Manitoba Hansard — 13 June 1994 (Sitting 46B, 35th Legislature, 5th Session)

35-5-46b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Sessi on • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published rmder the auJhoriJy of The Ho110ut'tlble Denis C. Rocan Speaker Vol . XLm No. 46B • 8 p.m., Monday, June 13, 1994 JSSN OS42-S492

NAME ASHI'ON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARST AIRS, Sharon CER1LLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIFDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS,Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILM ON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon.

FRIESEN, Jean MANITOBA LEGISLATIV E ASS EMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and PoUtical Afftll ation CONS'IITUENCY Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste.Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selk:irlc Concordia Arthur- Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Billlldon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley GAUDRY, Neil GllLES HAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli HEL WER, Edward R. lllCKES, George KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, TlDl MANNESS, Clayton, Hon.

MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCORMICK, Norma MceltAJB,James,Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. P ALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZN1K, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry STEP ANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann Point Douglas The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St.

Johns Elmwood Morris Bwrow s Sturgeon Creek Osborne Billlldon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage la Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonn et TilUlscona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Turtle Moun tain Broadway Rossmere Kirkfi.eld Parle FlinFlon La Verendrye Fort Garry Swan River PARTY. NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal Liberal NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC Liberal PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP

3409 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday,Junel3,1994 The House met at 8 p.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY (continued) COMMITT EE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Secti ons) ENVIRONMENT Mr. Deputy Ch airperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The commi ttee will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Environm ent. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 2.(a)(1) on page 52. Item 2. (

a) Environmental Operations

(1) Salaries and Employee Be nefits $4, 157,10 0 -pass;

(2) Other Expenditures $1 ,054,000--pass. 2.(

b) Environmental Management

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,530,700. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Chaitpe rson, I would like to raise some issues concerning the Red River and the contamination of the Stony Mountain aquifer. Would this be an app ropriate spot to do so? Bon. Gle n Cu mmings (Min ister of Environment): Absolutely . Mr. Dewar: Thank you very much. In 1989 the Minister of Environment ann ounced that the Oty of Winnipeg would have to comply with the sa me ru les as other Man itoba municipalities and start disinf ecting sewage , discharge from its treatment plants .

Here now we are a way along that road, almost four and a half, five years later. I just want to follow up on some of those issues. I would ask the minister, what is the timetable that the minister has and this department has to set out requiring the Oty of Winnipeg to adhere to his own water quality objectives? Mr. Cu mmings: A very legitima te issue the member raises, one that however I am sure will never be satisfied to, or be done quick enough for, the satisf action of most of the people downstream from the city. The process it has unde rtaken is to be handled as we go through the licensing process.

Initially that required that the city begin to produce plans for implementation of the additional treatment There has been a lot of work done as well. I guess it is not entirely unre lated- well, it certainly is related in terms of the water quality objectives, a number of additional pieces of work have been undertaken around that But the upgrades are to be handled as we go through the licensing of the sewage treatment plants in the city. I have to get an update here. We are presently meeting with the city on those licensing issues in connection with their three main sewage treatment plants.

Of course we are going to talk about water quality objectives and the broader issues that were discussed there. That also has to do with developing a long-term capability of addressing some of the combined sewer discharges. Mr. Dewar: Are you suggesting that the city has not submitted any plans yet to the minister's department? Mr. Cummings : What they are doing is their environmental impact ass essments so that they can start doing some of the engineering. Now there has been some considerable upgrade of their plants. It is not as though the city has not been doing upgrades and spending dollars.

I guess that is where I acknowledge that this is going to take time and money to get it up to the level that would create some satisfaction downs tream. But I have to say that I am not unhappy with the fact that the city has been spending a fair bit of

3410 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 money on the improvement of their pla nts. Frankly, the only other way to get it going a whole lot faster would be for the province to come forward with a considerable amount more money than is already being committed to the block funding, some of which I suppose could ultimately go to environmental upgrades that the city nee ds to do. Mr. Dewar: You mentioned provincial financial contributions. What is the current contributions by the province? What wo uld be the requi red contributions? Mr.

