Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 34B (34th Legislature, 1st Session)

34-1-34b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 First Session - Thirty-Fourth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 37 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XXXVII No. 348 - 8 p.m., MONDAY, SE PTEMBER 12, 1988. ISSN 0542-5492 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY Thirty-Fourth legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAM E CONS TIT UENCY ALCOCK, Reg Osborne ANGUS, John St. Norbert ASHTON, Steve Thompson BURRELL, Parker Swan River CARR,James Fort Rouge CARSTAIRS, Sharon River Heights CHARLES, Gwen Selkirk CHEEMA, Gulzar Kildo nan CHORNOPYSKI, Wi lliam Burrows CONNERY, Edward Hon. Portage la Prairie COWAN,Jay Churchill CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose du Lac DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell DOER,Gary Concordia DOWNEY, James Hon. Arthur DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Emerson DRIEDGER, Herold, L. Niakwa DUCHARME, Gerald, Hon.

Riel EDWARDS, Paul St. James ENNS, Harry Lakeside ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood EVANS, Laurie Fort Garry EVANS, Leonard Brandon East FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo FINDLAY, Glen Hon. Virden GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface GILLESHAMMER, Harold Minnedosa GRAY, Avis Ellice HAMMOND, Gerrie Kirkfield Park HARAPIAK, Harry The Pas HARPER, Elijah Rupertsland HELW ER, Edward R. Gimli HEMPHILL, Maureen Logan KOZAK, Richard, J. Transcona LAMOUREUX, Kevin, M. lnkster MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood MANDRAKE, Ed Assiniboia MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. Morris McCRAE, James Hon. Brandon West MINENKO, Mark Seven Oaks MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon.

River East NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. Rossmere OLESON, Charlotte Hon. Gladstone ORCHARD, Donald Hon. Pembina PANKRATZ, Helmut La Verendrye PATTERSON, Allan Radisson PENNER, Jack, Hon. Rhineland PLOHMAN, John Dauphin PRAZNIK, Darren Lac du Bonnet ROCAN, Denis, Hon. Turtle Mountain ROCH, Gilles Springfield ROSE, Bob St. Vital STORIE, Jerry Flin Flon TAYLOR, Harold Wolseley URUSKI, Bill lnterlake WASYLYCIA-LEIS, Judy St.

Johns YEO, lva Sturgeon Creek PARTY LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP PC LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC NDP NDP PC NDP LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL PC PC PC PC PC LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP LIBERAL NDP NDP LIBERAL

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA Monday, September 12, 1988. The House met at 8 p. m. MATTER OF URGE NT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE (Cont'

d) Mr. Speaker: The hour being 8 p.m., we will be re sumi ng de bate on a matter of urgent public import ance on the Rafferty-Ai ameda Dam. Ms. Maureen Hemphill (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues on this side are very pleased to join with '�Ur other colleagues on this side in bringing forward the need for this important emergency resolu tion, because this is an absolutely critical issue facing all Manit obans, one that they are entitled to know about, to understand and to have an opportunity to give their input into. Why the emergency resolution? lt is because nothing is happening on the other side.

We cannot trust the Minister opposite and we cannot apparently trus t this Government. We cannot trus t Ottawa to protect Manitoba waters and to do what needs to be done because they are too prepared to accept information that comes from other committees, that comes from other jurisdictions or that comes from stud ies, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said, after the fact. The Minister of Environment (Mr.

Connery) said toda y-or he has said on the weekend perhaps, and I think the state ments by the Minis ter in the House and out of the House really concern us-tha t this is going to be good for Mani toba whil e he waits for th e committee to report. He told us all afternoon that this committee is going to re port, and we are anxiously waiting to see what they are going to say. In the meantime, we are being told by the Prem ier, by this Minis ter and by this Government that this is going to be good for Manitoba . Based on what, based on whose say so, based on whose information? Grant Devine?

Is that who we are going to accept, Grant Devine's informa tion? While we are waiting for all these people to report and studies that might be done at a later date, the dam will be under constr uction.

The dam is under constructio n without this study that should have been done in order to comply with the federal Government's guideli nes required for approving this project. lt is very clear we cannot count on Ottawa; we cannot count on this Minis ter; we cannot count on this Government when he makes a statement in the House that they told me that there would be no negative effect on the quantity and quality of our water supply as a result of the construction of the dams in the Souris River syste m. I ask him, what are we going to do to them if there is a serious effect to our water?

Will we ask them to apologize ? What will we do?

Will we say, would you please apologize to us because you were wrong and the quantity and quality of our water supply is not good? 1t is this Govern ment, the Government of Manitoba , that should-and if they will not, then it is the Members on the Opposition side that will bring this issue to the people of Manitoba, call on information being presented to the people, call on studies and information to make the decision that has already been made, based on no adequa te informatio n and tell everybody that we are not prepared to have this project proceed until we are fully satisfied that adeq uate protections are there.

We do not want this to proceed. I think this was very clear in a letter that I want to put on the record, portions of it, written by our previous Minister, Mr. Plohman, who on April 22 of 1988 said this: "I must tell you, however, that the very late hour at which the SBDA and agencies in the United States have recognized the need to provide su bstantive water quality assessment documentation to Manitoba , gives me cause for concern.

I would not want any compromise of the substantive scient ific analysis of trans- boundary environmental impacts from this project as a result of the proponent, self-imposed project deadli nes. The SBDA planned some initial construction activities in February, with actual dam constructio n to begin in April. We will bend all our efforts to reasonably ensure that our input does not unnecessarily delay the impact assessment" How reasonable can you be?

"However, if there is not enough time to complete a credible assessment, I trust" -I do not know if you should have said this in your letter, but you did -"that Canada will withhold approval until such an assessment has been completed and accepted by the parties." That was our position and that is still our position, and it should be the position of every Member of this Legisla ture re present ing the people of Manitoba.

We were in contact this afternoon with a woman called Elizabeth May, who was the adviso r to Tom McMillan for some time and was a major adviso r to him on all environmental issues, including and particularly the Rafferty-Ai ameda project. She resigned her position a week after she found out that the Minister was going to go ahead with the project, although she spent that week trying to talk to him and trying to get him to alter the position to continue with the previous position that had been determined and understood.

She resigned her position after she found out that the Minis ter would say that he could not even consider the Rafferty -Aiameda licence unt il the grassland park was approved by Saskatchewan. She said that the federal Government gave in on this licence to get Saskatc hewan to agree to translate their statutes into French. You have a situation here where Manitoba water, the safety, the standards, the quality and qu antity of Manitoba water has been traded off for two political deals. One is a park and the other is the translation of French language services. Who is there protecting Manitoba water?

Elizabeth was pushed out by the new chief of staff and said that a call went into a senior staff in the federal 1199

Monday, September 12, 1988 Environment Department that said he wanted the Rafferty licence issued tomorrow. That is how much time was taken in making th is decision . It was a quick political decision . It was a backroom deal and nobody , particularly the Governme nt and the Minister, is out there protecting Manitoba people and Manitoba water. She says that our position was very defensible and that they knew we had those concerns all along. She knew, Joe Clark knew, and Tom McMillan knew.

They all knew what the position was of the Man it ob a Government about the protection and the requirement to know that we were protecting our Manitoba water , and the understanding was that Manitoba's concerns were paramount and these concerns would be met prior to issuing a licence . In other words, the understanding was that there would be no licence issued until studies were done that answered all of the questions and concerns that Manitoba had regarding the quantity and quality of their water . What is it that we want now? I can tell you what we do not want.

We do not want the position reiterated by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) just before we broke for dinner . The Premier of the province got up to speak on this critical issue and he talked largely about personal attacks coming from the Liberal Opposition. That was what he concentrated most of his time on. He is the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the First Minister of this Province. He is talking about a critical issue to the people of Manitoba and he spends his time attacking the Opposition for attacking , instead of telling us and explaining what he and his Government were going to do to protect the safety of Manitoba waters.

He did say we might have a stud y. He said we might have a study, if necessary , but first we have to decide what we are doing. Does he not understand that they cannot decide what they are doing until they have the information that tells them what the effect is going to be? •

(2010) The federal Government caved in. The provincial Government is abrogating their responsibilities and that , I guess, leaves it up to the majority of the Membe rs in this House , the Members of the Opposition, to take up the cause for the people of Manitoba and to take it to Manitobans and to indicate that this is what we want to do and this is what we on this side intend to do. We do not want a study after the fact; we do not want apologies after the fact. We want action now by the Government.

We are going to call on the environme ntal groups to renew their efforts, environmental groups that have already taken a position in opposition to this project. We will call on the U.S. National Wildlife Association , who are also on record opposing this project, to renew their support . We will support the Environmenta l Protection Agency in the States to demand that their concerns be dealt with , and we will demand answers to the U.S . Army Corps Environmental Impact Statement which is surprisingly negative.

Look at all those groups who have registered already strong opposition to this project , and we are also -(lnterjection)- 15 minutes . Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member 's time has expired . Mr. Laurie Evans (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker , I welcome this opportunity to speak on this issue. I want to make it very clear that I am becoming very annoyed with the concept that , every tim e t hat someone on the oppos ite benches stand up, they wave their finger at this side of the House and say that you are fearmongering. You have no genuine inte rest in what you are doing .

