Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 47B (35th Legislature, 1st Session)

35-1-47b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 First Session • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Danls c. Rocan Speaker VOL. XXXIX No. 47B • 8 p.m., MONO AY, JANUARY 21 , 1991 Printed by the Offll;e of the Quee ns Printer. Prolll nce of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MAN ITOBA LE GISLATI VE ASS EMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constitue ncies and Politic al Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIR S, Sha ron CERI LLI, Marianne CHEEM A, Gulzar CHOM IAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward, Hon. CUMM INGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIED GER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARM E, Gerry, Hon. EDWAR DS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON , Gary, Hon. FINDL AY, Glen, Hon. FRIE SE N, Jean GAUD RY, Neil GI LLESH AMMER , Harold, Hon.

HARPER , Elijah HELWER, Edward R. HICK ES, George LAMOURE UX, Kevin LATHL IN, Oscar LAURENDE AU, Marcel MALO WAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTI NDALE, Doug McALP INE, Gerry McCR AE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda MI TCHELSON, Bonni e, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack, Hon. PLOH MAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID , Daryl REIMER , Jack RENDER , Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon.

ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric STORIE , Jerry SVE INSON, Ben VODRE Y, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS , Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITU ENCY Os borne Thomp son Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste. Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lake side Charleswood lnterlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas lnkster The Pas St.

Norbert Elm wood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bon net Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY Liberal NDP NDP Liberal Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, January 21 , 1991 The House met at 8 p.m. THIRD READINGS BILL 24-THE ENVIRONMENT AMENDMENT ACT Ms. Jean Frlesen (Wolseley) : Mr. Speaker, the en vir onmen t Bill and its amen dm en ts have unfortunately been overshadowed by the thr eat of world war and one of the longest nurses' strikes in Canada's history, but it is an important Bill. lt is a Bill in which there is a great deal at stake, too much at stake not to do it right.

So we on our side think that we should wait the six months, that we should make amendments tha t are acc ep tab le to the pu blic and to the environmental movement. We should not rush on the basis of hurried, overnight decisions, but on the thoughtful recognition required by the people of Man itoba. As we edge closer, Mr. Speaker, to the precipice of a world war, many Manitobans are feeling very helpless. Th ose Mani tobans who have been active and concerned about our environment for many years kno w that feeling of helplessness.

They kno w that we faced a global crisis for many decades, but it is a crisis where local action counts. We need no t feel ho peless, alt hough the prob lems we face globally are immense-the conservation of water to provide enough food for the world's people, the protection of soil, the problems of ozone depletion, the loss of our forests, and acid rain. Yet, in spite of these, we can, as the Government is aware and as it has spoken in its rhetoric, think globally and act locally.

A phrase which may not be a household word yet, but it certainly reach ed the level of popular culture as a bumper sticker, if nothing else. Around the world, Mr. Speaker, we have seen many impressive efforts that have followed the Brundtland Commission. Three countries at least ha ve ma de signif icant initia tiv es in the environmental legislation.

The Dutch, for example, with th eir high population den sity and very severe probl ems in the use of automobiles and the pollutions that come from that, have focused upon incentives and disincentives in regulations for the greater use of bicycles, particularly public transport, and even more particularly the use of trains. They concentrated on controlling the emission of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. They have made a concerted effort to increase the energy efficiency throughout their country. Similarly in Norway, we find similar kinds of national legislative action and achievable goals. In Australia, Mr.

Speaker, we saw throu gh public action in the very poor state of Tasmania, a state which is very much like Newfoundland, where jobs were certainly needed, but through concerted public action they turned back, in fact, a Canadian mill, Noranda, because of the kind of pollution that it would have involved for the whole state ofT asmania and, in fact, for Antarctica itself. They though t globally and they acted locally.

Australia, perhaps less significantly than Norway or Holland, is attempting to replace the tree cover that has been lost since European settlement, and it proposes over the nex t few years to replant over a billion trees. Elsewhere, for example in the United States, we find a great deal of activity at the local or state level, manda tory recyc ling laws, and in Vermont, a very small and relatively poor state, enviable goals and legislation in many areas of environmental protection.

The United States as a whole, regretfully, is probably spending more in one day in the Gulf War than it has proposed to spend, $14 billion in fact, in one year on environmental activity generally. Let us turn to Canada where, unfortunately, we are blessed with the Tory Party for a few more years at the federal level, and what we have seen from them is an expensive public relations exercise, the Green Plan. But, in reality, what has been the action at the national level? Well, we have seen a $5 billion environmental plan become a $3 billion plan.

Ther e are no tough measures to control corporate polluters at the national level and those large corpora tions, like those which poisoned the Eng lish-Wabigoon river system, which ruined the livelihood of the people of Whitedog and Grassy

3190 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA January 21 , 1991 Narrows, are no w required to offer volu nta ry compliance. *

(2005) We see no money for the renewal of forests of Cana da; we see no legislative support for the whistle-bl owers, those who now must choose between their job security and their concern for the public interest. At the national level we have seen contin ued unconsidered support for the expansion of large major developments, James Bay 11, Point Aconi, Hibernia. The federal Govern ment is selling off Petro-Canada, the public player in the oil area where they could have had an effect on larger public issues. They are on their way to eliminating rail as a form of transport in western Canada.

Canada's Tories, in fact, are not in the forefront of sound environmental legislation. We cannot look to them for leadership, but the damage they do will live after them. Let us look at their allies, the provincial Tories in Manitoba, and we see similar approaches. We see a rhetoric of sustainable development, a well-written brochur e. lt is indeed, Mr. Speaker, a well-written brochure, wrapped in appropriate recyclable paper. lt has all the key words of stewardship, prevention, conservation, recycling, and again, that principle of thinking globally and acting locally.

But what has been the record of this Governmen t over the last three years? We see no conservation strategy for the more than half of our citizens who live in towns and cities. There are no new grants to urban transit in a time of large increases in costs and, predictably, the bus fares in Win nipe g ha ve increased; predictably, the ridership will decrease. We see no leadership from this Govern ment on this most basic of conservation issues.

The City of Win nipeg, faced by spiralling costs, largely as a result of suburban sprawl, the extended road systems, social infrastructure, left, I think , by the legacy of the many Members of the Government who sit on the other side of this House and who once sat in City Council and left us with those kinds of debts-City Council now has no funds for those kinds of recycling initiatives that common sense would require.

This is a Govern ment which has done nothing to combat corporate pollution in the North. lt has allowed Ducks Unlimited to build a large-scale office building at Oak Hammock Marsh and this in the face of serious opposition from the Naturalists Society, many environmental groups across the province and, indeed, the country. On an issue which strikes at the individual and the family level, that of recycling, we have seen again no leadership from this Government. They chose to deal very harshly with the resource recycling institute, to give it minimal encouragement for its activities, and this, Mr.

Speaker, is something which is of great local interest to the constituents of Wolseley. I circulated a petition, which the Minister might be in terested in, before Chr istmas to encourage his support for recycling, the Blue Bag Program in Win nipeg. I received within the space of two weeks over 1 ,000 signatures. Indeed, they are still coming in. I got 125 today which at some point I will be presenting to him. I emphasize to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that this is just from Wolseley. I have not started yet on Fort Garry, St. Vital or St.

James areas where families and individuals are concerned about recycling and see it as the sensible initiative. We have had requests from all of those areas for the recycling petition and for a blue bag program across the city of Winnipeg. We meet, Mr . Spe aker, to talk about this environmental Bill of this Government. We meet today in special Session to consider an amended environmental Bill -(interjection)-more desirable? Mr.

Speaker, it is unfortunate and beyond our control that the public attention for this Bill has been overshadowed. -(interjection)-I would like to lead that into the record, but I do not know how to rephra se it. * (201 0) Some Honour able Members : Oh, oh! Ms. Frles en : lt is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that public attention for this Bill has been overshadowed, I think thr ough no fault of anyone, by both the war and the strike.

So we rec omm end to the Govern ment tha t in these special circumstances we do extend con sideration of this Bill for another six months to hear the full public debate on an issue which has long-term implications for all Manitobans. In all the presentations which were made in the committee hearings on this Bill, the focus became clear. I will just talk I think to three of the issues in this particular Bill. lt seems to me that speaking in general terms, one of the most important elements of this remaining Bill and its amendments is that it will still enable others to do our environmental

January 21, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3191 assessments. I do not think this is what Manitobans want. We have created this environmental mess. We want to act locally and we must take responsibility. That is what stewardship means. That is what the rhetoric of the Government implies. lt is too important to leave these kinds of decisions to other jurisdictions.