Cummings: I was referring in the sense that the city's funding is no longer specific as it was a few years ago. It is in fact block funding. That is about a hundred and some mill ion annually that the province contributes to the city as a share of assistance in a number of capital projects and other responsibilities that the city undertakes. Their long-term budgets have been presented as part of their effort to put forward their capital program to substantiate their block funding. That is part of the input that we have to have in order to get the timetable nailed down as to the implementation of these upgrades.

Mr. Dewar: Does the minister have an estimate of what the cost would be to disinfect the sewage that is currently being dumped into the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers? Mr. Cummings: I am sony. I did not catch the first part of the question. Do I have the authority to order it? Mr. Dewar: That is a very good question, too. No. I was wondering what would the cost be to the City ofWmnipeg to disinfect the waste that is currently being dumped into the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers. Mr.

Cummings: First of all, the disinfectant probably is not the only thing that needs to be done, but it would be three times 13 mill ion which is 39 million, plus we know that we are talking at potentially a billion dollars for the revamping of the co mbined sewer system which should eliminate the combined sewer outflows. Mr. Dewar: Do you as mini ster have the authority to order the City of Winnipeg to disinfect this waste? Mr. Cummings: Yes. Mr. Dewar: Will the minister be exercising that authority in the near future? •

(2010) Mr. Cumming s: Well, that is what we are doing. It is nice to be able to say one has the authority to do something. To get it implemented and carried out in a practical m anner so that the objectives can be met at the same time as we are being responsible with the total development of the infrastructure for the city, I guess, leads to the concl usion that this is not something that we are contemplating being able to order an immediate relief from. Mr. Dewar: The disinfectant of the sewage, in your opinion would that go a long ways to dealing with the problem of a fecal coliform count in the Red? Mr.

Cummings: Well, that is part of what the debate is about, and I have suggested to the city councillors at at least one of our meetings, and actually probably a couple of years ago we had a lengthy discussion on this, that they should be sei zing the oppo rtunit y to look at some imaginative alternatives in this area. Ultraviolet treatment, I am told, can be quite expensive, but it can also be an alternative that should be discussed in the overall view to what they may want to do with the treatment of their outfalls.

I do not express that with any other reason than just to demonstrate that there are lots of things that they probably could be examining beyond just additional chlorination because certainly there are some people who are not satisfied that that is the way to go either. That is part of what is precipitating the debate, but I want to put on the record that, frankly, we have been pretty rigid with discharges all across the province. We simply have to work with the city to get this job done. Mr. Dewar: How often is the water tested as it flows through Selkidc in terms of the Red River?

June 13, 1994 LEGISLA1lVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3411 Mr. Cummings: At least monthly and more often as decided. Mr. Dewar: Thank you. I was wondering if the minister could tell me, tell the residents of Selkirk what type of pollutants are they finding in the Red River? Mr. Cummings: The main or probably the evidence that we find is fecal coliform and ammonia, and that varies widely, as I recall. Mr. Dewar: When you said it varies widely, is that in terms of quantity or time of the year? Mr.

Cummings: I suppose both, but I am particularly referring to the fact that it would vary widely, depending on the combined sewer outfalls when they bit. Mr. Dewar: Well, what is the acceptable level of fecal coliform and what is the current level? Mr. Cummings: Normally testing should produce levels below 200 organisms per cubic metre, as opposed to occasionally after a rainfall you might find up to 24,000 organisms. Mr. Dewar: Well, what would be the average? You are saying acceptable levels are 200, but after a rainfall it could get as high as 24,000. What do you think: would be an average? Mr.

Cummings: Of course, one of the problems that we have is that there is no such thing as an average here. In fact, in the dry weather you can have additional problems with your river for other reasons, but combined sewer outf all wou ld probably not be one of the problems. So you unfortunately probably get a less than attractive trade-off there. This is not a new probl em, and it is one that, frankly, I feel our government is taking more action to correct than any previous government.