You only have one reason to be ther e and that is to exploit something for political gain. I want to tell Members opposite that they have no monopoly on moral and ethical issues . They can listen to the rest of us and realize that some of us are here for a purpose which is not strictly one to gain political mileage out of an unimportan t issue. To us, this is an important issue, an extremely important issue .

As far as I am concerned , this is an issue that needs to be aired today and I have a great deal of confidence in the Ministers opposite, particularly those in the areas of natural resources and agriculture and environment, in terms of them not agreeing to a deal that is not satisfactory . But I have to become skeptical and perhaps even a little bit cynical when , every day in the news, you see something that you look at and you say this does not make sense, when you find that you have a Government that is paying millions of dollars to buy a seat in Quebec.

Then you find two Ministers standing up at Lloydminster and agreeing to a deal which every economist says probably is not a viable deal at the present tim e . Then you have the Premi er of Saskatchewan and the Deputy Minister (sic) happening to be the ones who have the constituencies where these dams are about to be. One has to wonder whether every decision is made on the basis of the true value of it to humanity and to Canadians and to Manitobans and to those in Saskatchewan . 1200 We know that Premi er Devine has some IOUs. That $1 billion did not come to Saskatchewan on the eve of an election by chance.

He had some IOUs and , therefore, we have to assume that he is paying off some of those IOUs. Now we are being asked to take a great leap of fai th when it comes to something like the Rafferty-Alameda Dam. We can only jump so far over a chasm. We can only have so much faith in this issue. I think it is time that the facts were put before us. Now , we have had one excellent example in this House wher e a ll three

Partie s sat down and looked at the issue of Churchill. I think the opportunity exists again for the Ministers involved to say okay, Membe rs of the Opposition, this is the data that is availabl e. This data has come from the United States; this is the data that has come from studies that have been don e in Saskatchewan ; this is the information that we have here in Manitoba . Let us take a look at that. Are we satisf ied that we do not have an issue that could be problematical to Manitoba in the near term and the long term?

If that inform ation is available, then I have no problem with that being tabled and an opportunity to look at that, and have the assurances from the experts who know what that really means and to say, yes, you have adequate info rmation. There is nothing further needed. But surely to goodness, we are not going to take it all

Monday, September 12, 1988 on faith that Manitoba has n othing to suffer. There have been too many studies done on this type of thing that have all sho wn tha t Manitoba has to have some concerns. lt is not only a bunch of Lib erals and NDP who are upset with this issue, who are bringing this up. The wildlife people have looked at it We know, for example, that there have been suggestions-and you can say it is fearmongering if you want, but those suggestions have not come from the Liberal side of this House that there is the distinct possibi lity of transfer of water from one watershed to anot her.

There has been some suggestion that this could lead in time to export of water to the United States. Now, I am not saying that this is what is intended but, surely to goodness, this is the type of thing where the air has to be cleared, the mists have to be removed, and we have to get down to the facts. Being a scient ist for many, many years, I think one has to have the information and interp ret it in the best possible light you can do.

I would love to be able to stand up in this House and say that we have looked at the Rafferty-Aiameda situation. it appears to have far more pluses than it does minuses, and we should be going forward with the idea, that it has benefits to Manitoba. lt certainly is not the case of wanting to stop something that has a lot of benefit, but we have to know that information and we have to be satisfied that we are not, 10 or 20 years from now, having to revert back to a document of 1909 and say you are not meeting your obligations. What do you do?

Blow up the dam and start all over again once the se thi ngs have happened th at are detrimental to our cause? -(Interjection)- well, '59 , but the original treaty is 1909. Now we want to see for sure. We are anxious that the Souris River have a reliable flow of water and that the quali ty of that water is satis factory, that it can be used for all purposes. These are the things that I think everyone in this House wants to see.

But when the Minis ter is quoted as saying that it is now too late, and he infers at least that the reason it is too late is that the previous regime did not do their job-and that is the inference I have to dr aw from that-the n in my opinion, it is never too late. Sur ely to goodness, it is time to say, okay, hold on for a little while before we pursue this project and make sure that we know the scenarios that we may have to be faced with in the near future or in the long term on this thing. Get the facts down.

If it means that there have to be some studies done in Manitoba to complement what has already been done, for good ness sake, do them. But if in actual fact the reason that we are hurrying with this is because, if it is not signed off by the end of this month, the money coming from the United States is lost, that in my opin ion is not a good enough reason to go ahead with something that is suspect So I think the onus is on the Government of the Day to make sure that they are not going to be called upon 10 years down the road and say where were you when this thing went forward, and look at the mess we are in.

We, as Opposition, I think it has to be on record that we have brought this forward as a concern and tha t if 10 years from no w, because we were in 1201 Opposition, we can at least stand up and say, yes, this was brought to the attention of the Governme nt of the Day. The y did no thi ng . We urged th em on many numerous occasions to do something, but they sat on their hands. Then at least I feel that we are vindicated.

I take great exception to anyone on the other side, standing up and telli ng us that this is not of sufficient concern to be add ressed toda y, and it is being done strictly for political posturing because that upsets me very much. I think that it is a genuine cause, and one that deserves the time that was spent on it today. Thank you very much. *

(2020) Mrs. lva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): I too am delighted to be able to enter into this debate toda y, and I am as anguished as my colleague from Fort Garry (Mr. Evans) is that it was made light of by the Premier (Mr. Fil mon) of thi s pr ovince. Is tha t to say th at th e environment, which is one of our gr eatest concerns - (Interjection)- No, I am sorry. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Connery) is switching the words around, Mr. Speaker. I have in the past 20 years attended many, many science fairs throughout the province.

At each of these science fairs, our young students, our 10-, 11 -, 15-year olds, have been entering projects about acid rain, about their concern for the ozone layer, etc. They have very real concerns for the environment, and we on this side of the House obviously have more concerns than some of the other people in the House do. I believe the Government has to take a stand on this Rafferty -Aiameda deaL We cannot allow it to move ahead without some form of greater debate. I think the public has a right to be involved and obviously the public has not had a great deal of opportunity to become involved.

I think there has to be an environment al impact study done immediately, and therein lies part of the reason why this is a matter of urgent public importance. Ob viousl y, the Government is not worrying quite as much about it. The numb er of speakers that they have promoted today have been far fewer than those on this side of the House, so we are more concerned over here with the impact. Is there really sufficient knowledge? Can the Minister of the Environme nt tell us that there really is sufficient knowledge to move ahead? -(Interjection)- Do we really know the impact of this project on Manitoba?

I do not think we do. I would suggest that we do not really know. Oh yes, Saskatchewan maybe did an al beit inadequate stu dy. North Dakota did a study, and that study showed concerns with the qua lity of water moving into our province. But what about our own province? What study have we done or what study do we intend to do? Will we wait until after the fact and then we will say oh well, we are sorr y, we should have done a study? That is not good enough. Why is this a matter of urgent public importance? Because of the time constraint s.

September 30, we have to sign the deal so that the Americ an fundi ng will come thr ough. If we do not sign by September 30, the Amer ican funding may be lost Is there full information? Do we fully understand the possible increased cost to

Mond ay, September 12, 1988 towns such as Souris and many other areas around Sour is, any other water users who might be adversely affected by the decrease in the water? Do we fully understand that? Has anybody actually done a study to look into our concerns? What about the wildl ife and the vegetatio n? Being a cottage dweller, I am very concerned about the effects of water levels, the effects of quality and qua ntity of water on our wildlife. Low water flows may result in loss of upstr eam fish and spawning areas for these fish.

The flooding of wildl ife habitats could cause loss of the wintering habitat for deer, reduced upland game bird populations. There is all kinds of inte rference with the vegetation and the animal life. You know, not too long ago, I walked along the banks of Lake Ontario and I thought to myself at the time, why did somebody not have the foresig ht to guard against the damage that has occurred in Lake Ontario? I would hope that the Government of Manitoba would have the foresig ht to guard against the damage that might occur in the Souris Valley area. Why a matter of urgent public importance?

The Pr emier seemed to think-he scoffed at us. Fearmongering is the term that they use when they cannot think of any other term to use. Why did the federal advisor resign? A highly ski lled, a highly paid individual resigned out of principle. I was once attacked because I was a highly principled individual, as though that was a bad thing to be. I do not apologize for being highly principled and I am sure Elizabeth May does not apologize for being highly principled eit her. I think she had a concern for the interests of our particular province.

I think these concerns underscore the need for a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the Rafferty -Aiameda project on our water quant ity, on our water qualit y, and what might happen to the wildl ife and vegetation. Thank you, Mr. Speake r. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would like to join in this very critical debate. I too wish that every Member of the House would take this matter very seriou sly becaus e it is an enda ngerme nt to our environment. I am aski ng and pl ead ing with the Mini ster of Environment (Mr. Cannery), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Penner) and indeed the Government side to take a sane, rational approach in this matter. In some ways, many people think that the horse is out of the barn because the federal Minister has issued a licence in June. I do not think it is too late. I think there are a lot of things that can be done. What I am suggesting is that there has to be an adequate study done with evidence provided so that we do know of the consequences. There has been no study done that is worth its salt. There has been no study done that is adequate with regard to Manitoba's water interests.