Second of all, I think, as we moved in committee, we moved an amendment to create an environmental panel free of political influence. ! think that is something again that is of concern to all Manitobans, that they want to have the kind of confidence in a specialist and in a non-political panel that they can turn to for guidanc e, for information and for support on their environmental concerns, but this was rejected by the Government-not any surprise, I think. The Government has rejected similar non-partisan initiatives from the University of Manitoba Students' Union in recent days.

Thirdly, the other area of this Bill that concerns us is that the discretionary authority of the Minister has been considerably enlarged by this Bill and its amendments. lt is particularly unfortunate in the case of the provision of intervener funding. We need to ensure, Mr. Speaker, full and open public debate on environmental issues. The public inte rest requires well-researched , well-constructed criticism of all major environmental issues, and this Bill does not provide for that. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, does nothing to enhance the kind of well-informed debate that Manitobans want.

In deed, it moves us away from the general direction of international policy in that area. lt moves us further away from the environmental movement in Canada, and it moves us further away from the concerns expressed by Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, let us take the additional time we need. Let us take that extra six months in the context of these particular difficult times for Canada. Let us take the additional time to do the right thing for Manitobans and for the environment. Mr. Jerry Storl e (FIIn Flon) : Mr.

Speaker, I think we all remember only a few short weeks ago when it was agreed in this House that this particular Bill would be brought back before this Chamber on January 21 . There was an understanding that we would have two real days of public hearings.

I want to begin by saying that in the opinion of many, and certainly my colleagues who were at these public hearing s, it is indeed unfortunate that the hearings were nothing short of a sham, that the Government's stated intention of listening sincerely to the interests of those who have worked in the environment and work ed on the cause of the environment for the last many years would be listened to. We are so sadly undermined by the approach taken by the Government at those two days of hearings. Mr.

Speaker, there were some 20 individuals and groups that made presentations. lt is sad to say that their advice and their co unsel on a matter that is fundamentally important to all of the people of this pro vince were ignored. What is also I think unfortunate is that there was some treachery in the treatment of the environmental groups in the hearing proc ess and perhaps in the intentions of the Government. *

(2015) Mr. Speaker, these groups had presented their amendments and their proposed amendments to the Government on many occasions. The Minister of Environment (M r. Cummings) sat in meetings where amendments similar to the ones introduced by my collea gue, amendments introd uced by individuals making presentations, were addressed to him and to the First Minister (M r. Rlmon) of the province. Undertakings were made verbally that, yes, there was sympathy for the amendments and for strengthening this legislation to make sure that it worked in the interests of Manitoba.

There was a tacit understanding on the part of many groups in the province that represent the environmental conscience of the province, that these things would be looked after, that the flaws in the first draft of the environmental Bill would in fact be corrected. So what happened on January 16 and 17? Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Bill 24, if anything, as my collea gue from Radisson (M s. Cerilli) has suggested, was weakened in this process. So what does this tell us?

We have now an amending process; we have the Government of the Day amending the most important, the bedrock Bill of environmental protection in the province. We have them continuing to weaken that legislation, not strengt hen it, not strengthen the proc ess, not strengthen the involvement in the consultation that is necessary if we are going to have any kind of consen sus about what we do to promot e sustainable development in this province , and that is very, very unfortunate.

3192 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA January 21, 1991 Mr. Speaker, I can understand, and I think most Members of this Chamber can understand, the outrage that was expressed by people like Brian Pannell and others at the treatment they received in committee. lt became obvious to them that the First Minister's (M r. Filmon) word, the Minis ter of Environment's (Mr . Cummings) word are not worth anything. The nurses, of course, are learning that today and in the last 21 days. Too many people in this province are learning that the word of this Government cannot be taken seriously.

Once they have lost that-and the Minister of Northern Affairs (M r. Downey) is sitting there and people in northern Manitoba kno w how much his word is worth-once this Government has lost that, then they have lost everything. This is perhaps the most blatant exam ple, because I, Mr. Speaker, sat in and discussed with Members of the Treasury Bench the amendments that were proposed before Christmas to this Bill and was told soto voce, if nothing else, that yes, these amendments were acceptable, that they would be passed and that there was no real problem with them.

They did that for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to appease the environmental groups at the time. (Mr . Eric Stefanson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Now under the cover of darkness, so to speak, in the midst of an international crisis and a crisis in our healt h care, what does the Governmen t's real intention appear to be? Its real intention is to subvert The Environment Act, to deny what it told groups in private consultation meetings. Is this the action of a responsible Government? Is this the action of a Government with a modicum of integrity? *

(2020) Mr. Ac ting Speaker, this is an extre mely, extremely serious matter. The amendments that were sought to this legislation were straightforward. Their intent was clear to everyone. No one could den y the sinc erity of the peopl e who made presentations, and they represent a lot of people. Their motives were not political. None of them came before the committee seeking political office. They came seeking one thing and one thing that we all sh ould be seeking, and that is a genuin e improvement to an Environment Act that is there to defend the interests of our environment and our citizens.

They came there with clear motives and pure motives, and what happened? The Minister of the Environment (M r. Cummings ) in his wisdom decided to weaken the legislation, to leave the legislation in a state of comatose, a state of inertia,

an Act which will not ensure that our environmental interests are defended. How have they done that? Well, two specific ways-there are actually four or five, but I want to mention two in my remarks. The first one is the pr inciple that other jurisdictions' legislation should be that which is used to determine what is in our environmental interest, cl early an abdicat ion of the Governmen t's obl ig ation, cl early an abd ica tion of their responsibility to do what is right environmentally for our province. That would not be so bad perhaps, Mr.

Acting Speaker, if we knew that the legislation they were going to use in place of The Manitoba Environment Act was in fact strong er tha n The Manito ba Environment Act. Certainly there is grave fear that the federal Environment Act, which is the most likely piece to be used to supplant our own Environment Act, is not any stronger. In fact, it is much weaker in many areas. That is a serious condemnation of the appr oach thi s Gov ernme nt has ta ken to environment matters. The second point is the question of whether we are going to have any strong advocacy funding with respect to environmental matters.

Are we going to provide inter vener funding that is significant, meaningful and will allow a completely independent analysis of environmental questions? The Gover nment again in its meetings with envi ron mental groups was leading them quite deliberately to believe that, yes, there would be some support. Again, in the eleventh hour, in the darkness of night, they have decided to betray that confidence. Mr. Acting Speaker, the environmental movement will not soon forget.

I think that the report in the paper the other day of their feelings about the hearings and the Government's actions are going to be felt on the part of the Government for many many months to come. Perhaps there will be no forgiveness because this was done in a very deliberate and deceptive way, and the people I think in the environment movement feel rightly wronged. Mr. Acting Speaker, there is an old saying, let your

January 21, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3193 word be your bond; unfortunately, the Government's word is not much of a bond. lt may be 3M stick-it paper, but it peels away pretty quickly. Unfortunately, Mr. Acting Speaker, this particular action on the part of the Government is really quite consistent with its other environmental action. it is easy to play with words; it is easy to introduce legislation and amend legislation to make it less likely that the Government will really have to make any difficult decisions, but I recall when the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Cummings) first introduced what I thought was an excellent piece of legislation, the wast e reduction and conse quential amendments Act, The WRAP Act, as we know it now. I remember telling the Minister of Environment at the time that this was a charade, that in fact the only stren gth in that Bill was delegated to Order-in-Council. Everything was left to regulation; there was no meat on that Bill which would tell Manitobans, this is right and this is wrong environmentally. That is what the Minister has done here. He has said, there is no right or wrong.

I will decide upon a flip of a coin or a meeting with Grant Devine; I will decide in my own subjective way what is right or wrong. There is apparently no environmental right or wrong for this Gov ernment, and that is unfortunate. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) I challenge the Min ister, and I recall the circumstances of the Minister introducing The WRAP Act. The Minister introduced The WRAP Act in the last minute, had to get leave from the House to introduce it in the House, because the First Minister {Mr. Film on) was going to an environmental conference and the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Cummings) wanted to be able to send down the message to his ministerial colleagues that. yes, Manitoba really was moving on the environmental front. -(interjection)-First Ministers' Conference. I forget what the conference was, but that was the rationale for rushing that Bill in. •

(2025) What really has happened since the introduction of The WRAP Act? I challenged the Minister-in fact, I stated categorically there would be no introduction of one single regulation under The WRAP Act before the next election, and. of course. that proved to be true. There was not one single regulation introduced. They are now into their second term by four or five months. We have seen no regulations introduced under The WRAP Act, so you have to start to ask yourself again, where is their commitment to the environment? Mr.

Speaker, the people of Manitoba watched, perhaps in fascination and then in horror, as this Government trampled on one side of the issue and then the other and sat on the fence and many months in between, deciding what to do about Rafferty-Aiameda. In the final analysis, they really did nothing effective-no study, no protection of Manitoba's interests.

