government and big companies to believe us. I have actually made a quote from Doctor Kraut's medical report that suggests the kinds of readings there were.

Like in one 30-day period there were 10 readings above the provincial guideline level, and at our farm between, in a matter of 65 days, there were 85 readings registered. A comparison of the timing of these recordings at the well site and at the Anders on farm revealed that on all but one occasion when H These amendments that are on the board today offer nothing to improve the complaint system. It did not work then, and I do not see any improvement in what is offered. There were lots of changes made at this battery, but not until after 1997. The company tried burning the gas.

They tried flaring it, and then, finally, in early 2000 they installed an incinerator. Now these changes mostly came about because of pleas we made to the company to do something to improve the situation and not as a result of enforcements by the Petroleum Branch. We still feel that the governing bodies failed us big time. We trusted that you, the government, would be looking after us and it just did not happen. Again, I see nothing in these amendments that would have changed the way the whole scenario worked out.

In 1998, after much prodding from local people, Manitoba Environment did become involved in our dilemma. They installed their monitors, first in our neighbour's place, and then later they put an air monitor just east of the battery, and one at our farm yard. We have differing opinions from the government on the conclusions provided by these monitors. Government officials assured us that, although there might be some fugitive emissions, the hourly averages were well within the government air quality guidelines. On the other hand, what those monitors helped us to realize was that we were not totally crazy.

Those emissions whether they registered high or low on that monitor made the people at our house ill. We had absolutely no access to the trailers where the monitors were kept, and yet our bodies could tell the people in charge of them when there was an increase in the H2S emissions. 2S was identified at our place a higher reading was recorded at the well site. So now at least there was proof that the air from the battery was indeed making it to our yard. We all well know that those same levels of emissions were always in the air; it just depended on where the wind took them.

That is why there are many people in every direction from the battery who are affected by oil

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 field emissions. It depends on the wind direction and the atmosphere at the time just who will be in the way, and it depends on how frequently one is in the way of those emissions just how lousy they make you feel. What we have learned over the years is what oil companies and the government deem to be safe is very often much different than that of the people who just happen to live in the vicinity of the industry.

Our experiences have taught us that being within guidelines, hourly averages and dispersion modelling do not begin to tell the whole story if you are the family that has to live close to the industries. * (20:00) Maybe this will help you to explain our lack of confidence in these amendments. First of all, air is entirely missed in these amendments, and to us it is one of the most important aspects of the industry. Secondly, we are living proof that spending time that is in air that is well within guidelines can and does make people and livestock ill.

By February of '99, our friends and neighbours, Bruce and Laura Jean Campbell, had left their new home on the farm just north of us and moved their family to a rental home in Reston. They also moved their cattle away to another site away from the emissions. Another two families actually also left their homes in the fall of 1998, so in February of 2000 we too decided to make dramatic changes in our farming set-up so that we could move ourselves and our daughter away from the emissions. We needed to prove to ourselves that we were, in fact, not crazy, and so we did. We relocated for a couple of months.

Everyone had told us that the improvement in their health was dramatic once they were out of the emissions, and we too had that same experience, but for economic reasons we decided we had to return to our home and our farm. There have been many days when we have wondered about the wisdom of that decision, but we are still there. People have often been led to believe by government and company officials that the problems that the battery close to us have since been resolved and that we have a state-of-the-art battery, the best in the province we are told.

However, those of us living in the vicinity of the battery, and that includes folks who live up to three miles away, still experience multiple health ailments that we know that are emission-related. After more than 10 years of living close to an oil field battery, trust us we have absolutely no doubt when our bodies have had too many toxic emissions. An example of such upset occurred as recently as December 2004; there was a malfunction at the battery. It is obvious to us that there were more than a few fugitive emissions which is what we were told by the local Petroleum Branch inspectors.

Jim and I became ill with our usual symptoms that we know are the result of toxic emission. As well, our cattle became ill. Two of our neighbours' cattle became ill, and other neighbours also experienced health problems. Is there any wonder that we lack confidence in oil companies and government officials to look after us? The sad

part is not anyone in the company or the government will ever take any responsibility for these things that happened to us. My husband says that living in the vicinity of a battery is a little bit like playing Russian roulette. We know someone will be hit by the emissions every day, but only the wind and the atmosphere can determine who it will be and how serious. So it came to pass that in 2000 we created this group called GASPE. Our main objective was to try to prevent the same thing that happened to our families from happening to anyone else ever again.