The fact is that we cannot and should not agree to anything until these studies have been completed and then we should consider them and then we should be in a position to negotiate if that is where we are going to end up at. So we stu dy, consider and then negotiate. Surely, we cannot agree to any thing. The Government of Manitoba cannot agree to anything until we have the data. There have been studies done, I know, by the Souris Basin Development Authori ty, but this has been very limited. lt was limited to the North Dakota Saskatchewan border only.

There has been a study done by the Environmental Protection Agency and that was only from the dam itself, down 200 river kilometers to the City of Minot. That also did not consider Manitoba. I am told on very good authority that the United States Corps of Engineers does not think much of either of those two stud ies. So we do not have anything that we can use for negotiation. We have nothing to use for consideratio n and then negotiation. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Manitoba has rights under

Article IV of the Bound ary Waters Treaty, no one shall pollute or dama ge pr operty and health in any jurisdic tion, in this case, in the Province of Manitoba. I understand that the federal Minister , Mr. McMillan, has issued a licence as of June 21 with 13 conditions in it. One of those conditio ns, I believe it is conditio n No. 10, says that there shall not be this violation of the Boundary Waters Treaty. I guess there was some reference made to this by the First Mini ster. The fact is that this is something that may be a consideration.

I am not suggesting that is the solut ion, but this may be a consideration. For goodness sakes, let us not abrogate our responsibilit y. I think people concerned about the environment in this province were horrified to read the remarks in the newspapers made by the Minister of Environment. Let us not abrogate our responsibil ity. That is totally irrespo nsible. Mr. Speaker, as was referred to by my colleague, the MLA for Logan (Ms. Hemphill), the former NDP Minister did write to the federal Government expressing our concerns very forthrigh tly.

Included in our concerns in thi s letter was an appe ndix wh ich out lined what Manitoba has a right to expect as a Party that could be affected by the proposed project.

We referred specifically to a thorough, scientifically credible analysis providing the expected values of all water quality parameters at the Saskatchewan-N orth Dakota border for all anticipated operating regimes of the project; secondly, a thorough scientifically credible analysis which routes all of the Saskatchewan-North Dakota water quali ty parameter values through North Dakota, applyi ng the expected North Dakota operating regime to produce the expected values of all water quality parameters at the North Dakota-Manitoba border for all anticipa ted operating regimes in North Dakota; thirdl y, a thorough scientifically credible analysis which compares the expected values of all water quality parameters under all operating regimes at the North Dakota-Manitoba border with base-line water quality for the Souris River in Manitoba to determine expected project water qual ity impacts in Manitoba. • (2030) lt goes on, in the appendix, that all the necessary work done there could be and probably should be funded by North Dakota and Saskatchewan, because they were the proponents of this particular project. 1202

Monday, September 12, 1988 Whatever time is required to perform the necessar y work and consult with the affected public must be built into the project schedule. We are clearly on record as stating that we need this credi ble scientific analys is. Manit oba, of course, would be prepared to cooperate. We outlined what we could do by preparing detailed gui delines, providing informa tion on the Souris River basin water quality objectives, provide informa tion on base-line water qua lity in the Souris River basin in Manitoba , and generally assist in the development and execution of a public consult ation process.

So it is absol utely essential that we get reliable, scientific studies, that that be made avail able to the public and that, indeed, ther e be discussion. We have also suggested, in addition to that, we could use our own Clean Environment Commission to have hearings and to allow for pu blic input in addition to that. I might add, Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Shand Coal Gene rating Station which is related to this dam project will be, of course, burning coal or will be causing acid rain . Tha t is anot her environmenta l concern that we should have here.

What, if any, acid rain will be coming from that particular project? So the study has to be done, if for no one else but for the people, and certainly it should be done for the Government. I do not often agree with the Member for Arthur or the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) but he did state back in Februa ry of 19 86, I believe, and this was referred to in The Brandon Sun of that time, that the Tory MLA, as is referred to, said he wants the International Joint Com missio n, which reg ul ates Canada-United States water movement, to assess the project. That is an excellent suggestion .

He is now a Minister of this Government. Surely he should have some influence in the discussions in the Cabinet, in his caucus, and that the Government should go ahead and pr ess Ottawa for th is IJC (I ntern ational Joint Commission) Assess ment. Nothing sh ould happen certainly before this. Time goes very fast, I do not know how much ti me I have left. I have two minutes left? I have eight minutes left? Two minutes left? Mr. Speaker: The Honoura ble Member has two minutes remaining. Mr. Leonard Evans: Regrettably there is an emergency about this on the part of the Saskatchewan Government.

They seem to have made a deal with the federal Govern ment . Premier Devine wants this project badly. lt is in his constituency. lt is being opposed incid entally by the New Democratic Party of Saskatchewan and they are on record as not proceeding with this if they are elected in the next election, or they would stop it, if at all possible, upon being elected in the next election. I want to urge some sanity on the part of the Government, stand up for Manitobans.

I say that, if the Government is not going to take action, then you can see a Bill or some action coming from this side which will have the effect of law in this entir e matter. That is not beyond the realm of possi bility. So live up to your challenges and get on with the job. 1203 Hon . Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker , I found this most interesting, the comments that I have heard here tod ay, and I think it is appropriate to some degree that we have this kind of a discussion. lt brings out a real variety of views.

Many people may not really understand the situa tion, but every body has their own philosophical view as to what is happening and they put it on the record. One comment I found from the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Evans), an interesting statement that he puts on the record, that if the NDP Government would be elected in Saskatchewan, they would not proceed with this program. Over the period of ye ars, in my history before politics and in politics, I have been observing what has happened.

One of the things I think, when we look back over the years, the building year s- I would like to call them the building ye ars, the Duff Roblin years-when we had things like the diversion, the floodway around Winnipeg, can any of you recall the flack and the criticism about what happened about that diversion, the terrible things that happened with that, the static that happened? Until ye ars later, all of a sudd en, we realized it was a positive project. The static that was gone through in terms of the anti-floodway feelings that were ther e- the building ye ars I call them.

What has happened in the last ye ars is that we have so many regula tions that nothing develops anymore. I want to bring forward a case like the St. Malo Dam. At that time it was under PFRA. lt was for specific purposes. lt was not for recreation. lt was supposed to be a water reservoir that was going to help the farmers, to provide some water. I am talking of projects at that time that were undertaken. There were many others under consi deration, some qualified, some did not.

The difficulty I have is that we are in a stage where all of a su dden whatever happens envi ronment ally and we have to protect these things , we have to be concerned, but I will tell you something. The assura nce that I have been given toda y-even prior to the fact in Question Period-the environmental imp act, all these things would be addr essed properly and we blow it up with smoke and mirror s and stuff like that. Why do we not get to be positive in terms of making some of these things happen. You have the assurances and I said hey, trust us. That was may be facetious.

Do not trust us, but I will tell you somet hing, the assu rances are on record that we will look at every aspect of the things that would affect Manitoba negatively. We have spent all day, everybody expound ing their views and that is fine, that is fine. Every body has a view and should maybe put it forward. I will tell you something . My concern is that we get so caught up with this kind of thing that we miss the main point which is progress somewhere along the line.

If I could roll the clock back and go back to the point when we were promoting in our little community of Grunthal on the Rat River a project, a dam, that would take and give us the reservoir of water to use for the farmers in case of emergency. I think all of us should look back to the fact that right now, this year, in a drought year like this, we should be looking at these

- Monday , September 12, 1988 kinds of projects and endo rsing them, not ad hoc, but we should be endorsing these kind of programs in terms of conservation of water. The fact th at this project in Saskatchewan, which is a benefit to Saskatchewan-! hope they never can stop any project that we have in our province. I think their concerns should be addr essed as we are trying to addr ess ours, but I think we should be very cognizant of the fact that we have to move in these directions. I would like to see a total change of attit ude in terms of what happens, how we deal with the water situation.

If you think that it is not serious right now, this drought, this year, has finally brought something home to all of us, that we have to start looking at how do we conserve our water, how do we conserve our watersheds. I think the fact that Saskatchewan has got a project going there-so we play a little politics here and say, addr ess all our concerns. The concerns are being addr essed . Saska tche wan is add ressing the concern s, environ mental concerns, North Dakota is. I will tell you something, I am not going to throw too many barbs, but I was the critic of the Department of Natural Resou rces for years.

I atten ded some of the functions, meetings in North Dakota regarding this project, already a few years ago. Our administra tion at that time, the Premier had been invited to either come or send representation but he saw fit not to do that at that time. That shows a lack of cooperation. Regardless of our politics, let us get on with some of these meaningf ul projects. The Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) was critical of the project in Saskatchewan, but we are looking at doing a project under the Dauphin Lake. We have to start looking at some of these projects, let us move them forward.