We had exactly the same situation in northern Manitoba, where the Saskatchewan Government was going ahead with plans to rebuild a dam on the Churchill River, a dam that was going to affect the downstream communities of Pukatawagan and others, Granville Lake, and many others. The Government said it was concerned, expressed concern through its Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) to some of the chiefs in northern Manitoba, but did nothing. In fact, the bands, in the final analysis, were probably the ones who were successful in stalling that project for the time being, but the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Cummings) took no position. He refused to offer the bands funding. He refused to take the Government of Saskatchewan to court, even though they were violating Manitoba law. In fact, for many years the Province of Saskatchewan has been thumbing its nose at Manitoba by refusing to get a licence under The Water Power Act to allow it to regulate waters in Manitoba, so the Minister refused to act at that front as well. Mr. Speaker, this Government's reputation has been tarnished, and it has been tarnished perhaps irreparably by this latest treachery, and I think that is the word that you have to use.

Finally, I want to say that Manitobans really do want an environment Act that works. That is what they want, and I think that requires Government leadership because-and I said this with respect to The WRAP Act as well-while everyone wants something good to happen with the environment. many people, if not most people, are at a loss as to where to start. The Government has had many opportunities to start that process, to tell its citizens what is env ironment ally rig ht. wh at is environmentally healthy and what is not. and to do something about it. They have failed in every instance.

Yes, we have passed so me very

3194 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA January 21, 1991 potentially good legislation, but it is going to take some will to introduce it, to actually make it act on behalf of our environment. Th is is a circu mstance where we had a reasonably good Environment Act. We could have made it better, and we have missed that opportunity. Perha ps more unfortunate than in missing that opportunity, we have insulted some of the people who have worked the ha rd est to make the environment a priority with Govern ments in this provinc e.

I say Governments because it is not just this Government, it is many others that they have worked with. Mr. Spe aker, we are going to vote on this legislation later on this evening. I want to make it clear tha t, while I will not be suppor ting the legislation, I assume that many Members on tha t side are going to be supporting this legislation. I want you to be aware that you should take no pride in this because it is stepping backward, not forward. lt is stepping on our environment, not saving it. The Minister of the Environment (Mr . Cummings) and the First Minister (M r.

Filmon) of this province are going to rue the day that they started the process of undermining The Environment Act instead of building it. They are going to rue the day they undermined the confidence of the groups that are working with the Government or were trying to work with the Government to improve our legislation, not make it a doormat for some other jurisdiction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. *

(2030) Mrs. Sharon Carsta lrs (Leader of the Second Oppositi on) : Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight pleased to ha ve seconded the motion of the Hono urable Member for St. James (M r. Edwards) to hoist this Bill for six months in the hope that, should tha t motion pass, the Governmen t will come to a realization that they are not acting in the best interests of the environment here in the province of Man itoba.

More than that, they are not giving the right signal to other jurisdictions in this country, and indeed in the entire world, that this Government tha t prides itself on being the centre for the In ternational Centre for Sustainable Development has not taken a leadership role when it could have. Wha t kind of a signal is that to the environmental commun ity? lt made a commitment of some $5 mil lion for five years, $25 mill ion, a large commitment partic ularly in a time of recession where each dollar is hard to obtain.

They made that commitment because they wanted to see, they told us, an enha nced world en vi ron men t, an envir onmen t where the the ory of sustaina ble development became the watchword of every single Government on the surface of the earth. lt is even more important for those of us who live in First World nations to take a leadership role in the environment because we have certainly taken a leadership role in destroying the env ironmen t.

Surely we must take that leadership role to return the environment to the state it was whe n we inherited it and to pass it on to our children and to our grandchil dren in an improved state, not in a continuing deteriorating one. I think it is important tonight to look back on just how this Bill came into being. Members of this House were surpr ised, qu ite frankly , when it appeared on the Order Paper because we were of the opinion that no controversial legislation was going to be put before us. At first the Minister said this is not the least bit controversial.

This is just a little bit of housekeeping legislation that we want to have passed before the end of Session. We waited a few days until the legislation was actually tabled, and we learned it was not a housekeeping Bill at all. lt was a fundamental change in the way in which we were going to conduc t reviews in this provinc e. At first we were presented with the idea of joint review processes. In theory it makes a lot of sense. You bring the witnesses one time instead of two times. You have intervener funding provided once and not twice, but that is not what this Bill provides for.

What this Bill prov ides for is the righ t of Govern ment to pass over its authority to another Government, to say, we are quite happy if someone else does the review for us. Mr. Speaker, surely we have learned in this province that we do not want anyone else to do a review for us. Let us just look to the Rafferty-Aiameda dam project as an example. First of all, we were told, well, Saskatchewan knows what it is doing. Then we were told, well, the federal Government kno ws what it is doing. Then we were told, the U.S . Army Corps of Engineers kno ws what it is doing.

Everybody knew what they were doing, except nobody was the least bit interested on the impact of those projects on the province of Mani toba. When we asked our Govern ment, who is going to protect our interest, who is going to speak for us,

January 21, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3195 they said, not to worry. Studies are being done here. Studies are being done there. Studies are being done elsewhere, except none of those studies, not one, truly evaluated the impact and the effect on the province of Man itoba-none of them. Tha t is what will happe n when we give our jurisdictional autho rity to others. Th eir primary concern will not be the impact on Manit oba. lt will be the impact on them, as it should be. We have in this Bill a piece of legislation that does not allow Man itobans to actively participate in their assessment process.

We do not even have a guarantee, if the Minister uses his discretion, tha t there will be any Man itoba pane lists, no guarantee that a single Man itoban will review the impact on Man itoba. That is not all that is missing from this legislation. lt was interesting , Mr. Speaker, to attend the legislative sessions last Wedn esday. I suspect tha t everyone in that room had their mind elsewhere, because when I turned on my television at two minutes to six, war had broken out. Word had come some 20 minutes earlier. The world was at war.

The world was potentially going to see itself embroiled in a war in which the greatest am ou nt of environmental damage ever known to the world could happe n. We did not know and we still do not know if nuclear weapons will be used. We did not know and we still do not kno w if chemical weapons will be used. We did not kno w and we still do not know whether biological weapons will be used.

We simply do not know those things, and it was in this context that we began the debate on an environment Bill instead of taking the moment to step back and say, at this critical point in world history, surely we should be doing everything we possibly can to strengthen the environment, even if it is only in our small part of the world. We were taking the opportunity to be less protective about the environment. One of the ways in wh ich a Government can ensur e that an environmental impact assessment is fair is to guarantee intervener funding. lnte rv ener funding is an easy con cept to und erstand.

You kno w, when Hydro, with its potential to put millions into an environmental impact assessment, and can hire witnesses who will obviously show their side of a proposal in the very best light, or when the management of Repap can hire all their expert witnesses to give information which will obviously put their venture in the very best poss ible ligh t, then surely it be hooves somebody-and in this case the Government-to make sure that those who oppose these projects, who believe that these projects are going to provide long-term damage to our province and to our nation, surely it behooves us to ensure that there is some funding for them to hire their expert witnesses.

I listened with in terest to one parti cular presentation. The woman was there on behalf of the Naturalists Society, representing, I think she said, some 2,400 members, but they have no funding to hire experts. They have no funding to bring in a first-class biologist or a first-class economist or a first-class environmental engineer to say how they believe this project impacts on Manitoba and on Man itoba children in the future. That is why you need intervener funding, but there is no guarantee of intervener funding in this particular legislation.

There are no guidelines for applying that funding, should it exist. I mean, it is logical to assume that a Government or an agency would not want to hand out intervener funding to anyone who showed up and said, I am an expert witness; I would like intervener funding. So, of course, you have to have guidelines, but we do not have them . We do not have appropri ate guidelines for the panel itself, because we have not allo wed the pane l to set their own terms of reference. The Minister will determine what that point of reference will be.

I think each and every one of us has experienced that, when people come before us, they sometimes raise issues that were never considered before. I thin k of the many people who came before us on Meech, who raised issues about Canad a's Constitution, that I am sure those of us who sat on the panel had never considered. *

(2040) If the panel does not have the ability to set its own terms of reference, then indeed areas will be overlooked. That will result in important issues with respect to the environment having been overlooked. I know that I shared with the Minister the other night some moments of concern as people tried to be so restrictive that, if you were to participate in such a pan el, you would have to be a political eunuch. I did raise with some of the people that evening that surely it is not the membership of a political Party that should prevent one from being a panelist, but what should not be allowed to happen

3196 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA January 21, 1991 is for a political Party to influence the outcome, to infl uence the decision-making process of that particular pane l. With that I am in full agreement. So there must be among those pane lists a sense of their own independence that there is not a quid pro quo demanded of them by the Govern ment of the Day because they have been appointed to this partic ular pa nel.