Our group believes that there needs to be an impartial, independent, third-party involvement to ensure a safe environment for all. There needs to be provision for involving the public in a meaningful way and for keeping the public informed of facts and issues related to the industry. We believe that this could be best accomplished by having oil batteries determined to be a class 1 development under The Environment Act whereby an unbiased and proper environmental assessment would be part of the application. The proposed amendments, although perhaps an improvement, do nothing to resolve the fundamental problem.

The oil industry is regulated by the Petroleum Branch, whose priority is development of the industry, and not environmental protection. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Anderson. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Thank you very much for your presentation.

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 Madam Chairperson: Microphone, Mr. Maguire, you need to be a little closer. I apologize. Mr. Maguire: Thank you very much, Wendy, for coming this far and making your presentation as well again. I know that you folks have made, as I have mentioned when Mr. Moir was up, a number of presentations, and Bruce as well, on these issues over periods of time.

Your recommendations in regard to at least an appeal process, or an independent appeal process, is something that we have seen lacking in other bills, I guess, in regard to some of the legislation that is before us right now as well. I would think of The Planning Act as an opportunity there. So, when you are looking at our rural munici- palities who have always determined that they want to have land use determination, this could be one of the areas that they do deal with, although under those requests they have always wanted environment to be handled by the Province.

Would I be correct if I read that you feel, of course, that these environmental issues should be dealt with by the environment department of government, which falls under Conservation in this case? Ms. Anderson: Sorry, that has been our experience. We think we need a third-party involvement. Madam Chairperson: A supplementary, Mr. Maguire? Mr. Maguire: Yes. Just that that third-party involvement would be a small group, technical people, private citizens. Do you have any preference as to how that would be set up, or have you thought about the makeup of that independent body? Ms.

Anderson: I am thinking that it would be something that The Environmental Act would set up as they do for other developments. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for coming. You certainly have nothing to apologize for, and I think that there are others who owe you an apology for not having adequately looked after the environment in this province. So I salute you. Your recommendation is very clear that oil batteries should be considered a Class 1 development under The Environment Act. I hope the minister is listening. One of the things that we have discussed is the issue of compensation, and what I would ask is just a comment.

I know that there is not an intent to seek anything particularly for yourself, but I think that there is a need to recognize that when there are problems, that there should be some compensation, and maybe you would comment on that. Ms. Anderson: We have been asked that question before, and I think that the compensation that would make us happiest is if it would never, ever, ever happen again. If somebody could promise us that because it does happen all the time to other families. That would be the best compensation there could be if there would be a promise that it could not happen again. Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Move the mike closer, Mr. Eichler, please. Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Ms. Anderson, for your presentation. I just have a quick question. Have you met with Mr. Preston as well with respect to your livestock? Ms. Anderson: Sorry. Yes, we have, or my husband did as a representative of our family. Mr. Eichler: Is your livestock operation similar to that of the previous presenter, and your loss has been about the same? Ms. Anderson: I would expect likely so, probably not as high as Bruce's. They probably were in the predominant wind direction a little bit more frequently than we were.

We actually still have our cattle at our place and there are still lots of times when there are problems. Mr. Rondeau: Thank you very much for your presentation, your letters and your correspondence. I appreciate it. Our attempt was to try to, again, make another step in the right direction. I would appreciate it first if you could send me your husband's presentation and other correspondence. Floor Comment: It is here. Mr. Rondeau: It is in there, good. The other one is, do you think the third party independent tribunal hearings may be able to be a tool to use in the future for dispute mechanisms? Ms.

Anderson: I probably am not really sure how that would really work. I am thinking any

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 involvement from another department would probably help. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. I am sorry. We have run out of time. We appreciate your presentation. Laura Jean Campbell, private citizen. You can proceed, Ms. Campbell, whenever you are ready. Ms. Laura Jean Campbell (Private Citizen): Okay. We appreciate this op portunity to present our views on Bill 21. Madam Chairperson: You will have to speak up just a little though, I am sorry. Ms. Campbell: I am sorry. Is that better? Madam Chairperson: Yes. Ms. Campbell: Our views are based on personal experience.

Our contention is that Bill 21 does not adequately address the problems of oil field emissions and how they affect the environment and those who live and work in their proximity. * (20:10) My name is Laura Jean Campbell, and I moved to Tilston in 1977. I lived on southeast 9629 until February 1, '99, when our family abandoned our relatively new home and our family farm. We moved our family to a rented house in Reston in order to escape oil field emissions and to allow our children to live in a safer environment. The oil field emissions were coming from a battery a mile directly from west of our farmyard.