Let us address the concerns, but we get overly concerned about the things, we are thro wing up roadblocks. We are not asking , is it good or positive? The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has been a promoter of this project for a long time, in dicating that if these concerns are met, and I think we have to addr ess them, that it will supply better quality water and an ongoing supply of water. Let us get our head out of the sand and let us start being positive about the things that are going to be positive for Manitoba.

I personally feel, and I am not an engineer , but we can talk about environmental impact, wildlife im pact, all kinds of im pacts, and generally it is not going to change that much. If we want to talk about these kind of things, then let us look at what has happened on our hydro development, impa cts there, maybe there were mistakes made. Some positive things are happening , you are building. We are not building any more, we are concerned about keeping everything under wraps. We thr ow up so many roadblocks that no Government can move any more.

Let us start from the politics of saying a back room deal was made between Devine and the federal Government. This project has been on the burner for so long already, I think it is a positive thing. I think it is a positive th ing for Sa skatc hewan . The y ha ve addr essed the environmental concerns; North Dakota is add ressing our concerns. We have the International Joint Commission. I just want to go back to the Roseau River Project th at was on the do ckets whe n the NDP was Government, and Sid Green was the Minister of Natural Resources at that time. There were positive things that would come forward.

I will tell you something, we swamped it with meetings and objections of every kind. lt was not a positive thing in my mind to go thr ough with that because the municipa lity of the R.M. of Frankiin at this stage of the game, where the Seine River comes through, not the Seine River, the Roseau River comes thr ough, they have all kinds of crossings, their bridges are all dilapidated, they do not qualify any more, we are closing those bridges. These were all part of a general program that would have been a positive program. But I will tell you something, we had hearings, and meetings till H would not have it.

And, finally, the dar n thing got stopped. You know what has happened? The water came out of the States, and we raised all the concerns, all these things that the Americans were going to do. You know what we did? We stopped and swamped the project, and you know what? To this day, it has not happened, and they have done all their drainage work. They have done it subtly, in their own way. Their engineers are not stupid. So, they got blocked on a major project and we lost a major benefit with that. We lost a major benefit with that, and that is what I am suggesting to Members here.

Let us raise our concerns, legitima tely so, and I think we have the right to do that. We should do that, we have a responsibility to Manitoba, but let us not stomp on all these positive things. If I could roll the clock back and get involved in that fight with the Roseau River at that time, and the then Minister, Sid Green, a very capable individual in my mind, though we had different philo soph ical views, but I wi ll tell you something, we should have gone through with that project. The southeast area would have gained by that.

I am speaking in defense of this project here, tor the southwest area. lt does not affect me in my constituency, but I feel that when we look back at the mistakes that have been made, let us use common sense a little bit. That is all I am asking. We play the political game in here, but by doing that sometimes, we scramble many of these projects that are positive things. I would like to see us be a buil ding province again and we have not been a building province under the NDP, in spite of what you say, the Member for Br andon East (Mr. Evans).

We have to be more positive and look at some of the benefits that we can get, and the onus should be-the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner) indicated he is going to come forward with a water conservation program that we have to start looking at things differently, that we have to conserve our water. *

(2040) I will tell you something, the Minister of Natural Resources-! do not know whether he mentioned it in his comments-but some of the areas that have run into water problems. You take away food, you can scramble a little bit; you take away water and you have your self a fight on your hands, regardless of what? Now people in the city, maybe because you turn on your taps, you turn off your tap for a day and you are going 1204

Monday, September 12, 1988 to get awful panicky, and I will tell you something, the same thing is happening in the rural area right now. So let us look at these things in a positive sense in terms of so it happens to be in Saska tchewan, I think th e benefits will accrue to Manitoba in terms of maybe better quality of water, and we have to make sure . Mr. leonard Evans: You do not know, why did you not do the study? Mr. Albert Driedger: The Member for Brando n East has been here so long he cannot get his head out of that kind of a rut. Mr. leonard Evans: You do not even know what the hell you are talk ing about.

Mr. Albert Driedger: Well, go and talk to the people who are going to be effected by it. I ask the Member for Brando n East , go and talk to the people effected by it in the area. But we are making decisions here that is going to take that opportunity away from them and I think we should be cognizant of the fact, and let all of us work together, let us work together. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Minister's time has expired. Mr. Albert Driedger: After 11 years , we will get the Member for Brandon East, and I will tell you something, I know he has had his head in the sand all the time. Mr.

Speaker, one final plea. let us use some common sense. I ask every body, let us use some common sense. Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): lt is with great pleasure I rise and speak on this important debate.

First of all, I would like to say, in reply to the comments that were directed to me this afternoon in regard to the Honour able Member who came over to the li beral Party, I respect that and like I said during my campaign, it was going to be one of honesty and integrity, and at that time there was a member who crossed over to another Party and I respected him, still do, and I still do the same thing for the Member that has crossed over today. So the comments I will not go any furt her toda y with.- (Interjection)- That I do not believe and I will not accept that.

Like I said, it was going to be integrity and honesty and it will continue to be, and let it sleep as far as I am concerned in my constitue ncy. hank you very much. Mr. Speaker, my first question and concern in regard to the Rafferty-A iameda pr oject is: How many Manitobans are aware of this project? Like the First Minis ter (Mr. Filmon) this afternoon mentioned that on this side of the House, we did not know too much about the project.

Well, maybe I am one of them and I will say that I do not have all the facts, except that Manitoba has been left out in the studi es. lt is quite clear there have been two studies, one for Saskatchewan and one for the United States. Why was Manitoba left out? And I think it is of utmost importance at this time that the Government look into Manitoba 's interest. There has been some concern in the studies that have been made for the United States and Saska tchewan in regard to Manitoba, and these should be addressed immediately by our Government.

They should have been addr essed before the licence that was issued in June of 1988, and I do not think it is too late to do so. The interests of our Manitobans comes first as far as we Members here in this Legislature. There are 57 of us who represent Manitoba ... An Honourable Member: Fair deal. Mr. Gaudry: Yes, and you are one of them and you should take an interest also. Like the Member for Emerson (Mr. Driedger) said, it did not affect his constituency. lt does not affect mine either, maybe, but I happen to have lived in St.

Laurent, Manitoba, on the lake shore of Manitoba, and when we talked about the div ersion of Portage that affected that lake, still does, and I still have a cottage in that area and the people are concerned. lt is a fishing community and it is their livelihood that is involved, and I am sure it is not the only community. Therefore, I urge this Government to take action to look into the concerns of Manitobans before it is too late.

As Members in the Opposition have all indica ted today their concerns, and great concerns, the Members of the libe ral Party, Members of the NDP have also, and I think we voted together in sup port that we have a study made before it is too late, and I hope the Government will urge the Government of Canada to look into this project. Thank you very much. Hon . Donald Orchard (Mini ster of Health): Mr. Speaker, we have got a very interesting debate and situation developing on the Rafferty-Aiameda project which is in Saska tchewan on the Souris River.

The Souris River is also a very interesting riv er in that it or iginate s in Saska tc hewan , North Dakota and Manitoba and we all have a vested interest , if you will, in that ri ver. I think if you take a look at what the Souris River does, some 19 percent of its waterflow originates in Saska tche wan, and wha t the Sa skatchewa n Government has proposed, and my understanding is, two dams.

Those dams, when completed, will essentially eliminate downstream flooding in North Dakota, and as a result, in Manitoba to the same degree outside of the uncontr oll ed wa te r s which emana te fr om Manitoba sources and impact downstream from there. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding-and I will stand corrected if I am wrong -tha t the Government of Saskatchewan has done an envir onmental impact study, the concerns about wildlife that were mentioned have been add ressed in Saskatchewan where the wildli fe is affected .

But yet my honourable fr ien ds seem to have developed somewhat of a holier than thou attitude toward the environ ment , that they are the only ones that really care about the environment I simply indicate to my honourable friends that you are absolutely wrong in that premise. 1205

- Mond ay, September 12, 1988 What you are doing and demonstra ting today is a very political res ponse, and I am going to say this with fear of retribu tion that someone is going to take offence opposite for me saying it. You are taking the classic political respo nse to an initi ativ e whe rein New Democrats and liberals, because there happens to be a Conservative Govern ment federall y and a Conservative Go vern ment pr ovinc ial ly, yo u automatically are going to oppose a project that those Conservative Governments might agree to. The Member for Br andon East (Mr.

Evans) said automatically our counterparts in Sas katchewan are opposed to this and will not proceed with it. That is an inte resting political position for them to take. Let me remind you that nothing changes in terms of flow in Manitoba except the very real potential for steadier flows and possibly increased flows. What we are going to see as a net result of the Rafferty-Aiameda project in Saskatchewan is the containment of flood waters in the Spring. *

(2050) I want to tell my honourable friends that in my constit uency there is a project called the Deerwood Soil and Management Project. What that is doing is taking in the escarp ment, the Pembina escarpment, and selecting sites, wherein you will construct small earth-filled dams for the purpose of containing that rush of Spring runoff water to prevent downstream flooding, to prevent erosion and to store water. Do you know who the water is being stor ed for? In some instan ces, for cattle; in min or insta nces, yet to be developed but as the project goes on, for small irrigation projects.