That is why the amendment proposed asked for neutral and unbiased panelists and asked for panelists who would have some kno wledge and some expe rtise, because it is becoming a more and more complex field. Although everybody feels they care about the environment and everybody wants to ensure a good environment, there are not very many people who have the knowledge to judge whether a particular decision would be in the best interests of the environment or would not be in the best interests of the environment.

We wanted to see an amendment made to the legislation that would guarantee that we would study before we built. One of the most important lessons th at we sh ould have lea rned from Rafferty-Aiameda-and the last judgment made by a Justice of the Supreme Court in Saskatchewan was in fact that the project had gone ahead too far, it was too late to stop it and so, because it was 95 percent complete, you had to proceed-is that is not good enough any more.

We must guarantee that the projects are studied before construction begins, before any Govern ment, no matter what their political stripe, can say, ah, but I have spent $30 million or $60 million or $120 million and, therefore, you can not stop me now. Mr.

Speaker, we must stop them ahead of time if we are going to ensure that the environment is indeed to be protected, not just for us, because if we hav e learned noth ing from the Bruntland Co mmission, it sh oul d hav e be en that the environment does not belong to us, it is ours simply to use while we live on this earth and we must pass it on to others and to generations that come after us. If we continue to destroy it at the rate that we are destroying it, then we will have passed on a legacy which may be beyond repair. That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.

The Governmen t would have liked us to have passed this Bill in Decemb er, by the 21st of December, and we finally agreed that no, we would come back for two days, the 16th and the 17th, and finally to a vote tonight. it will come to a vote tonight and, undoubtedly, the Government, because of its majority, will pass this Bill, but they will pass bad legislation. They will pass legislation in which they have bro ken fai th with the en vi ro nmental community. They will pass legislation that will not be in the best interests of their children and their grandch ildren and their great grand children.

They will pass legislation which will be a blot and which will be pointed to as a reason why we have not shown our desire to be the leading province in a leading nation in the protection of sustainable development. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to examine their conscience, not their Party stripe or their Party loyalty, their conscience, to ask themselves whether they want to do this, whether they wish to support a piece of legislation which can weaken the process in Mani toba. Do they want to say to the rest of the pro vinces, we are the lea der in weakening environmental standards?

Is that the legacy they want to pass on to the other provinces? I hope, in examining their conscience, they will realize they must not do that and that they vote for the amendment and agree to six months more study on this important Bill. Mr. Doug Martlndale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of delaying implementation or further discussion of this Bill for six months. Why do I support the motion to delay for six months? Because the Governm ent appare ntly broke an agreement with the environmental groups.

The Govern ment apparently agreed to amend the legislation, but no substantial amendments were accepted at the committee stage, even though they were proposed by the environmental groups and by the critics of both Opposition Parties. Why should Bill 24 be delayed for six months? Because Bill 24 waters down the effec t of environ mental reviews so that Manitoba will have the lowest com mon denom ina tor whe n the environmental assessments are carried out. I believe it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to know who appeared at the committee stage. lt was a rather impressive group.

One might think that amongst presenters there might be a number of groups that do not have very good credentials. In fact, I was impressed with the quality of all the presenters and the quality of all the contents of their presentations.

January 21, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3197 I think it is worth reading in to the record who appeared at the committee stage: the Winn ipeg Water Protection Group; the Manitoba Naturalists Society; the Friends of Oak Hammock Mar sh; Concerned Citizens of Mani toba; the Mani toba Federation of Labour; the Man itoba Eco-Network; the Canadian Parks and Wilde rness Societ y; Manit oba Envir onmen talists Inc.; Un iversity of Win nipeg Safe; the Consumers' Association of Canada (M anitoba); the Manit oba Environme ntal Council and at least eight private citizens.

What were the en vi ron me ntal gr ou ps recommending? In a letter that was written to the Min ister, they outlined what they thou ght the Government had agreed to in December. They were requesting that Clause 13.1 (

b) of Bill 24 would be deleted. That is the clause that allowed for the del egati on of the envir onmen ta l assessment process to another jurisdiction. They requested an amendment that would require that any joint assessment permitted as a result of Bill24 would be at least equivalent to Mani toba's own environmental assessment process and , in addition, meet the following criteria-the criteria are all good criteria. They are excellent criteria, and they are worth repeating.

Those criteria would require notice of the joint assessment to be given to the public through advertisements and the filing of the development proposal in the public registry. There must be public hearings in Manit oba. Some of these would seem to be ver y simple and str aigh tfo rwa rd. The environmental groups could not understand. Why would the Government not put them in the Bill? The Mini ster said, well, we will put them in the regulations. Obviously, there was a problem of trust.

Environmental groups were saying, we do not trust you to put them in the regulations; we want to see them in black and white; we want to see them in the Bill. *

(2050) There is good reason for that. The reason is that reg ulations can be ch anged at any time by Order-in-Council. Even though regulations for the environmental Bill are circulated in advance, which is a good idea, there was still this lack of trust in the Government. What they are proposing, I think, caused the environmental groups to say, we want it in the Bill; being in the regulations is not good enough.

The criteria included that members of the joint assessment panel are to be appointed jointly by the Ministers from the relevant jurisdictions, that panel members are to be impartial and free of any bias or conflict of interest. There must be a program of financial assistance for public participants in the assessment. There must be an opportunity for the Minister or the director, as the case may be, to acquire further information after the report of the joint assessment panel, which information would be used to assist the Minister or director in the decision as to whether or not to grant the licence.

Was this just one or two groups? Were they fringe groups? No. They were substantial groups. There were a lot of them. I read the list of groups that presented into the record. These were reasonable requests presented on behalf of nine environmental groups, the criteria that I read. What happened at the Law Amendments Committee-w ell, I think that what took place was a farce, a comedy in three acts. Act I took pl ace in Decem ber , wh en environmental groups requested public hearings in January and received assurances the Minister's Bill would be amended and their recommendations would be taken seriously.

You may remember the scenes in Act I. There were negotiations between the leaders of the environm en tal gr oups and the Mini ste r of Envi ronmen t (Mr. Cu mmings). Th er e we re negotiations between the environmentalists an d Opposition House Leaders. You will recall the scene of House Leaders and the Minister of Environ ment huddled in this House as they negotiated an end to the Session and agreed to a compromise to accommodate the conce rns of the environmental groups. You will recall the scene of scrums in the hallway with the Minister of Environment and with the spokesperson for the environmental groups.

Act 11 was played out in the committee room. Imagine members of the public appearing at the speakin g podium and reading brief after brief, sincere in their belief that the Min ister was listening intently and taking them seriously. Act Ill also took place in the committee room. The suspense was finally broken and the farce became appa ren t wh en the Minister distribut ed his amendments. What a farce! The Government did what they wanted to and ignored the public presentations. They appeared to have made an agreement on amendments. They appeared to be

3198 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA January 21, 1991 listening to the public, and the n they ignored the recommendations that were given to them. Normally, Mr. Spe aker, a farce would be a comedy, but this is no t theatre, this is the environment and environmental assessments that we are talking about here. lt really is a tragedy. Why are they doing this? Well, first to follow through on political promises to the western Premiers and to the federal Government. Second, they are in favour of one environmental assessment instead of two in order to save money.

Well, there is nothing wrong with wanting to save money. We in this party are in favour of saving taxpayers' money. Almost every presenter said that they were in favour of one environmental review if the only reason was to save money and if certain cond itions were met, if they were satisfied tha t the one en viro nme ntal assessment was at least as good or better than existing environmental assessment reviews. Did the en vir onme ntal gr oup s have that assurance? No, they said that the Bill introduced by the Minister would have the effect of watering down the en vir onment al assessment pro c ess in Man itoba.

They also raised questions about timing. The federal Government's process is being altered by way of Bill C-78 in Parliament. If the federal process is weakened and is combined with a weakened provincial process, the result will be the appearance of concern for the environment, but in fact a downgrading of concern for the environment. Mr. Speaker, the Government is ignoring several important political factors at their peril. First, they have alienated numerous environmental groups, whose membership con sists of th ousands of concerned Ma nitobans.

During the last election the Conservative Party tried to paint themselves green. Who will ever forget the TV commercials of the Premier in a canoe on the river showing himself as a friend of the outdoors and the environment? When the ne xt elec tion rolls ar ound, the environmental groups will remember Bill 24, and then the Premier will be up the river in a canoe without a paddle. Sympathy or apparent concern for the environment will be described as ecol-babble.