Since '83, we have smelled H 2S, or the rotten egg smell, in our yard. As the production increased, the intensity and frequency of the H 2S odour was in our yard whenever the wind and weather conditions were conducive. It is a known fact that predominant wind direction is west-northwest so that put our yard at risk a greater percentage of the time. We naively assumed the oil industry had standards that would be met and we would not be at risk so we never questioned their actions, but that was not the case.

For our own peace of mind, we have to believe that the Petroleum Branch truly felt that the oil emissions would be dispersed before they became a threat. We did not realize that the branch operated on a complaint-based system until the late nineties. Since that time, there have been many complaints to the branch. We did find that the complaint-based system never got any results other than lip service until a roadblock prevented an oil truck from leaving the battery one day.

That radical action got various government departments and the oil industry to take notice and become involved, but it was actually the health of our livestock that triggered the realization that we were being bombarded with pollutants. The farmers all got talking, as they do, about the unusually high rate of abortions in the cows, open cows or cows that were not bred, down cattle. An animal would be perfectly healthy one day and would be down and could not get up the next and deformities.

It took longer for us to realize that the health problems in our family could be associated to the same time frame as the cattle problems. What truly confirmed our quick beliefs and suspicions of the source of our problems was when we left our home at Tilston and moved our cattle to Sinclair. Our health problems and those of our cattle became normal. An example of this would be in 1997 and '98, when we were still living at the farm, we made 45 and 46 trips to the doctor respectively. In 1999, from February 1 to December 31, while living in Reston, we only made 13 trips to the doctor.

Two of those 13 were still while we were on the farm in January so it just proved to us that that was what was happening, and we were not experiencing any of what we had been at home. I am sorry, I am just sort of putting highlights because I am a little over. In August of 1998, our eldest son was knocked down or unconscious when he walked into an emission plume in our farmyard which is a mile east of the battery. He was 17 years old and leaving for school in Winnipeg in two days. I cannot even begin to describe how terrifying that experience was for us.

Accord ing to all the experts, the emissions should have been dispersed by the time they got to our yard, but we know the emissions travelling up to at least three miles away from the battery and affecting people's and livestock's health. In the fall of '98, we moved our cattle to a farm in Sinclair. The catalyst that prompted our family abandoning our home and our family farm, which

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 some of that land had been in my husband's family for over a hundred years, was constant high monitor readings for an entire week in early January of 1999. After what happened to Al in the previous fall, we could not in good consciousness allow our other sons, Adam and Stephen, who still lived at home to be subjected to these oil field emissions. By February 1, we were renting and living in Reston. We lived in a form of limbo for five years.

When we realized we could not continue to operate our farm business and family life in this fashion, we made a painful and extremely hard decision to permanently abandon our family farm and community. We purchased a farm in the Sinclair area in February 2004. It was after the ink dried on the deal that we found out the oil industry would be our neighbours yet again. We have yet to move to our home to our new farm site to fully get out lives back on track.

A letter from Honourable Jim Rondeau just last month talks of all that had been done by the different government departments to 1998, the air quality monitoring, soil, vegetation and groundwater studies that were conducted by the environment department, but it does not state that the monitoring was done after the poisonous oil field emissions were not just being vented completely to air as they had been for many years. It does not state that there were still readings that were not acceptable for safe living some of the time.

It does not state that if the wind was not blowing directly at the monitor, people and livestock were getting sick while being exposed to emissions blowing from another wind direction. And going down, it does not state that the whole monitoring program was a totally new experience for the department, and one operator admitted their inexperience in this area. On many high emission readings, they said there must be equipment problems because their readings should not be what they were.

Our past experience with the oil industry and consequential adverse health in our family and livestock, the extra expenses, the work our limbo incurred over the years, and our fear of the continuation of this problem has us in a form of limbo yet again. We have been repeatedly told over the years that the oil company was and is operating within government guidelines.

Experts have also said, and continue to say, oil field emissions should not have affected us adversely and are still not affecting our former neighbours, while the state-of- the-art battery and oil industry regulations failed yet again to adequately protect the health of those downwind of the poisonous oil field emissions, as you heard Wendy talk about just a few minutes ago. Neighbours three miles away are suffering right now after driving through it and having it in their yard.

Since our radical action prompted government involvement, the quotes in the papers or any correspondence, pat answers in regard to concerns expressed, and the general feeling of government seems to be that the problem has been adequately addressed. When we first started meeting with the ministers, we had a meeting with the previous minister that was responsible for the Petroleum Branch. Her first words to us were, "Did we realize that the government has spent over $100,000 because of us?