The benefit is to hold water, not to flush it down to the Hud son Bay as quickly as possible, causing untold damage while it is going there. The Saskatchewan project is not needed simply for cooling water for their therma l-electric plant, because they can get by with a much lower level dam in one location, but they are proposing to build a higher level dam and a second one to give you flood control in North Dakota and in Manitoba. lt is of such value downstream that the Americans are recommending some $40-plus million to be investe d in that project to provide the flood protection .

Is that wrong, or do you prefer to have us pay flood costs on an annual ized basis, im pacting upon the taxpayers of Manitoba? That is the choice you are making. I do not know of any circumstance where in this part of our country, the central plains area, having more water on a regular basis is detrimental: (

a) to wildlife, (

b) to human beings, and (

c) to the envi ronment. lt meets all of the criteria that environ mentalists ought to want. Yet we have, for political reasons, this issue surf acing just, hopefully, in time for a federal election, so it can become an issue in a federal election. I do not like to see that happening, because I have not heard where this project damages Manitoba.

I have heard where this project will benefit Manitoba, in terms of flood control and provision of steadier , more reli able flows of water to the communities along the Souris River in southwest Manitoba, reliable flows, I might remind you, that are not available this year because we have a drought of abnormal severity in that regi on. Are you against flood protection and steadier flows of water to th ose commu nities in southw estern Manitoba? Because if you are, continue with your opposition, because that is what you are telling those people. I object to that.

I want to tell you that I come from some knowledge in terms of dams , not a gr eat deal, but I served as a consultant to the Pembina River Dam project in 1973. I want to tell you that the U.S.

Corps of Engineers was proposing a high-level dam at Pembilier in 1973, and I was retained through a consulting firm, paid for by the then New Democratic Government of Ed Schreyer, to study that project of one high level dam at Pembi lier. lt would have provided us with flood protection, water storage for municipal and irr igation water supplies. lt was good for wildlife because for some strange reaso n when you have a lake you have fish. You have ducks and geese nesting; you have deer drinking.

At home rig ht now, deer have to go upwards of two miles to find water to drink because there is not a pond of water anywhere to be found in south central rural Manitoba. You are age�inst that and you are saying you are against it because of envi ronmental reasons, but yet you are willing to let the deer and other wildlife do without water, because you do not want water stored to provide a permanent lake and flood control. I mean, how regressive can you be in the name of environmental protection? That is pure and unadult erated balderdash what you are putting out here in terms of wildlif e concerns.

Water means more wildlife. Any place you go in the world, where you have no wildlife is in the middle of the Sahara Desert where there is no water, and where you have wildlif e it is at the oasis is where there is water. You are telling me that increased water is bad? I want to tell you, we came up with a cost-benefit study on the Pembilier high level dam, and the cost benefit ratio was beneficial to Manitoba. We did not have to put up very much money, but the then NDP Government said no way.

They wanted to put the money up North where they had more politi cal advantage, and any thing that benefits south cent ral Manitoba , Rhinela nd constitu ency to be exact, in terms of potable water supp ly, flood protection and irr igation was not a consideration of the then NDP Government, and that project got turned away, the entire lake being in the Pembina Valley in the Unite d States with the exception of one-quarter mile of backup slightly into the Canadian side south of Kal eida. We have the same circumstance again.

We have now the Liberals joining the New Democrats, being the anti development dogs in the manger. Open your eyes and have a little vision of what this project is meant to do. Wh at this whole pr oject is meant to do is flood protection, storage of water. Inst ead of having it down the Souris River causing flood problems for approximately a four-week period of time in the year, in the Spring of the year, this project provides flood protection, steady supplies of usable water in an area subject to severe water shorta ges. 1206

Monday , September 12, 1988 Now, I know that is not something that is popular amongst my honourable friends opposite, because it is not politically convenient to support it right now, but it is conveniently political to hammer a project, to hammer the federal Government, because we are probably within weeks or months of a federal election, and hopefully this will be an issue where they can say there was this tr ade-off and that tr ade-off. You know, that may we!! be. do not know, but I will tell you one thing, if the trade-off was translating statutes, the federal Government paid.

If the trade-off was a grassland park, the federal Government is paying.- (lnterjection)- What did the federal Government get out of it? Have you ever asked yourself that? Ask yourself what the people of Saskatc hewan, North Dakota and Manitoba get out of this project and you will find benefits, not the kind of fearmongering disincentive that you are tr ying to put on the record today. Mr. Richard Kozak (Transcona): I would like to preface my remarks with a few comments about the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) diatribe in this House on the decision of the Honourable Member for Spr ingfield (Mr.

Roch) to sit as a Li beraL The Premier is an intellig ent man and it must be galling for him to see events unfolding as he knows they must. How long will it take for this first major crack in the Government caucus to lead to the knife thr owing the Tories do best? Not long, because Mem bers op posite have realized the chan gi ng demographics make it impossible for their Party ever again to form a majority Government in this province.

Pathetic suggestions by Tory Members that Winnipeg voters should be depri ved of repr esent at ion by population in this Hous e show that they know their dilemma, a Party on the skids. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) suggests, perhaps hopefully, that the Liberal Party will take anyone. Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mark Minenko): Order , please. On a point of ord er, the Honourable Attorney-General. * (2 100) Hon. James McCrae (Government House leader): I would ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call the Honourabl e Mem ber to ord er. Under Rule 27, "Debates," I believe the rules of relevance apply.

Here we are this evening discussing a resolution brought to us through the Honourable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) dealing with the Rafferty-Aia meda Dam, and the Honourable Member is now telling us about something totally foreign to that. I would like the Honourable Member to be instructed to remember that the rules of relevancy apply. Mr. Reg Alcock (Opposition House leader): To the same point of order, the Member for Transcona (Mr. Kozak) is simply responding to remarks placed on the record by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) tonight in this very debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The rules of relevancy apply.

I remind all Honourable Members of the topic before the House, and all remarks should be relevant. Mr. Kozak: Our Party is an open one but there is one Member of this House that we in defeating at the polls. As he knows, his defeat be a sou rce of considerable satisfaction to Members of his own Party. Referring to Ralferty-Aiameda, the defeat of the Tories will be well-deserv ed for many reasons, but one and the most recent one of which is !he Raflerty-Aiameda project.

For here we have a Govern ment withou t courage, a Government without the courage to dr aft a Budget without the gui delines provided by the last discredited NDP Budget, a Government without the courage to stand up to Br ian Mulr oney for Manitoba's share of the pie, and a Government without the courage to raise questions about federal projects that threaten the quality of Manitoba waters. Manitoba has projects that are not uneconomic, as are the Hi bernia oil field and the Husky oil upgrader .

This Government lacks the courage to demand the federal Government's interest in the expansion of our forest industr y, the develop ment of our potash, the development of an aluminum indust ry . They lack the courage to defend our water qual ity, our wildl ife, and our vegetation. In the face of the Prime Minister's determination to give the Premier of Saskatchewan a political handout via the Rafferty-Aiameda project-hardly surprising, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What did the Tories do when the Prime Minister handed the CF-18 contract to Quebec? They cancelled their annual meeting and laid low. Thank you. Mr.

Helmut Pankratz (la Verendrye): I also want to take this opportunity to speak to this issue and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, No. 1, I would like to . Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. Mr. Pankratz: First of all, I would like to just put on the record a few comments in regard to this emergency debate. l think a lot of members here tonight have lost track of what is actually on debate. First of all, I would like to indicate that we are having an emergency debate and then members are dis cussing the defection of a member or other members for that matter. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe this is totally a waste of time.

For members opposite to consider an issue as important as these two dams and for us to have an emergency debate on this and then go in their dis cussions onto all kinds of different topics, I think, is actually detrimental to the House as such. First of all, the Rafferty Dam, which has been indicated by Members on our side for what the actual dam is for, it is for cooling, a hydro project, a hydro steam plant Naturall y, what the Opposite members, some o! them, would like to see is that we would be able to sell them cheap hydro, possibly subsid ized by the Manitoba tax payer.

So in that respect, I think there should maybe be a study done in that respect where they are possibly trying to gain some political points in respect to the hydr o project instead of being concerned about what the actual dam is meant to perform and do. The Alameda Dam which is a flood control project, which has already been stated by the Minister of Natural 1207

Monday, September 12, 1988 Resources (Mr. Penner) and also the Minis ter of the Environment (Mr. Connery), is for flood control, and I think we should not take that light ly. We have Ducks Unlimi ted and all kinds of different organizations that are in our province studying where dams and dikes can be built for our wildlife. Here stating that it will be detrimental to wildli fe, I believe, is making some irresponsible statements. I believe that we, as Mem bers in this House, should try to work together on different projects.

We should by all means air our differences and our concerns in regard to this project just like any others, but we should not close our minds. I think the Member for Emerson (Mr. Driedger) brought out the Winnipeg Flood way. At one time, it was called "D uff's Ditch," and the last couple of years a great big plaque has been placed in honour of him for a floodway which today is protecting the City of Winnipeg and has saved millions and millions of dollars in the Province of Mani toba. We are speaking of the environment. We are talking of ozone layers.