Secondl y, the Government ignores at its peril the fact that the public and public opinion are ahead of most poli ticians and certai nly ahe ad of this Government when it comes to concern for the environment. lt is not just environmental groups that are concerned and are falsely portrayed as tree huggers, but the majority of the public want the highest possible standards and for the Government to show more leadership on all environmental issues. Thirdly, children and youth are very concerned about the environment.

If you were to attend the Winn ipeg and the Manitoba science fairs, you would see numerous proje cts on the environment. A Grade 11 student in my youth group said that she woul d be prepared to commit acts of civil disobed ience in ord er to stop destruction or degradation of the environment. Mr. Speaker, when children and youth as a group express considerable concern in the environment and environmental preservation and enhancement, the Government ignores this concern at their peril. In conclusion, I speak in favour of a six-month delay on Bill 24. Bill 24 was hasty; Bill 24 is ina dequ ate.

Bill 24 ignores the concerns of en viro nme ntal groups and waters down the environmental assessment process. Let us get rid of Bill 24 and bring it back with substa ntial improvements which enhance the environmental assessment process and protect the environment. Thank you. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thomps on) : I wanted to put a few remarks on the record.

I had the opportunity to sit in the committee hearings, the last committee session that went till two in the morning, listening to presentations and debating in depth a number of changes to the Act that had been brought in by the Government itself and by the Opposition Parties. What I guess I found interesting, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that the more things cha nge, the more they stay the same. You kn ow, I thought we had made some progress in terms of recogni tion of the importance of protecting our environment.

I thought we had moved from the point a number of years ago where indeed environmentalists, anyone that was con cerned, naturalists, were described in not very flattering terms by Members opposite. I remember sitting in a committee hearing, a former Member of this House characterizing environmentalists as people who would drive up into provincial parks in their Volvos, eating granola bars. He then listed off a half dozen other caricatures. That was Bob Ban man, the former Member for La Verendrye, whom I respected in many other ways, but not in his opinion of environmentalists.

January 21, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3199 Mr. Speaker, that was the view of just a few years ago, in this House, of many Members of the Conservative Party. Then something happened. I suppose it might be the increase in identification of the environment as a major issue of con cern by members of the public. All of a sudden, everyone wanted to be green in the environmental sense, exc ept the Minister of Natural Resources (M r. Enns), who feels that only the NDP is green, or thereabouts. By the way, l believe he meant that as an insult.

He meant that as an insult, and if he expected itto be taken as one, I know he will be very, very disappointed in the sense that was taken as a compliment by the New Democratic Party. I thought, at least from the rhetoric that was coming from the Government benches, that they had learned specifically that it is important to listen. The bottom line is, here was a great opportunity for them to prove it. A Bill was introduced; it was hastily introduced. lt was introduced in a very sloppy manner, had not been referenced in the throne speech. The Min ister was unable to introduce it himself.

We ended up, I would say, on second reading with something of a fiasco. We in the Opposition said what, Mr. Speaker? Did we just bow under to the pressure from the Government? No. We said, this Bill deals with the environment. lt is a very important issue; it has to be dealt with properly. There has to be full and complete consultation, and we have to have proper public hearings. We held firm on that. •

(2100) We had a negotiated agreement that results in our being here today, after two days of public hearings, debating this Bill as the only item of business on the agenda, apart from the emergency debate that was introduced today. Where have we come since we discussed this matter a number of weeks ago? Has the Government listened? Well, you know, they believe they have. They believe they have, and I notice the Minister nods his head. He says he has listened. Well, I sat in the committee. I drove in from Th ompson.

I sat there for a good number of the presentations, and I talked to Members who were in the committee before. None of the committee presentations, none, supported the approach of the Mini ster. Virtually, all of them called for major cha nges in approach. Mr. Speaker, did the Minister respond? No. ln fact, the environmental groups, I talked to them when they left the committee hearings. They were incensed by the fact that the Government had not only not listened but had backt racked from commitments it had made to environmentalists a number of weeks ago.

When it appeared that the Bill might be blocked, they were willing to talk to the environmentalists; when it appeared, thro ugh the agreement, that they could get away with having two quick committee hearings and then pass the Bill through, all of a sudden they were not quite so interested in listening. Mr. Speaker, I have talked to them and I note for media coverage that environmentalists have said that they do not trust this Government. They do not trust this Government on environmental issues. They certainly will not trust them if they deal with matters in the same way in the future. Mr.

Speaker, where are we today? We are no further ahead than we were a number of years ago. We have a Government that, now ensconced with a majority, feels that it can sit back and listen if it needs to listen for its own self-interest in terms of the timing of a Session, but if it is not in its interest, if it can use the power of its majority, it will turn a deaf ear to the concerns of environmentalists. Well, that is what they are doing. Where does th at leave us in this province? I think it has to leave us in the situation where we have to have a fair amount of concern.

We have seen, federally with the Conservative Government there, the impact that can be had on a Government that does not have a relationship of trust with the environmentalists, does not have a relationship of trust with those members of the ge neral pu bl ic co nc erned about the environment. We have seen how susceptible they are, whether it be on Rafterty-Aiameda, to those types of pressure. We are beginning to see it here in Man itoba. Ducks Unl imited, the Oak Hammock Marsh project-well supported by Members of the Government.

I know a number of Members of the Government who have a very strong personal interest in that, and they would not deny it. But I th ink any objective analysis, anybody who is listening to environmentalists, naturalists, are quite aware of the very specific and very reasoned and very serious concerns expressed about that project. That is, indeed I believe, an indicator of things to come, be cause if this Gov ernment on th e envir onment Bill can turn its back on environmentalists as it already has done so in terms of the Oak Hammock Marsh, what next? Who will get the ears of this Min ister in terms of policy? Who

3200 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA January 21, 1991 will get the ear of this Premier? Who, Mr. Speaker? Will it be the same process that we saw in Ottawa with back-room deals affecting the environment of this country? Will it be the same process here in Manitoba? We will find out, Mr. Speaker. We will find out, but the Government should not expect us to accept their rhetoric, which is increasingly holl ow. lt rings very hollow. They should expect that we will put up a fight on Bills such as this. That is why I note that our critic was in the process, indeed, of moving the exact same motion.

That is why we have no problem in dealing with this exact same motion. There can be nothing , I believe, more logical at this point in time since the Government did not get it right the first time on the second reading and did not get it right in committee and did not get it right in report stage, and has not gotten it right on third reading. We will give them an other ch ance, we will give them six more months. They can come back in and try it all over again. If they are prepared even to drop the Bill, we are allowing them to go through first reading again, so perhaps they can get that done properly.

This Government has bungled this. They have turned this matter into a matter that has become a litmus test with the environmental movement of this province. The results of those tests are in, and the results are that there is not any trust left. There is certainly not from those members of the public and the environmentalists that made presentations at the comm ittee he ari ngs on Wedn esday and Thursday of last week. The Minister should check that. So we will give them another chan ce, this Govern ment another chance. We will give them a chance by voting for the six months hoist.

I would suggest that the best thing they could do for the environmental movement and for the environment generally would be to support this motion, because with ano ther six mont hs-well, Mr . Speake r, perhaps, th ey would not get it right six months later as well, but at least in the meantime the Minister would have a chance to do some real consulting and not just turning a deaf ear to the environmentalists and the many members of the general public who have expressed very major concerns about the provisions of this Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr _ Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : I would like to join in the debate on the motion to withdraw the Bill and take a good, sober second look, if we could say that, over the next period of time, Mr. Speaker. A six-month hoist, as the motion has been termed before, is a motion that the New Democrats have proposed before in legislation, and we certainly support it on this occasion, dealing with Bill 24. A six-month hoist can be used to do two things.

One is to kill a Bill or defeat a Bill and allow a Govern ment to come back and have a radically new Bill to deal with the problems of Manitobans dealing with that piece of legislation or to have a proposal that is perceived by the majority of the public to be unsound, unworkable and insufficient to be returned back by the Govern ment to review it over a period of time so they can get it right the next time they bring it before the Chamber. If ever there was an occasion that was meritorious for a six-month hoist, it is Bill 24 as it is presently before th is Legislature and the people of this province.

The Minis ter knows that , and the Members opposite know that, and all Members on this side know that. Mr. Spea ker, the re has been an excellent presentation from other Members in this Chamber. The Member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and the Me mber for Burrows (Mr. Ma rtindale) and the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) and the Member for River Heights (M rs. Carstairs) and the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talked about the public hearing process. (M rs.

Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) Can the Min ister honestly say in this House today that the public consultations with the people who are most affected in the environ mental movement, people who are across all political lines, whose first loyalty is to the environment of this province, the many, many groups that worked very hard and studied very long on this issue, were wrong when they proposed numerous amendments to improve this Bill? Were they wrong in the reasons they gave? Wer e they wrong to sugg est that before in December to the Government?

Is the Government infinitely wise and are they solely right and all those othe r 20 or 25 organi zations repre sen tin g thousands of Manitobans that are involved in the environment movement wrong ? Think about it. When you look at the whole list of people, these are not the people who are to be taken lightly, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are people who study legislation and criticize Governments of all political stripes, where appr opriate. and give credit

January 21, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 320 1 to members of all political stripes when they have done the right thing. In fact, some of those members are part of the Premier's own round table. He now has people in his own round table who are being very critical of the Government's environm ental Bill and the provisions in that Bill , because they are, and clearly this amendment to the existing environ ment Bill is, an erosion of the righ ts Man itobans have in the environment.

That is plain and simple, not our word, but the word of many groups crossing ove r thousands of Manit obans that are involved in th is issue on a day-to-day basis. Make no mistake about it, Madam Depu ty Speaker, this is not just groups that appear before the Legislature. These are groups of people who listen and speak to hundreds of environmental groups that are springing up across this province in neigh bourhoods, in co-ops on the environment movement, on various public action groups. These are groups and organizations that are grass-roots organ izations. These are not a few isolated people on this issue.

These are grass-roots people speaking about a grass-root conc ern. *

(2110) So I say to the Government, yes, a majority is a majority is a majority, but you know majorities can be eroded when they fail to listen to the majority of Mani tobans. I would suggest on this issue the Government did not plan to listen to the people of Manitoba. The Member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has talked about the princ iples of the environ ment and how we should be looking at th is environmental Bill in terms of a philosophical contex t.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the Member for Wolseley put it well when she said that the thrust of the Brundtland Commission, the thru st of the environme nt al movement, the thrust of countries moving toward the environment in a positive way are talking about the principle of thinking globally and acting locally. Madam Deputy Speaker, how does the Premier square that idea with thinking globally and acting in an opting-out way on our environment?

How can they possibly justify local grass-roots input into the environment at the same time they are allowing in th is province a situation where we can opt out of the environment? If ever there was a prov ince that should not lead the way of opting out and eroding the environment Bill, it is Manit oba. Look at our experience on the Rafferty-Aiameda dam. Look at our experience on downstream water. Look at how we got shafted by the province of Saskatchewan and the federal Government working in concert together. Is that who we want to opt out to, Madam Deputy Speaker?

We even now hear testimony from members of the Int ernational Joint Commission, experts who have worked at the In ternational Joint Commission, that the precedent that this Government allowed to happen with Rafferty-Aiameda dam in their goal of loyalty to their Conservative cousins in Ottawa and Saskatchewan has established an unbelievable precede nt in terms of interna tional covenants dealing with water tran sfer.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that should not be allowed to happen in a province like Man itoba that has had to rely on the IJC in the whole Garrison Diversion issue, as we will have to rely on the IJC in the Mid-Dakota project. What a horr ible precedent to be involved in, and yet we are leading with our chin again by proposing the opting -out legislation, as the Member for Wolseley has so correctly stated. We should be thinking globally and acting locally, and we are working in the opposite direction. Th en the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) touched upon the other issues inherent in this Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I do not know who to blame on this, because the Member for Flin Flon talked about the treachery that he perceived as part of these proposed amendments to the environment Bill. Those are strong words, because I talked to members of the environment community, and I talked to pe ople who had a whole li st of improvements that were necessary to improve this Bill, a whole list of improvements that were needed to improve this Bill.

Now should this be part of a deal to get out of the House or not get out of the House, or should we be dealing with the environment Bill because it is better for Man itobans and it is better legislation for our province? That is the question that has to be answered. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether it was the Min ister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) who pulled these amendments that their department agreed to with a great deal of environm ental membership in their meetings. I do not know whethe r the Premier (Mr . Filmon)

3202 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA January 21 , 1991 overruled the ministry of Env ironment, because we certainly hear from a lot of people in the Minister's own department. They are very saddened and disappointed that amendments that they thought were necessary to strengthen this Bill have been pulled. They are, quite frankly, ashamed that th is has happe ned, Madam Deputy Speaker. Quite frankly, they do not blame the Minister of Environment. They think it happe ned at Cabinet with the Premier calling the shots.

They think the Premier overreacted to a newspaper article, got his back up and wanted to say, well, I am boss. I got a majority. I am going to pull away these amendments and show everybody who is in charge here. Now he is in charge. He can make the decisions, Madam Deputy Speaker, but surely let us not erode his credibility, his Government's credibility and our legislative credibility on substance of Bills, because it is better for our province. Let us not do that. Let us sort of prove our majorities in different ways and different times on different issues, but let us not, as the Member for Flin Flon (M r.

Storie) said, practise in, I am in charge here. He is sort of the Alexander Haig of the environment movement in terms of pulling the Bill from undernea th the Minister of Env ironment (M r. Cummings). I do not know whether that is true or not. I do not kno w whether the people we talked to in the Minister's department are accurate or not.

I kno w that they are ashamed that this happened, and they are worried about the ir long -term credibility of wor king wit h the env ironmental movement, something that Government should th ink about because they too should be concerned about their own credibility, Madam Deputy Speaker. Th is is not an issue between our Party, the Liberals and the Governm ent; th is is an issue between you and the environmental grass-roots network of this province. That is who it is between, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Premier (M r.

Filmon) said in the briefing that took place a couple of months ago for the sustaina ble devel opment centre-the Premier said at that point that Manit oba had the best environmental laws in Canada, and Manit oba had the toughest and most strin gent standards in Canada under an environment Act anywhere in the country. I though t that was rather interesting, because we had alleged that for the last couple of years.

Perhaps the Premier forgot, or perhaps the Premier was being generous, but the Premier will note that we were the ones who introduced The Environment Act as it stands prior to the dealing with this Bill 24 this evening. Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe the Premier was correct. I believe The Environment Act at the time was the best in the country, and that is why it was the only thing we proclaimed during the election of '88. We were not stupid. We knew what was happ ening to us only too well, but we did not want to see all the consultation and all the work being eroded by not introducing The Environme nt Act.

There have been criticisms of that environment Act, and I agree with them. We did not go the next mile and get a truly independent environmental tribunal process that we need to do in the future. We did not deal appropr iately with the whole rights of intervener funding as we have with the Public Utilities Board. Madam Deputy Speaker, we had an opportunity to go ahead into the 1990s on a couple of those key issues today with this Bill. We had a chance to go from a 1960 env ironment tribunal system to a 1990 system. The Premier had the opportunity and the privilege to go ahead on these issues.

We would have supported the Premier and have supported the Government. We would have even applauded the Government if they would have chosen to do that, but the Government has chosen to go backward s. Those are not our words; those are not our an alyses. Those are not the analyses of partisan politicians. Those are the complete and acc urate an alyses that have been conducted with very, very in-dep th revi ews by the grass-roots, neighbour-to-neighbour environmental movement right across this province.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government had a choice. lt could have kept to its commitment of the highest standards. lt could have taken the choice of amending the Bill fully to deal with some of the chan ges that were nece ssary for Manit obans. Surely the Government is not saying that House logi stics sh ould deter mine the merit of an environment Bill. Is that what we are saying? Because in terms of House logistics, we have tried to co-operate as much as we could. We do want the Government to get back on schedule. We did want a public hear ing process on the environment Bill.

We did want to deal with our legislative agenda in the fairest way, but surely there can be no argument by the Premier (Mr . Filmon) and the Min ister of Environment (M r. Cummings) th at if we would have done itthis way, you would have these amendments and had done it that way, you would have those

January 21, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3203 amendments. Wha t an absolute betrayal to the en vir on men tal grass-roots movem ent in this province. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government has a funda me ntal issue with the gr ass-roots environmental movement. Do you want to break your bond? Your word is your bond; your word is the only thing you have left at the end of the day. That is why, quite fran kly, we did not move for an emergency debate today, as much as we would love to on the health care system, because we gave our word to the Government. We gave our word, and we keep it.

We do not like it sometimes, especially when we are trying to juggle three different balls at the same time, the environment Bill, the House ending and the emergency debate dealing with health care, the emergency situation. * (2120) lt is difficult to keep your word in that case . lt is especially difficult, Madam Deputy Speaker, to keep our bond with the public of Manitoba when we are so much engrossed in a major tragedy in our world, with the conflict, the war and the gulf crisis. lt is so difficult to keep our bond with the public perhaps, because the public is de alin g with and is preoccupied with the whole issue of peace and world peace.