What more did we want?" She left us with the impression that we had cost the government a lot of heartache, but that does not hold a candle to the expense and heartache we have endured and are still living. We have since learned that Alberta experiences these spikes in their readings. So, consequently, many high emission readings were discounted, and they were in fact legitimate but were not recorded in the final report, making the final report inaccurate. The letter talks about two independent health studies commissioned by th e Health Department.

He states, and this comes from one of the studies, "A health study of Tilston area residents concluded health effects from exposure to battery emissions, in particular hydrogen sulphide, were short lived and people living in the area we re not at ri sk for long- term health effects." But, unlike when we first began our current quest, it is now admitted and accepted that the oil field emissions were and are making us sick.

At the time of the health study, the adult health study, Doctor Kraut said there was not sufficient evidence to determine if there would be long-term health effects, but as the years unfold, information and evidence about the adverse health effects of oil field emissions are being documented and released confirming what we have been stating all along. People working in the oil industry have spoken to us, telling us how they agree with our stand on the issue but at the same time cannot come forward as their livelihood would be at risk. We understand– Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Excuse me, I apologize for interrupting you. I just wanted to let you know you have a little less than 30 seconds left. Mr. Cummings: I do not want to be repeating, but I would give leave for the presenter in the committee to finish the presentation. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Is there leave from the committee to finish the presentation? Leave is granted. Please continue until you are finished. Ms. Campbell: Thank you very much. We understand and can a ppreciate this as one of our former neighbours did lose her job when she spoke out.

We did receive an anonymous letter from an employee of the Cromer pumping station, which is an interprovincial oil pipeline. In this letter he listed all the former employees who had died prematurely. It was an alarmingly long list, and unfortunately for the families' sake, supports the theory of long-term health effects. The letter talks about amendments to the regulations under The Oil and Gas Act, and we have to agree some baby steps were taken.

We appreciate the fact that John Fox met with us and considered our concerns while working on the amendments, but we do not agree there has been enough done to rectify the problem of oil field emissions to the surrounding people, animals and environment. * (20:20) We support the oil industry in that it brings revenue to our government both provincially and locally. It creates many jobs and benefits the local businesses and our family and friends working in the oil industry. It is not our intention to damage the industry.

Our goal, and what we believe everyone's goal is and should be, is to conduct the oil industry so that people can live safely with no health worries in their home. We live in a free country. We should not be exposed to the tyrannical rule of an industry whose sole objective appears to be financial gain at whatever cost. What is an acceptable dollar figure to put on a person's life? Understandably, the Petroleum Branch's priority is the development of the oil industry. Environmental protection is not significantly considered or provided for in the current amendments to The Oil and Gas Act.

It does not provide the involvement of the public in a meaningful way or does not even inform the public of most facts and issues related to the industry. The fact that oil batteries are not specifically included in the classes of development as well as other oil and gas facilities is grossly remiss. Oil batteries need to be listed as a Class 1 development in order to safeguard the environment and the people living in their proximity. The information supporting this theory is fast becoming a fact.

The most important amendment and one that has not been addressed at all would be to make The Oil and Gas Act subject to The Environment Act so that an impartial, independent third party's involvement would ensure a profitable and safe environment for all. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Are you willing to answer questions? Ms. Campbell: Yes, I am. Mr. Maguire: I just want to thank you, as well, Jean, for coming and making the presentation tonight. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Maguire, please move the mike forward. Mr.

Maguire: Thank you, Laura Jean, for coming and making the presentation as well. Of course, as I asked before, you make it very clear here that you would like to see The Environment Act be the controlling agent for some of the areas of emissions that come under the wells in the particular area, and that I am sure not just in your area, but all areas, and that you people have put a lot of thought into the type of presentations that you have made tonight in co-ordinating them very well and making the point on the classes of development of these batteries, as well.

That is why I asked for clarity in the first presentation to see just what–so it could be on the record, the types of batteries there are. I think it is important that all types of batteries are looked at. Do you see any difference between the old single wells that we started to talk about in Mr. Moir's presentation as well as is there a difference now in the horizontal-type wells? I am assuming that it does not make a lot of difference because it is the emissions coming off the battery regardless of the type of well. Ms. Campbell: Now, I hope I am answering this correctly.

It is my understanding that a horizontal

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 well can draw more out so your emissions would be more. Is that answering your question? Mr. Maguire: Well, just a supplemental. It certainly can draw more out of the horizontal well, but it all goes into the same battery, and so it is the emissions from the battery that you are concerned about. Ms. Campbell: It is emissions. There is a cell that a single pump jack is going to, and it is just being vented to air. There will be emissions there, too.