Well, I think the Members opposite should also remember the environment is something that has to be approached more from a global point, and naturally each province must do its share. But when I see how in the Amazon area, Amazon in South America, they are burning the bushes and how there are thousands of fires glowing every night and millions and mill ions of acres of prime forest land being destroyed, and here we are trying to, in the one sense, exactly produce the opposite where we can retain moisture and they are in a sense actually destroying what is protecting our environment to some extent.

So I believe, when it comes to environmental issues, they should not be used for political posturing like I can see here again today in this House. I think the environment is a very serious issue that we should all be concerned about. We should not try for political reasons to deprive certain areas of our province or other provinces, for that matter, to turn their land into productive land by having dams and supplying the people and the vegetation and also the livestock with water in some areas where it is needed.

What we should be doing is working together whereby we could maybe supply more water, get more water for the Souris River. We should be negotiating with th e American Government wherever possible. As the Min ister has ind icated, they have had joint meetings and they are by all means negotiating on this. That is what we should be doing whereby we could get more water running down the Souris River which runs into the Assiniboine River and then naturally into the Red River. We all know that Selkirk actually drinks that water.

If any of you have gone to some of those treatment plants, you wonder how some of this water can be purified in any way. So the more flow we could get along any one of these contributories, the better we would all be off. I think this is something that we should protect, that the drinking water by all means is maintained.

But the greater we can have the flow down some of these contributories, the better we would be off. • (211 0) So instead of posturing here and trying to make political gains, I think we should be back at our expenditures, at our Budget and doing something worth while which this time actually was allotted for, and be concerned about the financial situation of this province. lt seems to me that we are not as concerned as we should be.

These emergency debates like we are having right now, I think to a great extent I can see again, with some of the Members and with some of the topics that they have been using, they are just using it to try to make political points. I would wish that we would get back to the issue of our budget and get over with our expenditures and pass them so that this province can carry on with worthwhile projects like these dams possibly, and help along with the environment, wherever possible. Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to put a few comments on this emergency debate that we are having this evening. As far back as 1985 when we were in Government, we expressed to the Government of Canada our concerns and our proposal for the development of the Rafferty and Alameda Dams in the Souris River systems. Our Minister at that time wrote some letters, correspondence to the Min isters of the federal Government. The Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) had written letters, and we had assurances from the federal Government that our concerns, the Manitoba interests, would be add ressed.

I find it very difficult or hard to understand why this Government is not taking a leadership role in terms of protecting the interests of Manitoba, including the interests of a Member from southwestern Manitoba, the Member for Arthur (Mr. Downey), why he is not pushing hard to push the concerns of that area. I have an

article here that mentioned that he called for a meeting to address this very issue with his constituents. He had concerns about the quality of water in that area for his constituents. Today, he should be addressing that issue and also raise this issue with the federal Government, and also the Min ister of the Environment (M r. Connery) and also the Minis ter of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner) who are dealing with this issue. The federal Government has once again misled us in saying that our interests would be protected.

This thing was agreed to and a licence was provided for the construction and the proceed ing of this dam with the Government of Saskatchewan without any regard to the concerns of Manitobans. We were assured that the interests of Manitobans would be protected and also would be heard. I would urge this Government and the Minis ter of Environment (Mr.

Connery) to call on the federal Government so that we can go with an environmental study impa ct on this project, what kind of an impa ct it is going to have on the Rafferty, what kind of an impact these dams will have on the Souris and the river system flowing into the Manitoba waters. We have experience here in Manitoba as to the effects of damming rivers on our waters here in Manitoba. Just look at Northern Manitoba, what has happened into the devel opment of these dams and the environmental impa cts that it has had on the resou rces and even on our traditional lifestyle of the aboriginal people.

The water quality should be addressed, if there is going to 1208

be any impact. I know that reduction of the water flow will cause a higher concentration of pollutants and other agricultural chemicals and sewage discharges and - (I nter jection)- I am tal king about-as Minis ter of Environment, he is chirping from his chair, but he should be concerned about the water quality that will be flowing into the Province of Manitoba which will ultima tely flow through into Lake Winni peg and flow into the Hudson Bay. I can tell you about the poor water quality in many of the reserves and the impact that it has had.

A few years back, we had this incident with a boy who had an operation and requ ired major surgery and enormous expense to save this child's life. lt was as a result of the many years of poor quality water not being available at Poplar River. So let this Minister know that we have had experie nces about our qu ality of water. lt is something that we should be concerned about, and also that everybody should have a right to a safe water supply and a good sour ce of water we have here in Manitoba.

I know that we had our Governments meet with the members from the U.S. border concerning other dams, the Ga rr ison on which an International Joint Commis sio n was es tabli she d . The same kind of approach could be made here to ensure that our waters are protected, at least once they enter into the Manitoba jurisdiction. I know that we were talking about free trade. We want free movements of goods , but we want to ensure that anything that comes back here is good for Manitobans.

I would urge this Government that they would take responsibility and leadership to ensure that the interests of Manitobans are protected. The federal Minister has not shown any consideratio n at all in issuing a licence to Saskat chewan which, as a result, has ignored the concerns of Manitobans here. We need this Government to take the lead role, to tell their colleagues that the interests of Manitobans have not been addr essed. As a matter of fact, before they issued the licence, they should have had a review, an enviro n mental im pact study done by th e Cl ean Environment Commission.

That is the first step that they should have taken, rather than granting a licence and the n la ter trying to protect the interests of Manitobans. We are not really sur e what kind of impacts this dam will have, these Rafferty and Alameda Dams will have in the Province of Manitoba. I urge the Min ist ers, the Premier (Mr . Fil mon), to initiate discussio ns, and to ensure that the interests of Manitobans are protected. Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. *

(2120) Mr. Mark Minenko (Seven Oaks): I rise on this matter to draw from my comments on this very important issue to all Manitobans. !t was indeed with some concern that I had the opportunity of hearing the Members opposite saying that this was just another issue that we had suddenly expressed a concern in. In fact, our Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) first raised this matter in this Legislature on the 27th of Ju ly. At that ti me, we 1988 in this Party considered th is matter an issue of importance.

Certainly , with the approaching date at the end of this month when the matter is to come to a conclusion, we find it is indeed important to debate this matter in this Legislature and hopefully, in this way, prompt this Government into action. We earlier heard the comments of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner) when he said that all we want to do is spend Manitoba ns' money in requesting this Government to have a study done and completed on the impact that this project may have on the quality of life of all Manitobans.

I think many environmental issues over the past numb er of years have proven that perhaps penny-wise is not very good in the long run. When I was indeed a youngster , and that was not all that many years ago, I remember some initial involvement in matters of environment through Pollution Probe. At that time, that organizatio n was raising many environmental concerns, concerns th at were no t necessarily popular issues but concerns that they saw that would en danger not on ly our en viro nme nt, endanger not only our physical surroundings, but our lives.

I believe, over the last number of years, we keep seeing examples of our technology rushing a little too far ahead a little too fast without really understand ing what the impact may be on all of us. I understand that scientists often look to many different animals to see the perhaps ultimate effect on human beings: the example of canaries in mines, the effect of DOTs on various birds, and all the various other pollutants and how they have affected wildlif e and fish throughout the Great Lakes area of Canada. Again, I am concerned when the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Penner), when referring to one of the Ameri can studies and says that he is not too concerned about the whole issue when he points out that study says that there may be damages to Manitoba. I think history has reinforced the idea that many "mays" have turned into positives and it is indeed grave concern for all Manitobans, not simply Members on this side of the House, when words like "may" are dism issed without some study ol the issue to determine what is the result of particular human endeavours, and in this case this particular project which we are debating today.

Again, we hear various speakers raise the issue that we certainly have looked to the federal Government to have public hearings. That is why we felt that the federal Government would look after our interests. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am concerned when I hear people talk ab out other Govern ments looki ng after our concerns. We are here to represent the interests of Manitobans, and like every lawyer would say, that he can only represent one client, that there sometimes arise conflicts of inter est, as the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) did several weeks ago in deba te, where he said that "There is a conflict of interest, and as a result I cannot partici pate." lt is in this same way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am indeed concerned when we look to others to protect Manitoban's interest. 1209

Monday, September 12, 1988 Legislatures in the Province of Saskatchewan are elected by the people of Saskatchewan to look after their interests. Our legislators elected to the federal House, the House of Commons, are elected to consider the concerns that are national in scope. We, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, are elected to look after the concerns of Manitobans and in that way we feel that it is inde ed an important step to protect the interests of Manitobans in order for us, for this Government, to look a little closer at what the imp act of this project will be on Manitobans. lt is not enough for us to say this or that about different surveys, different studies, different concerns, raised by people who do not represent Manitobans. We cannot serve two masters, we cannot serve two clients, and our clients are Manitobans.

One of the concerns that is certainly explored in the potential impacts of this project is that the water quality may in fact and will in fact be adversely affected.