We too, on this side, are praying for, working for and will speak for peace in our world and long-lasting new order in our universe. Having said that, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is your bond and your trust with those groups. I think you are making a big mistake in watering down the environment Bill. I thin k you are breaking the trust with Manitobans, not with us, not with partisan politicians, but you are breaking a trust. You only get one ch ance; you only break your word once with groups. You only have one chan ce.

You cannot give the groups the impression that these are the amendments necessary to improve the Bill, then laugh later on, because you have a one-day Session, and you are home and dry in a House logistical sense. You cannot do that, because you only got one chance . Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the Government has blown that one chance. I thin k the Government should vote with our hoist. Let us do this Bill right. Even the Minister of Finance (M r. Manne ss), the House Leader, knows we were back and forth on this Bill. We did not know one day to the next whether it would even be tabled in the House.

We did not know one day to the next what Bill would be tabled in the House. We did not know one day to the next what amendments would be made in this House. Let us hoist this Bill for six month s. Let us do it right for the people of Manitoba in terms of the environment. Thank you very much . Hon. Glen Cummlngs (Min ister of Environme nt): Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me pleasure to say a few words to close debate on this Bill. As far as I am concerned, what we have- An Hono urable Member : On the six-month hoist. Mr. Cummlngs: Yes.

We will close the debate on the six-month hoist, and then you can have your vote later. The fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel very confident that what we are bringing forward in Bill 24 is leading an approach into the future of environmental assessment in this country. The people of this province and the people of Canada are becoming increasingly concerned that envi ronme nta l assessments deal, not with environmental matters, but simply worries more abo ut pro cedu ral wrang lin g. Legal wrang ling becomes a concern rath er than dealing with real environmental issues.

We know that every province, every territory and the federal Government agree that there needs to be harmonization in environmental assessment across this cou ntry, and there needs to be interjurisdictional co-operation. That includes the NDP Government in Ontar io. That includes the Liberal Governments in the Maritimes. lt includes the federal Government as well.

We need to bring some reality to environmental assessment. lt puts into The Environment Act amendments that will allow this province to enter into joint assessments with other jurisdictions. lt lays out clearly under what general conditions those agreements need to be struck. Nothin g in these amendments interferes with Manitob a's ability to require the same standards that I require under our Act, and nothing in this Bill amends or reduces our ability to make a decision.

That, Mada m Deputy Speaker, is what gives me a great deal of concern and pain, that there are a number of people, including the Members opposite, who will not accept the fact that there is noth ing here that amends The Manitoba Environment Act in such a way as to cause us to forgo or have to give up any jurisdictional responsibility in terms of decision making . Nothing amends this Bill in order to reduce

3204 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA January 21, 1991 our need to have the high est possible standard put in place for an assessment. There is a considerable discussion about what should be in the Act and what should be included in amendments. That is a legitimate discussion. That is a legit imate disagree ment as far as I am concerned . When you are leading, very often it is going to attract the interest of those who are concerned.

I do not, for one minute, question the concern of those orga niz ations and those groups that brou ght forward the very concerns that the Memb ers opposite were putting out in debate this evening. There is no doubt that this is fraught with emotion and it is fraught with mistrust, but I have to tell you that we intend to act very consultatively on the regulatory processes that will go forward in the development of regulations which go with these amendments.

You kno w, it gives me a great deal of anguish that there are people who are saying that we did not listen or that we listened and we did not act, or that perhaps somehow we have broken a trust. I can tell you that there are very few Min isters who have taken the trouble that I have to develop trust and bonds with various groups that have shown an interest in environmental matters. I grew up very quickly one day when I instructed the department to open up the files and give access to everything that was in the file regarding an incident at Shoal Lake.

I said, we have nothing to hide. lt was the previous administration which probably would have made the mistake. If there was one made, let us have a look. Let us give them everything that is there . They came back and they said, well, we did not find what we were looking for; that means you must have exercised a cover-up. Now how much more trust can I express to those who want to come to a dialogue with the Ministry of Environment? We want to dialogue, and we will continue that dialogue.

We take full responsibility for our intent to have this legislation brought into law so that we can provide some cla rity and some reasonable course of action for major projects that are coming up in this province. We th ink it is fair and reasonable that those who want to present concerns on issues at assessment processes have an opportunity to receive some financial support. That financial support should be provided by the proponent, and we are suggesting that it is during the environ mental assessment proc ess rel ated to major pro jec ts that those proponents can be required to look at intervener funding.

We have said from the beginning that the case of in ter vener funding will go out to regu lator y discussion. What have we to compare it with in this provinc e? Is there some other model of intervener funding that we are discarding? Are we weakening the Act because we are putting provision in for intervener funding ? Where is the provision that is there now? Who on that side can say that he has been the cha mpion for intervener funding for last half dozen years ? Not one, Madam Dep uty Speaker. -(interjection)-Half dozen years, I said.

The fact is that this Govern ment has come light-years ahea d in terms of en vironme ntal conditions that prevailed in this province when we broughtforw ard the fact that we intend to make sure there are clear environmental assessments done of the Conaw apa project. The Limestone project, which cau sed a consid erable amoun t of environment impact in this province, was not assessed until after the fact, light-years ahead when it comes to pulp and paper licensing in this province.

Rather than the years when we allowed Manfo r to pollute, Ma nfor to manage poorly, we have now worked to bring that legacy to the people of this province under control. lt is today's generation and the future generations who will continue to pay for the legacy of Manfor, for the waste, for the mis management and for the pollution. Environm ental operating licences should have applied. They should have been applied if for no othe r reason but to br in g some decent management to that operation. No one should ever suggest that this legislation, however, is a trade-off.

There is no suggestion on my part that providing intervener funding should be a trade-off for joint assessment. ln tervener funding is clearly a step towards recognizing that the public has a role to play in environmental assessment. I do not think there is anyone on either side of this House who would deny that opportun ity and that right. The approach of this Government has been open in ensuring that the public has an opportunity to become involved. When we come to licensing megaprojects. projects with significant enviro nm ent al impacts, significant, de tailed tech nical issues which need to be

January 21, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3205 discussed, we have no qualm about saying tha t intervener fundin g needs to be prov ided. (Mr . Speaker in the Chair) •

(2130) When I look across this country and I see time after time where jurisdictions have argued and fought over jurisdictional responsibility between the provinces and the federal Governmen t, between territories and the federal Government, I can tell you that is not the approach of this Government. We have been co-operative, Mr. Speaker. In fact, if I could borrow the words of Mr. Justice Muldoon, and I said this in committee, he implored the provinces to embrace warmly the federal interim guidelines.

Well, that is what joint process does. lt invites the federal Govern ment to accept its responsibility at the same time as the province accepts its responsibility in the same area. lt seems to me that the -(interjection)-well, the Memb er opposite would li ke to take this considerable amount of time to diverge from the real issue, but it seems to me that when he wants to talk about licensing, and very often there is a debate that is brought forward regarding the issue of whether or not the federal Governmen t and Saskatchewan, under this scenario that we are looking at in this Act, would have had difficulty.

The fact is that the federal Government did not app ly the ir juris dic tional res ponsibil ity in Saskatchewan. If they had done that, and tha t is what we are inviting them to do under this process, a federal environmental review would have been done, and the questions that have been raised continually day after day would not be a problem for this Government or for any other Government in this country. The Province of Manit oba has a significant vested interest to make sure that the federal interest and the provincial interest are heard and heard clearly.

We have never tried to elbow outthe federal interest, and Bill 24 says to our Govern ment that where you have a role to play, take that responsibility. lt says to the Province of Man itoba, where you have a role to play, accept that responsibility and, where those jurisdictional responsibilities overlap, then let us undertake a joint assessment. That is the kind of philosophy that is behind this Bill. That is the kind of phil osophy that says that we want to have it here today in order to show that we are prepared to provide leadership in this area.

The Govern men t is willi ng to stand be hind this amendment and see it through so that we can clearly indicate to all jurisdictions, the time has come to stop wrang ling on behalf of the lawyers and spend our time dealing with environmental impacts. No matter how we cut it, Mr. Speaker, I thin k there may very well be a new time in federal-provincial rela tions where the pro vinces need to start recog ni zing the responsib i lity of the fede ral jurisdiction, and the federal jurisdiction has to start recog nizing its responsibilit y.

The fact is that environment is one area where all jurisdictions, all men and women of good will realize they have a responsibility that they have to exercise. One of the greatest complaints that is seen today is that there is too much bureaucratic entanglement. The Bill does not say that decisions will be made one way or another. lt only says that there must be a clear decision-making path. That is all we expect from the Bill and that is what the public expects from us. Mr. Speak er: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is on the motion of the Honourable Memb er for St. Jam es (Mr .