There will be a different kind at a battery, but it is our goal to–it would just be wonderful if there could be no emissions at all because then everyone could live safely. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation. I think you have made it pretty clear some of the problems. One of the things that I have heard a little bit about and maybe you can elaborate is the fact that sometimes the sour gas exposure, the hydrogen sulphide exposure, can set up sensitivities to other conditions or exposures so that there may be more than just the immediate health effects. Can you tell us more about that? Ms.

Campbell: We are unsure of that theory, and we do not know if it was the H2S, or just all the different pollutants that were coming out of the battery that affected us, but it does seem as though we are sensitive to a lot more than we ever were in just sort of normal day life, perfumes, et cetera. I used to wear perfume all the time. I cannot go near it right now, but I do not know if it is the H 2S pollutant, or some of the other ones. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: We have run out of time. Thank you for your presentation. The next out-of-town presenter on this bill is Mr. Ken Wray, private citizen. Please proceed. Mr.

Ken Wray (Private Citizen): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about Bill 21. My name is Ken Wray and I live on a farm in the area north of Tilston. Our home is three and a half miles as the crow flies from the oil battery known as Tundra 8 of 8-6-29. We also farm the land that the battery site is on. We have first-hand experience of the effect of sour gas emission from oil wells and batteries. My health and the health of my wife and children have been directly affected by these emissions.

Our three children have now moved away from home and, thank goodness, are not in an area where sour gas is a problem. Although we do not know, there could be long-term effects to their health that we are not aware of. I personally feel a tingling sensation in my fingers when I am exposed to sour gas. It also does something to one's head. I get vague feelings and lose my concentration. Later in the day, dark marks will show up on my face under the outside corner of my eyes. This is the most obvious sign I have been exposed to sour gas.

My wife experiences a dull, constant headache and stiff shoulders that can last for days. She has had extensive medical testing and no cause has been found. We have to realize that these symptoms are directly related to the weather conditions that are favourable to H 2S to be flowing into our yard and our home. When she is away from home for any length of time, these symptoms soon start to subside. We have a higher than normal rate of abortions and open cows in a herd and we have extensive records on this as we run a purebred operation. Bill 21 does not go far enough.

Having the Petroleum Branch in total control of the oil industry is not an option. It is comparable to leaving the wolf to guard the sheep. We need the department of environment to be involved in the control of emissions from oil wells and batteries. Air quality needs to be addressed. It is not mentioned in Bill 21 at all. What happened to concern for the air we breathe? In drilling regulations it now says that there is a need to be in consultation with the landowner within one and a half kilometres of the proposed battery site. This distance is way too close.

We live three and one half miles from a battery and we are definitely feeling the ill effects of sour gas. Officials need to recognize that these emissions can and do travel much farther than they either know and/or admit. Bill 21 needs to have the department of environment involved to control the air quality, along with the water and other environmental issues. Madam Chairperson in the Chair Why is air quality not included in the oil industry? The same H 2S that comes from hog barns comes from oil wells and batteries but the government sees fit to let the oil companies be their own regulators of this.

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 We are only a small portion of your people, but we represent a far greater number and if this bill passes as it is now, there will be far more people feeling the effects of sour gas. You have the power to start the wheels in motion to correct the short- comings of this legislation.

If all industries were allowed to completely regulate themselves with no outside input, to look after the interests of the public, can you imagine the mess the country would be in today? * (20:30) It is time for you, our government, to correct the gross inadequacies in this bill and to think of the health of your people. Someone needs to be under the umbrella of The Environment Act so there can be a third party involved in the industry. Maybe then we would feel more confident in the government's ability to look after the best interests of the people. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Wray. Mr.

Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation. Clearly, there have been significant numbers of people affected already. I think it is admirable that you are coming forward and you travelled quite a way to make this point. One of the questions which I think is important in the drilling regulations, it says 1.5 kilometres is the area that people need to be notified about. But you are three and a half miles, and that would be more than the five kilometres that was suggested by Manson Moir. What distance do you think that we need to be looking at? Should it be 7 or 10 kilometres? Mr.

Wray: I believe personally that yes, it should be probably at least a minimum of seven kilometres because there are many times that if the weather conditions are right, especially if you get high humidity, low clouds, that is how our gas will travel a long distance. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Wray? Mr. Cummings: My question relates to the health of your livestock. Obviously, the individual health of you and your family would come first, but sometimes we can determine from the health of our stock trends or difficulties.

Has there been any testing that anybody has recommended, or do you believe there is testing that would be useful to be done on the livestock in the area, or is that something that has been thought of and already discarded? Mr. Wray: I do not think anybody really knows enough about it or there are really any tests that they can really come up with. I know we have had different animals to the vet. For instance, two years ago we had a cow that quit eating and drinking. After about a week we took her to the vet and they took samples and sent them in.