The water will be affected, as we have heard various speakers say, in many different ways, and again I would ask that this Government look to a Manitoban study to consider the impa ct upon Man itoba, because it has concerns not just to our general well-being, but again to our economy, and that should be of interest to us as welL If foreign elements are introduc ed into our various waterways, I certainly would not want to speculate on the potential result of that situation. As a result, I stand this evening to state my concerns with respect to this Government's inaction in this particular matter.

Because indeed I, as every one of us 57 in this Cham ber, was sent to this Legislature to serve Manitobans, to consider their interests in our deliberations. I certainly belie ve and certainly very strongly feel that in order for us to give this matter the fullest consideration as to what its impl ications will be on Ma nitoba is for our own Government to have a study done as to the impl ications of this on us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. (l nterjection)- I did not see you, go ahead. • (213 0) Mr. Albert Driedger: Mr.

Speaker, we cannot have them from the same side, one after the other, when one of our Min isters is standing up. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Municipal Affairs): My appreciation to the Member opposite. I am sure there will time for him to express his views in a moment as welL 1 was not really chomping at the bit to get involved in this debate until I listened to some of the comments a little bit more closely. I realized that I had a grocery list in my pocket that has about as much relevance to this topic as some of the comments I am getting from across the way.

The Finance critic from the opposite side got up and talked about us not having any courage. He did not displa y a great deal of courage because he did not say anything that was relevant to the debate. He simply wanted to talk about our inabilit y, in his opinion, to deal with a myriad of other problems and simply forgot to say anything about this particular issue. So I guess that indi cates that if he knows as much about the other topics as he does about this issue that perhaps his comments there are not too relevant either. We look at this project. I think there is something that we have to bear in mind.

Perhaps a little bit of trivia that happened across my path the other day would be relevant to the debate. That is that, if you look at the average relative humidity in the Sahara Desert, it was probably about 15 percent. Manitoba this past year, on occasion, dropped as low as 30 percent.

Now given those circums tances, given that the Pembina Triangle of this country was considered another Sahara Desert or potential Sahara Desert when it was first explored, why would we have a long tirade today from Mem bers opposite, who are concerned about the fact that there might be a possibility to increase some of the water holding capacity in that area?

There is no one in this House and there should not be anyone in this House who is not concerned about environmental issues, who is not concerned about the impact of what is done in developments and particularly in developments of considerable magnitude, such as we see when dams are built. But in this particular case, we are looking at a construction of a dam and a holding capacity that in my opinion would simply enhance the ability of the area to make better use of the resources that it has.

So we are coming down through the United States where there are a series of reservoirs with varying amounts of holding capacity that will hold back water that can be used on the American side of the border and ultimately brought forward for use on the Canadian side of the border. This Summer is a very good example of why projects such as this need to have some serious consideration because while some of the Members opposite smile and some of them wince, the ones who understood the comments winced when the Member for Arthur (Mr.

Downey) said that the cows would not even drink the slime that is in the Souris River this summe r. Maybe if we think that we should not increase the flows, we should talk to the people out there who are affected. The result of international cooperation this summ er, a result of agreements that are in place, that were in fact exceeded, were when we saw the flows on the Souris River this summer voluntarily increased because they needed more water in the Souris River. Now is that the kind of concerns that the Members opposite are worried about, that they want to see the water come rushing down the Souris?

Head her through just as fast as she will go, that is what we as farmers are accused too often of doing, when we put in draina ge works. We do not want drainage, we want conservation. We are talking about retention of water at the upper end of a watershed so that it can be managed, not th rown down th e ri ver, to try and flood out the downstream recipients. We are talking about water management, and what is the phi losophy of the people opposite? What is their 1210

Monday , September 12, 1988 philosophy? Is it simply to stand there and complain because they do not have an und erstanding of the work that is being done by Natural Resources, the work that is being done by Environment, the work that is being done on this side of the House? Do they just want to stand there and complain or have they got a philosophy? The only thing that I can take from what they said today is that their philosophy is, well, let her go. Pull the plug and let her go, why bother with conservation efforts at the far end of the river? We are talking about retention of various levels.

We are talking about international cooperation. We are talk ing about the opportun ity for a neighbouring province, fellow Canadians to have an opportunity to tap into funds from south of the border, and if those funds are properly acquired, if the agreements are properly put together, there will be benefits, tripa rtite benefits. I think that we have seriously misr epresented in this House today the potential benefits of a project such as this. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Penner) on several occasions tod ay, in Question Period and in his respons e thi s afterno on, has ind icated th at hi s department is concerned and is doing everyt hing that is necessary to make sure that we have an opportunity not only to maintain the flows that are coming into this province but maybe, just maybe-and this is something tha t has never been mentioned by the Mem bers opposite-t here will be an opportunity to enhance those flows at a time when the people downstream need them. And who is downstream? Who is downstream?

They have all sorts of ideas, but there is not one of them that will admit that the people in the Souris River Valley might want some of that water when the relative humidi ty in this country drops to 30 percent as it did this sum mer. The NDP is in no position to lecture this Government about phi losophy on water levels and water management, the management of land. The Northern Flood Agreement has not been finished. Who has fiddled with that? They talk about jerking around the Native population in the northern part of this provi nce. Who has done nothing in the No rthern Flood Agreement?

Who have been the patron saints of the North that have talked and not listened to the people up there? They have no right to talk to this Government about our ability to deal with the natural resources and to deal up front with the people on behalf of this province.- (Inter jection)- You bamboozled them. One of these days they will realize that they got a lot of words, but no action. All they need to do is look at the ink on the Northern Flood Agreement lt sure as heck is not theirs. * (2 140) I ask the redundant question: Is there a philosophy over there of water management?

Is there a philosophy of conserva tion? Is there a philosophy that says that we should take the resources that we have and manage them properly? If you want to do that with the water, you have to have reservoirs so that you have reserves, so that when the water dries up in the Souris River, you have something more than slime to let out of the 1211 dam south of the border . You will not have if you continue to say that these programs have nothing to offer for the people on this side of the border. All you care about is maki ng cheap political shoJs to try and do something on behalf of the Opposition - Mr.

Speaker: Orde r, please. Mr. Cummings: -in Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. I would ask the Honourable Minister to withdraw his last comments, "cheap political shots." Mr. Cummin gs: Mr. Speaker, if "cheap political shots" is consi dered unp arlia menta ry , then allo w me to withd raw that and replace it with these words. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honourable Minis ter. Mr. Cummings: Their debate this afternoon has done nothing but demonstrate that they do not care about cons erva tion; the y do no t care about water management; they do not care about the people in the Souris River val ley.

All they care about is making headlines for tomorrow's paper. Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (leader of the Opposition): We are in this House to conduct positi ve debate, to hear opinions from all sides of the House. Today in the process of approving an emergency debate, we wanted to present to the people of Manitoba positions from all sides about an issue which is extremely important to Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, I first learned of the pro ject when I was visiting the constituency of the Honourable Member for Arthur (Mr.

Downey), wher e a numb er of his constituents approached me with what they believed to be a major environmental problem. So within the first week of the opening of this House, on the 27th of Ju ly, the fourth day of this Session in which questions could be asked, we asked questions on the Rafferty-Aiameda project We asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Connery) on that day if he would conduct an environmental impact study . We did that because we knew, if such a study was to be cond ucted and the results analy zed prior to the 30th of September, they would have to be done very quickly.

The people of the Souris Valley and other interested Manitobans would be able to participate in a positive or in a negative way about the impact of this particular dam. We got a negative reply from the Minister of the Environment Despite questions that were asked on two other occasions, we continued to get a negative reply . What can be more simple than conducting a study? What can be more democratic then asking the people to tell us their concerns? And yet this Government is unwilling to conduct a stu dy, this Government is unwilling to listen to the peoples concerns.

They are not conducting a study which is of an environmental impact nature which allows for full participation of the public.

- Monday, September 12, 1988 But you know, Mr. Speake r, this does not come as a great shock to me, because I sat in this House from 1986 to 1988 when they were the Official Opposition. They only asked nine questions on the environment in 1986 and they only asked 22 questions in '87. In the brief session in February, they only asked one, so the environment has never been high on their list of priorities.

We have seen as issue after issue after issue has en tered this Hous e-a nd I might in form th e Members that Members on this side, including Members of the New Democratic Party, have asked over 40 questions on the environment in a little over a month and a half. That I think gives you some idea of the difference in direction of this Opposition from their Opposition. What are some of the questions that should be asked of the public, should be asked of the experts, not just departmental experts but experts who have no axe to grind, no political master to serve?

The question should be asked: What about the water quality? We have had reports that the water quality will deteriorate. Is that satisfactory to this Government? We have been told that, in good years, maybe you will get 100 percent of the flow but, in dry years, maybe you will get 45 percent of the flow. This is the question that has to be asked and the expert testimony has to be given. What of the wildlif e habitats? What of the natural shelter belts?