I used to take great umbrage at the Leader of the official opposition referring to what be considered was an exemption for the City of Winnipeg. 1bere never was an exemption, and there is not now. It is the same as what used to be sort of a standing joke between the mayor of Brandon and myself, that was who was going to go to jail first in terms of getting an upgrade of systems there. I suppose eventually those same stories will be asked of the mayor of Winnipeg and whoever is the Minister of Environment. Mr.

Dewar: In the Clean Environment Comm ission, Water Qualit y Obje ctives, recommendation No. 8, Warning System for High Coliform Levels, the Minister of the Environment should rese arch and develop an app ropriate high level, high fecal coliform level, public warning system for operation during the recreation season. Can the minister provide us with an update of his researc h and his development of this very nee ded system? Mr. Cummings: Well, there are about 13 diff erent studies that have been done that have a lot of information, partly of which covers some of the questions that the member is asking.

I do not think that we have felt that the high level warnings system bas been operationalized because it did not feel that the demand bad-we actually bad probably a better than average year, I suppose, the last couple of years, but that system is not in place. Mr. Dewar: I would like to raise some issues about the contamination of the Stony Mountain aquifer. Can the minister give us a general status of that particular situation? Mr. Cumming s: Yes. That bas been one of the rather unique situations that we have bad to deal with over the last few years.

Without going back over the long story of how we got to where we installed an alternative water supply, one of the things that occurred in the early examination of this problem was that the contaminant does behave in a rather unusual way when it gets into water. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 1,1 trichloroethane and trichloroethylene tend to gather in pockets and fissures in the ground water and move somewhat unpredictably, so it led to the conclusion that you could not easily remediate.

An alternative water supply was put in place, and a strategy for containing any movement of the contamination in the area was to be developed. That strategy is now being put in place. •

(2020) 3412 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOB A June 13, 1994 One aspect of it is to declare the area under the Sensitive Area Regulations where we were able to take addi tional control over anyone who might consider using a well, because wells drawing from areas that we may not have anticipated might, inadve rten tly, draw the contaminant away. We knew where at least some of the contaminant was, and Bristol is now undertaking to remediate that by pumping it to aerati on, and it can be removed through aeration.

I think we have approved the remedial plan that they produced to attempt to do this, pretty simple situation in terms of their aeration proposals, but one that will take some time and I guess a fair bit of testing to determine whether it will actually provide the total cleanup that one would want to have . The problem there is simply, as I explained before, the nature of the material and how it does or does not move in the aquifer. I am not an expert, but I am only repeating what I was told in tenns of how it may move more or less in a mass.

We are talking small amounts , but it is still a mass in terms of it going into a well and showing up somewhat unexpec tedly , I undemtand. It cannot be predicted nec essarily when it will move. If I could go back one step further , perhaps it would be correct to put on the record, there was always questions asked about why the government became involved as one of the parties to provide an alternative water supply. That had everything to do with the fact that there were two sites that were contaminated or showed the most contamination.

One of them, Bristol, clearly recognized it was their respon sibility, but there was always a site about five kilometres away that Bristol denied they had ever used that particular material on their site. (Mr. Ger ry McA lpine , Acting Deputy ChairpeiSOn, in the Clair) We could have gone to court, I suppose , and we would still be there , and they would be attemp ting to prove that they had never used that material and never had it on their site. We would be attempting to prove that it was very close to what they had used and, theref ore, they should pay for the whole thing.

The compromise, in order to provide some comfort to the people of the area, and that was really what it was, there were some we lls that were badly contaminated. There were a number, however, that were below what was consi dered a dangerous lev el, but ne vertheless, people felt that it was an exposure and a risk that they had not vol untarily undertaken and they wa nted remediation from it. So that expla ins why there was a three-party arran gement to deal with it I would mte this as a su ccess ful mediation of situation that needed to be dealt with.