The results we got back were that the cow was lacking in water and food, which we already knew. So, you know, I do not know. For some reason, I do not think there is enough known about it or at least the causes. If we have calves that are weak and we lose, you can send them in and they come back that, you know, inconclusive. So I do not know how you can really come up with–I would love to have an answer. I will put it that way. If somebody could give me an answer for it, that would be great. No matter what it was, I would like to know.

But it is so often that it comes back inconclusive or something you already know is the problem. Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): Madam Chair, in reviewing the bill, I just want to ask an individual who obviously is a stakeholder in regard to this bill– Madam Chairperson: Mrs. Rowat, you have to bring the microphone a little closer, sorry. Mrs. Rowat: As a stakeholder, do you feel comfort- able with the appeal or review process?

If you do have a complaint as an individual, do you feel comfortable that the bill will be there, will provide access and opportunity for an individual to come forward either through a hearing process or through a means of allowing the minister to review your personal situation? Mr. Wray: Again, I guess I will just speak personally here. I think that, you know, as long as everything is under control of the one board, we will not have a fair review. I think it has to be a third party that is involved in it to have a fair review on it. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Wray.

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 Brad Thiessen, Manitoba Committee Chair for the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada. Before you proceed, Mr. Thiessen, that list previously, Mr. Ken Wray was the last of our out-of- town presenters. Mr. Thiessen, you can proceed whenever you are ready. Mr. Brad Thiessen (Manitoba Committee Chair, Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada): It has been a long time waiting. Madam Chairperson: We thank you for your patience. Mr. Thiessen: Certainly. Good evening, my name is Brad Thiessen.

I am the chairman of the Manitoba Committee of the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada. CP AC represents emerging and junior conventional oil and gas companies to the public, to governments and to other sectors of the energy industry. CPAC has over 400 member companies, 80 percent of which are exploration and producing companies. I am also here as the land manager of Tundra Oil and Gas Ltd. headquartered here in Winnipeg. Tundra is the largest producer in Manitoba and also the most active driller of oil wells in the province.

As CPAC's representative, I am here to voice the oil industry's support for the proposed amendments to The Oil and Gas Act, and The Oil and Gas Production Tax Act, and for the consultation process that the government has utilized to get us to the point that you are at today. The Petroleum Branch of the Department of Industry, Economic Development and Mines first approached oil industry associations and individual oil companies that are active in Manitoba back in 2003 with proposed draft amendments.

Since that time, the department has met with the various parties individually and held industry round table sessions, two in Calgary and two in Virden. At these round table sessions, all active producers and explorers were invited to meet as a group, to listen to presentations from department officials and to jointly discuss issues that industry faces. These sessions were well attended and provided an excellent forum for discussions. In addition, the Petroleum Branch held a public meeting in November 2003, to allow non-industry groups and individuals the opportunity to provide their input.

We feel that the proposed amendments are most appropriate. The department has recognized the provisions of the existing legislation that needed changes to the administrative processes and have strengthened and clarified provisions related to the protection of the environment. We would like to thank the minister and his st aff for their efforts, and we look forward to continuing to work with them and the people in the communities in which we work. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation.

One of the concerns for industry people in terms of the sour gas situation is that it is not necessarily simple to diagnose some of the medical problems, and it has been difficult to sort some of this out over the years, but it is clear now that th ere are medical problems associated with the hydrogen sulphide. One of the things that is always bad for industry is to have the potential for liabilities because of health effects or other effects hanging over your head.

One of the things that I would ask you would be basically this: To have a situation where you can be sure that you are not going to be facing future liabilities would certainly be positive. Is that correct? Mr. Thiessen: Maybe you could rephrase the question. I am not sure exactly what you have asked. Mr. Gerrard: Yes. I mean, if industries which had been associated with health problems in the past have sometimes found themselves with big bills for liabilities which they never anticipated, and that certainly is not something that we would like to see with the oil and gas industry, for example.

Certainly, anything that would limit or reduce the potential for future liabilities would, I think, be a good thing for you. Is that right? Mr. Thiessen: I think I would answer that question by saying that we operate under a very closely regulated industry. The amendments that you are looking at to The Oil and Gas Act are just part of a full package of legislation under The Oil and Gas Act and all of the regulations that go with it. Our position is that we protect the environment, our people and the people that we work with and that

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 is an overriding concern of us, I know of my company and also of our industry. Mr. Maguire: I guess I want to thank you for your presentation as well. I wanted to look at one of the key amendments in this Oil and Gas Act, that the Conservation Board is replaced with an inquiry panel that considers these matters. You are of the opinion, then, that the Conservation Board being replaced is a good thing? * (20:40) Mr. Thiessen: I certainly do. Maybe a little background on myself. I have been with Tundra Oil and Gas now for 10 years as the Land Manager.