Edwards), THAT the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "THAT" and by substituting the following: Bill 24, The Envir onment Amendment Act ; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'environn ement, be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six months henc e. Agreed? Some Honour able Member s: No. Mr. Speak er: No? All those in favour of the motion, will please say aye. Some Honour able Members : Aye. Mr. Speaker : All those opposed, will please say nay. Some Honour able Members : Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Mr. Kevl n Lamo ureux (Second Oppo sit ion House Lead er): Mr. Speaker, could we have a recorded vote, Yeas and Nays. Mr. Speaker : Call in the Members. The question before the House, on the motion of the Honourable Memb er for St. James (Mr . Edwards), THAT the motion be amended by deleting all the

3206 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA January 21, 1991 words after "THAT' and by substituting the following: Bill 24, The Envir onment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'environneme nt, be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six months hence. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carr, Carstairs, Cerilli, Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (l nterlake), Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Gaudry, Harper, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mal oway, Ma rti nd ale, Ploh man, Reid, Sa ntos, Stor ie, Wasylycia-Leis, Wowchuk.

NAYS Con nery, Cum mings, Dac qua y, Derk ach , Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Find lay, Gillesh ammer, Helwer, Laurend eau , Manness, Mc Aipi ne, Mc Crae, Mc lnt osh, Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orch ard, Pen ner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sve inson, Vodrey. Mr. Clerk (WIIIIam Remna nt): Yeas 27, Nays 29. Mr. Speak er: I declare the amendment to the motion lost. Is the House ready for the question? Some Honour able Members : Question. Mr. Speak er: The question before the House is third reading of Bill 24, The Environment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'environn ement. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Some Hono urable Members : No. Mr. Speak er: No? All those in favour of the motion, please say aye. Some Honour able Members : Aye. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honour able Members : Nay. Mr. Speak er: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Mr. Steve Ashton (Op pos ition House Leade r): Same, on division, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speak er: On division. * (21 40) Hon. Clayton Manne ss (G overn ment House Leader ): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mc Crae), with leave of the House, that when the House adjourns today it shall stand adjourned until a time fixed by Mr. Speaker upon the request of the Government. Motion agr eed to. * (21 50) Mr. Speak er: I am advised His Honour is about to enter the Chamber. All rise. ROYAL ASSENT Acting Sergea nt-at-Arms (Mr. Garry Clark) : His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. His Ho nour George Joh nson , Lieut en ant Governo r of the Provinc e of Mani toba, having entered the House and being seated on the Throne, Mr. Speaker addressed His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in the following words: Mr.

Speak er: May it please Your Honour: The Legislative Assembly, at its present Session, passed a Bill, which in the name of the Assembly, I pr esent to Your Hon our and to which Bill I respectfully request Your Honour's Assent: Bill 24-The Environment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'environ nement. To this Bill the Royal Assent was annou nced by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly as follows: Mr. Clerk (WII IIam Remnant ): In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this Bill. (H is Honour was then pleased to retire.) Mr. Speaker: This House is now adjourned .

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MAN ITOBA January 21, 1991 CONT ENTS Third Read ings Bill 24 - Environment Amendment Act Friesen 31 89 Storie 31 91 Carstairs 31 94 Martindale 31 96 Ashton 31 98 Doer 3200 Cummings 3203 Royal Assent Bill 24 - Environment Amendment Act 3206

31 2/91 The Manitoba Gazette Vol. 120, No. 9 Gazette du Ma nitoba PROC LAMATIO N "G eorge John son" Lieutenant Governor CANAD A PRO VI NCE OF MANIT OB A ELIZABE TH THE SECOND , by the gr ace of God of The United Kin gdo m, Canada and Her ot her Realms and Territories, QUEEN, Head of the Commo nweal th, Defender of the Faith. PROCLAMA TION To our bel oved and faithf ul the Me mber s elected t.o serv e in the Legislativ e Assembly of our Province of Manitoba, and to each and every of you - GRE ETI NG.

WHERE AS the Legislativ e Assembly of the Province of Mani toba now stands adjo urned; AND WHER EAS it is deemed appropriate to requ est His Honour the Lieutenant Governor by a Royal Proc lamation ef fectiv e on the sixth day of Ma rc h, 1991, to pror ogue the First Ses sion of the Thir ty -Fi fth Legislature of the Province of Mani toba and to summon the said Legi slatur e for the di spatch of busin ess on the seventh day of Mar ch, 1991; NOW KNO W YE THAT, for div ers caus es and consid erati on, and taking into consideration the ease and con ven ience of our loving subjects, we ha ve thought fi t, by and with the advice and consent of our Executive Council of our Pr ovince of Ma nitoba, to hereby prorogue the First Sess ion of the Thir ty-Fi fth Legislatur e of the Province of Manit oba effec tiv e on Wednesd ay, the sixth �ay o f Ma rc h, 1991, and to convene the Second Ses sion of the Thirty -Fifth Legi slatur e of the Province o f Manitoba on Thurs da y, the seventh day of Mar ch, 1991 , at the hour of 1: 30 o'clock in the afternoon for the di spatch of busin ess in our Legislativ e Assembly of our Province of Manitoba, in our City of Winnip eg, th ere to tak e int o consid erat ion the state and wel fare of our said Pr ovi nce of Ma nitoba and therein to do as may seem necessa ry.

HEREIN FAIL NOT. IN TESTIMONY WH EREOF We ha ve caused these Our Let ter s to be made Pate nt, and the Gr eat Seal or Our Province of Mani toba to be her eunto affixed; WIT NE SS, His Ho nour Geor ge Johnson, Lieutenant Go ver nor of Our said Pro vince of Manitoba; AT OUR GOVERNM ENT HOUSE, at Our City of Winnip eg, in the Pr ovi nce or Manito ba, this tw en tieth da y of February , in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundr ed and nine ty-one, and in the fortieth year of Our Reign. BY COMMAND , "J.C.

McCR AE" , Min ister of Justice and Atto rne y Gener al . 331 "Ge orge Johnson" Lieu tcnan t-g ouvcrneur CANAD A PRO VINC E DU MANIT OB A ELIZ ABETH I!, par la grace de Dieu, REI NE du Royaume- Uni, du Canada et de ses au tres roya ume s et territoir es, Chef du Corn mo nweal th, Def enseur de la Foi. PROCLAMA TION A nos bien-a imes et fidc les depu tes clus a I' Assemblec legislativ e de Notr e province du Ma nito ba , et a cha cun d' entr c VO US, SALUT.

ATTENDU QUE l'Assemblee leg islativ e de la province d� Manit oba est actue llement aj ourn ee; ET ATTENDU QU'il est ju ge opportun de dem ander a Son Hon neur le lieutenan t-go uverneur de la ncer une proclam ation fix· ant au six mar s !991 la date de clotur e de la pr emier e sess ion de la tr en te- cinquieme legislatur e de la pro vi nce du Mani toba et con · voquant la Legislatur e pour la reprise des travaux le sept mars 1991; SACHEZ DONC MAI NTENANT QUE, pour div ers motif ; et de l'i nteret de Nos aimes suj ets, Nous avo ns ju ge a-propos, sur !' avis et du co nsentement de Notr e Conseil execut if pour la pr ovince du Manitoba, par les presentes de cl ore la pr emiere ses· si on de la trente-c in quieme h�g islatur e de la province du Manitoba le mercr edi six mar s 1991 et de vous convo quer a I 'ouv ert ur e de la deuxieme session de la tren te-ci nqui eme legislatu re le jeudi sept mar s 1991, a treize heur es tr ente, en Notr e Assemblee leg islativ e pour la province du Manit oba, en Notr e Ville de Win ni peg, pour la rep rise des tr ava ux, ce afin de por ter votr e atten tion sur l' etat et le bi en-etre de la province du Manitoba et de poser les actes appropries. · CE A QUO !

VOUS NE DEVEZ FAILLIR. EN FO I DE QUO! No us avons fait deli vrer les pr esemes Let tres patentes et a icelles fait apposer le Grand Sceau de Notr e pro vi nce du Manit oba. TEM OJN: Son Hon neur Gcor ge Johns on, lieutenant gouv ern eur de Notr e prov ince du Manitoba. EN NO TRE PA LAIS DU GOUV ERNEMEN T, en No tre Ville de Winnipe g, dans la pr ovince du Manitoba, ce vingtieme jour de fevrier , !' an de grace mil neuf cent quatr e-vingt-o nz e, dans la qu arantieme annee de Notr e Regne. · PAR ORDRE. "J.C. McCRAE" , Le ministr e de la Just ice et procureur gener al,

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-1-47b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 1st hansardpdf 47b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8321541d212d50b0a7377096045495db51c79813

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