We passed an environmental Act in 1987 and I suppor ted that Act but, when I spoke to that Act, I said it was not strong enough. lt was not strong enough because it gave the Mi nister of the Environment (Mr. Cannery), no matter what political party that Mi nister belonged to, too much optional power. One of those areas in which the Minister could use his optional power was in the appointing of a study on the environment with regard to a particular project Regrettably, even mega projects do not require absolut ely, unless the Mini ster concurs, an environmental impact study.

That was the weakness in the legislation, but it was better than the previous Act and sometimes you have to settle for what you can get at a particular time in history. The Min ister of Hig hways (Mr. Driedger) said, let us have a bit of common sense. What we would like on this side of the House is a principle that is fundamental to parliamentary democ racy, and that is minis terial responsibil ity. We would like to have a Min ister who would respond to the individuals who ask for an impact study, who show genuine concern about the problems facing them.

The Mini ster says do not worry, we had a study from the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Even that study ind icated that there were serious environmental problems for Manitoba. So even the study that he applauded on the 27th of July pointed out weaknesses for our province of this project. We know there are studies in North Dakota, and I congratulate the North Dakota Congr ess on that. We know ther e are stud ies in Saska tchew an, and I congratulate the Saskatchewan Government on that. But it is our Environment Minis ter (Mr.

Cannery) who is responsible for the quality of the environment in the Province of Manitoba, and we cannot look to our protection south of the border or to the west of us. We can only look to our protection from within our own provincial boundaries. That is why it is essential for this Government to finally listen. The only way we can get them to listen is by holding emergency debates, because we raised it four times in Question Period and the Min ister refused to listen.

So we have to bring about an instance whereby he will listen but, regrettably, that is not unfortunately in the cards because the Environment Mi nister refuses to answer questions about this project. He passes the questions on to the Mi nister of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner), and my consternation today must be: What are they afraid of? You know, they love to talk about fearmongering; 45 times so far in this Session, we have heard fearmongering in Question Period from that side. Mr. Speaker, what are they afraid of? Are they afraid of facts? Are th ey afraid of information?

Are they afraid of a different point of view? All that an environmental impact study can do is to provide valid information -(Interjection)- oh, you have used "concern" 320 times and, just to make it easy for the Attorney-General (Mr. Mc Crae), all you have to do is go into the computer and you can get the information in a matter of seconds. We have participated in a debate today.

We have partici pated in a debate in which we tried to get a response from a Government. lt is very sad that, regrettably, we cannot get them to respond because it would take, in order to get that response, an action. lt would take their having to make a movement, and that is all that we requested on this side of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Gulzar Cheema (Kildonan): I am pleased to take

part in this debate. lt is one of my first non-medical debates here. I would have loved to have the Minis ter of Health (Mr. Orchard) today here because, every time I ask him questio ns-Mr . Speaker, the basic question about this debate is the openness of this Government. The basic principle of any decision making is to take advice from all the people, all the parties who are concerned, and then make a rational decision. When the first time a question was asked on July 27 to the Mi nister of Environment (Mr. Cannery), at that time, the Min ister said he does not need the study.

How can he justify it when Saskatchewan has a study done, when North Dakota has a study done? Why not we? What for are we elected here? Just to make a decision just from one person and then wait for his actions? The second important thing, the person should be responsible and not passing the question to the next Minis ter and then next time it is going to be the next Min ister and then somebody else. Is that the basic principle of making a decision? The second, yesterday's Free Press the Mini ster of the Environment said, "lt is too late and the study is unne cessary." I think, Mr .

Speak er, this is una cceptable that, when the Minis ter had six weeks to make a decision, he did not make the decision, and I regret to say that I am extremely disappointed with the Min ister's abil ity to handle the affairs. * (215 0) Mr. Speak er, the second question that comes now has been said so many times, "Taylor-made" stories. 1212

Monday, September 12, 1988 We are proud of our Member who has brought one of the most important issues for the last six weeks, the PCBs. We should have learned from that issue that the environment is such an important thing, it affects people. When we are studying a lot of things, we do not know about them and we should wait and have a study done and then present it to the public. We are not here to have a negative impact on anything. We are here to help this Government, and that is what we have been doing. That is what we did.- (l nterjection) Well, I am glad the Mini ster of Health (Mr.

Orchard) is listening and, no, I do not have to rush with my question. The next time, I may have to supply him with my printed questions. I am going to do that. An Honourable Member: Get the written copy later. Mr. Cheema: Well, next time we will be supplying that. (lnterjection)- it is a basic principle. I think the Member for Brandon should know that. I even dis cussed with him, in private and in public, that I think there are a few issues and one of them I raised with him. That is 1 the way this Government operates. Even look at the example of the Brandon Mental Hospital.

How can these two Members sit on one side and the other side, and they are not concerned about even the Mental Health Centre at Brandon. There is not even one full-time psychiatrist. Mr. Speaker, it is un believable the way this Government is operating. Let me point out a few of the facts now. A lot of studies have shown that is going to impact on the water in terms of the flow during the dry season and in the event of surplus water. The second is: What is the effect of this project on our environment in terms of the effect on the wildli fe? What is the effect of this study on the environment, as such?

What are going to be the economic benefits of this project? Why not a study? When we are studying each and everyt hing, why not this, when these studies are going to cost like $500,000.00? Why is there a medical network when we have agreed the system is already there, when all the reports are there? Why should we not rechannel some of the money where it is most important now? That is the fact I want to discuss and I want to sh are with my Members on this side of the House. I must congratulate my colleague from Wolseley (Mr. Taylor), who has done extremely hard work and brought the facts to this House.

We hope that, with the debate we have contributed today and for the last two months, will continue to do that and we can achieve something we can present to the public of Manitoba. At least, I can tell the Kildonan constituents that we are doing something right and we want to present the facts to them. Mr. Speaker, I end my speech with that. Thank you. Mr.

Kevin lamoureux (lnkster): I would like to maybe bring some common-sense approach to the Souris River basin project, just a common-sense approach so that maybe the people across the floor will get a better und erstanding of what in fact they are actually trying to do.- (I nterjection)- I am willing to continue to talk to the Attorney-General (Mr. McCrae) afterward if he would like to continue on after ten o'clock. I want to comment regarding the Moose Mountain, or as I say, the basin project itself.

The Moose Mountain Creek and the Souris River flow into the United States and then they come back up into Manitoba, as we are all aware. In 1959, the Saska tchewan Government was given the power to retain some 50 percent o! the water going through their province, the water !low. The project itself is entailing what I would classify as a mega project. We are looking at the Rafferty Dam, the Alameda Dam, and aiso in the United States they are putting in the Minot Channel, the Lake Darling Dam and the Villa Levee.- (I nterjection)- I do not know that for a fact so I will not put that on the record.

What I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is it is a major project. lt is not a small project. Before we sign any type of agreement of consent that it is important, it is crucial that we do have some type of an impact study done here in Manitoba. We know the Province of Saskatchewan and the State of North Dakota have conducted these most valuable impact studies. They know what is going to happen to their provinces. We know there are some benefits and we know there are some downfalls to it.

Here in Manitoba we also need to get some type of an impact study done because we need to know how it is going to affect the Province of Manitoba. There are many things that are involved in this. Let us look at some of the impact, the loss of farm land becaus e of flooding in di fferent areas. In Saskatchewan around Estevan, where they plan to do some of the irrigation, they will no doubt benefit from it. I have lived several years in Sask atchewan and I have kind of a kinship for the province. I think it is important that we realize that, yes, there are many benefits to it.

I support it to a certain degree, but my major concerns are on how it is going to affect the Province of Manitoba. Ideally it would be nice to have a federal im pact study conducted but, if we cannot settle for that, the least I can settle for is the provincial impact study conducted on it. The Member for Emerson (Mr. Driedger) commented, "Trust us, we know what we are doing." I somehow find it very hard to trust the Government, the Members on the other side when they said, trust us regarding the PCB incident, the CF-18 , whatever it might be. I can recall the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Connery), telling us, trust me, the boxcar in Transcona is safe, that we are not in any danger , not having a lock on the boxcar, anything of this nature. I just find it really difficult to trust this Government, especially at face value. The Rafferty-Aiameda Dam project is really there to initiate three purposes. One, to provide irrigation waters for the Saska tchewan farm lands, to provide flood control prim arily to North Dakota, and to provide a cooling pond for the Shand Thermal Generating Station located near Estevan in Saskatchewan.

There are effects here in Manitoba that we will pay if this project does come into being. Some of those effects are as easy as the quantity of water that would be in sewers, especially during the dry years. Will the Town of Souris have to start getting their water from the wells? If that is the case then we are going to have to look at pumping. 1213

Monday, September 12, 1988 We are looking at, my colleague says, $1 million. Who is going to pay for it? This is the type of thing that we need to find out is what will happen if it does go ahead. I cannot empha size that enough. That is really all I wanted to comment on. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call at ten o'clock? (Agreed) The hour being 10 p.m., pursuant to Rule 21 .(4), this debate is now terminated. This House is now adjourned and stands adjourned un til 1: 30 p .m. tom orrow (Tuesday). 1214

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-1-34b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 1st hansardpdf 34b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	44970dd9f8e789a23712ac3dbe10e7e50a1fe8ce

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