Prior to that I spent 15 years working for them, the Department of Energy and Mines, with the Petroleum Branch. Knowing the legislation from that viewpoint, it was always an issue to be able to find competent people who could be represented on the Oil and Gas Conservation Board. The idea of having an inquiry process whereby the minister would be involved and be able to bring in outside expertise as needed to address specific and, again, I cannot stress enough, that a lot of the issues that we are talking about here are very technical issues.

I know we have heard some emotional conveyance of those issues at this meeting tonight. To be asking people who are not technically capable, and I am not technically capable, to be able to comment on things like appropriate distances, is there is a whole body of knowledge around all this that is available, and for th e minister to be able to avail himself of that expertise would be most appropriate. Mr. Cummings: I wondered if you could share with us what recommendations the industry would have made to the department about these amendments. You indicate that you are very satisfied with what you see here.

Does it go as far in terms of protection as you had recommended? Mr. Thiessen: Yes. Actually, again because of my background, is when I received the first proposed draft amendments, I certain ly reviewed them all very, very carefully. I thin k inasmuch as I am an employee of Tundra Oil and Gas Ltd., I certainly take my role as the Manitoba committee chair for our organization very seriously and try to wear as many hats as I can when I look at this sort of thing. I think that a healthy oil and gas industry operating in healthy communities is good for the province of Manitoba.

I think many of you are aware of some of the newspaper articles that have appeared in the last while regarding activity levels in the Sinclair area. This sort of development is very good, but at the same time, we recognize the need for strong environmental legislation. The provisions that are anticipated in the oil and gas and the bill that you are looking at, many of which have been preceded by changes in procedures already under The Oil and Gas Act by way of specifically an informational notice regarding oil and gas battery permitting.

Many of those ideas regarding consultation, the emission limitations, modelling for any emissions that are there are very important. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Thiessen, I am sorry. Is there leave of the committee to continue past the five minutes for his answer in light of the fact that his initial presentation was short? Agreed, to finish this answer? [Agreed] Please continue. Mr. Thiessen: I am sorry, I think that was my point. Madam Chairperson: Okay, sorry. Mr. Cummings: You alluded to– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Cummings, I need leave from the committee to extend beyond that.

Is there leave of the committee to go beyond for the extended time period? [Agreed] Please proceed, Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings: I want to make this very brief, Madam Chair. One of the issues that has always been in the middle of this debate is environmental law. You just referenced environmental protection in your comments. What is your view on whether or not The Environment Act should be used to deal with emissions? Mr. Thiessen: I think that it is appropriate for it to be in The Oil and Gas Act for a number of reasons.

The first one being that the Petroleum Branch does have the expertise to be able to deal with the issues that we are dealing with here. These are professional engineers that have been schooled in what they need to be to understand these issues. But I also think, and

May 31, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 it has come up before in other conversations, that the idea that, and I know you have heard it from a number of the other presenters tonight, is how can someone wear two hats as being a promoter of the industry and also being its regulator. I think that some of that causes me some discomfort.

I think the analogy that I have used in the past is we have a relationship with the Petroleum Branch much in the same way that if you were in a small town you have with the local RCMP officers, is that these are people that are within your community and people you play hockey with and maybe golf with, but there is also the business end of that in recognizing that they are not just there to give you speeding tickets, although that is certainly part of their job and when you get them, you deserve the ticket and you got it.

I think that is the same kind of relationship with the Petroleum Branch is that this is what I see under The Oil and Gas Act, and I know the regulations, and what I am thinking is anticipated to be in those regulations. This is a marked improvement in the controls and the powers that are being given both to the branch and, maybe more importantly, to the minister to get involved in issues that line staff, for whatever reason, are unable to deal with. Mr. Cummings: I hear your analogy. Unfortunately, I would have a different

interpretation of that, being a recipient of a few speeding tickets, but the fact is, under Manitoba Public Insurance, we put the appeal body into an entirely different department. There was a reason for that. The current government has continued with that thinking. Would you have an objection if, in fact, the appeal mechanism was in some department other than the one that is, rightfully so, promoting the industry? I am a proponent of the industry as much as anyone around this table, but in the interest of fairness and not taking away the competence, is that something that you think would be worth considering?

Mr. Thiessen: I think that whatever body decides on an appeal needs to have the technical expertise to be able to address that and whether that expertise is from the Petroleum Branch and from the department or from the department of the environment, and I know the department of environment has been involved in the ongoing issues in the Tilston area for a number of years now, is that whatever expertise that the minister needs or that the government feels that it needs to address these issues would be a good idea and welcomed by our industry. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Thiessen. Mr.

John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Sorry, I was just going to ask for leave of the committee. We have to take a break. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Mr. Loewen: Thanks, Madam Chair, I know there are a number of people– Madam Chairperson: Could you just bring the mike a little closer, Mr. Loewen. I am sorry. Mr. Loewen: I know there are a number of people that we have just heard from who have come a long distance to give us their thoughts on this bill, Bill 21. We have heard all of the presenters on Bill 21 and I would seek leave of the committee now just to quickly go through the clause by clause.

We do not think it will take a long time, but these individuals have a long trip home tonight and if we could finish off this bill in the next five to seven minutes. We have only one minor amendment which I believe the minister has agreed to and the bill should move pretty quickly. Mr. Doug Marti ndale (Burrows): Yes, quite often presenters do not stay until the clause by clause is over and the normal process of our committees is to hear all the presenters first.

The other normal process, which we did not follow tonight, is to have the Francophone presenters go next so that we can hear the Francophone presenters and pass any legislation that they are here for, clause by clause, so that we can send the translator home. We have not done that tonight, but I think we should proceed to the five presenters on Le Collège de Saint-Boniface Incorporation Amendment Act since they are waiting and I do not think it is fair for them to wait for clause by clause for a lengthy bill because our normal process is to hear all the presenters first.

Madam Chairperson: Does the minister have a comment? Mr. Rondeau: No.

28 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 31, 2005 Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I thank my colleague Mr. Martindale for his comme nts. I, however, have been assured by my colleagues opposite that this will be very brief and, out of respect for the individuals from out of town, I trust that our friends from St.

Boniface will not mind waiting since these folks have, I think, in the hundreds of kilometres to drive home. * (20:50) Madam Chairperson: Just before I go on, is there agreement then from the committee that– [interjection] Just a moment please, agreement from the committee that we will go clause by clause on Bill 21? I will say that the bill is not a lengthy bill. Agreed? [Agreed] Thank you very much. Does the minister responsible for Bill 21 have an opening statement? Mr. Rondeau: Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed, Mr. Rondeau. Mr.

Rondeau: This bill continues what was started about the year 2001 when the regulatory amend- ments dealing with the design construction of batteries were introduced. In 2001, the amendments from the new and existing batteries were extended so that the Manitoba air quality guidelines for hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide were extended, and by 2002 all existing batteries in the province were re- permitted after demonstrating compliance with air quality guidelines. I understand that the operators spent almost $3 million to upgrade the batteries to ensure compliance with air quality guidelines.

This bill continues with that practice of improving the situation and making sure that people get a fair hearing and get to hear, administratively, clean up administratively so people can have a right to be heard in a timely manner. So what it is doing, it is creating an inquiry panel which is flexible, which allows outside expertise so that if a person has a complaint, there is a group that they can go to, that they can be heard, who ha s the expertise to make a quick, effective decision. It is acting for inquiry flexibility. What is good about it is that it will be heard.

It is not something that is done in the branch. It is something that is directed out of the ministerial office that is effective. Finally, what it is doing is getting rid of some of the old regulations that have not been used for years. Madam Chairperson: We thank the minister. Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement? No? Thank you. Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clauses 3 and 4–pass; clause 5–pass; clauses 6 through 8–pass. Shall clause 9 pass? An Honourable Member: Pass. Madam Chairperson: A little louder, please. An Honourable Member: Pass. Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

Clause 9–pass; clause 10–pass; clauses 11 through 14–pass; clauses 15 and 16–pass; clauses 17 through 20–pass; clauses 21 and 22–pass. Shall clause 23 pass? Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Madam Chairperson– Madam Chairperson: Would you move the mike a little closer, Mr. Rocan. Mr. Rocan: Madam Chairperson, after hearing many of the discussions here this evening by the presenters, we on this side are prepared to move a friendly amendment in order to give this bill a little bit more guts and gusto. Madam Chairperson: You have to move the mike closer, please. Mr.

Rocan: We would like to move, seconded by the honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), THAT the proposed subsection 93(1), as set out in C

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-3-sed1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 3rd hansardpdf sed1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4427e66484f6a9d9bde1167e3e8391f52e09efac

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