There was a known polluter, there was some orphan or unknown areas that nee ded to be responded to, and there was a high level of concern in the community that had to be dealt with because-and I do not say this with anything other than respect-but there was an extremely high level of concern. Unless somet hing was done , and the fiiSt thing that was done was put in the filteiS in order to try and reduce the risk immediately. I would label it as a success. I would label it as a success also in the other context , that Bristol was not an unwilling partner in the proce ss.

It has always been my philosophy that we are better off to have an active cleanup and remediation going on than we are to be wasting our time entirely in the courts . Mr. Dewar: I believe the minister has made some effort to answer my next question, and that is, of coume, have you determined the source of the contaminants? You mentioned that Bristol has taken some responsibility for it, so they are accepting some of that responsibility now then? Mr. Cumm ings : Ye s. Our undertaking remediation, plus their undertaking to change the ir activities at the site, so that they do not contribute again or further.

So I am satisfied that the public was well served even though, as I said, there was criticism of a tripartite type of arrangement, but the fact that there was some material that might well have ended up being listed as an orphan, I would think that the progmm was success ful. It has been pointed out to me that in changing their method of operation, Bristol has now reduced their solvent use by some 90 percent or at least the

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3413 material that, I take it, is the material that bas to be disposed of by 90 percent , as well as their in-plant use. Where they got into trouble and caused the contamination of the aquifer was, in fact, at their disposal site. Mr. Dewar: Have you been able to identify all of the sites, all of the wel ls that have been contamina ted? Mr. Cumming s: Yes, we belie ve we bave. 1bere bas been surveys, tests, ong oing tests on a lot of them, we have some monitori ng wells. No, I do not think we have missed anything. Mr.

Dewar: As the minister is aware, I have a number of constituents just east of the centre of the contamination. Have any of these contaminants been found in the St. Andrews- West St. Paul area? Have any of the contaminants been found in the Red River? Mr. Cummings: Certainly not in the Red River. I thin k the best way to answer in tenns of what is going on in the wells, as I think I have the people here who have been following this very closely , the area of contamination-an d Bristol did a lot of the work in conjunction with the department and in conjunction with consultants .

What the remedial process undertook to do was define the area where the pollution was. That was done via wells, via trying to detennine if it was moving anywhere. That was bow they came across that one that was first of all suggested was a plume where that one site was that we were unable to with certainty confinn what was in there. In delineating that boundary , they have not found it mov ing.

So, the refore , it bas not preci p itated, for a lack of a better tenn, a lot of testing in outlying areas because they think they have defined the area in which it lies, and the testing is such that they believe they could catch it if it were starting to move again. 1be movement seems to have stopped. Mr. Dewar: I am pleased to bear that. Have you or bas your department tested the artesian wells in the Oak Hammock Marsh area? Mr. Cummings: I cannot speak to the artesian wells that the member refers to. I might not be able to respond to that, but I am told that there have been more samples taken this spring.

While we do not have the results all completed yet, we are pretty sure they are going to tell us that the contamination area is the same as it was last year. Mr. Dewar: Will the minister, when be gets those results, pass them on to me so I can reassure my constituents that there is no need for a1ann in tenns of the contamination of their water supply ? •

(2030) Mr. Cummings: In fact, I belie ve we can say that the company and the department are prepared to go further than that. There bas been an ongoing process of public inf ormation availability. This will be made available , and if it is deemed useful there will be a public discussion of it in the affected area . Mr. Dewar: What was the total bill to the province to deal with this contamination, and bas the department been able to recover any of these cos ts? Mr. Cummings: Well, that was what I was ref erring to earlier when I said we bad a tripartite agre ement.

The province did not undertake to recover for the alternate water supp ly, as an example . That was a three-party , supported by all, by fed eral , provincial and Bristol through PFRA program . It was a rural water supply that was supp lied, even though they bad pre-existing water. So that part was shared but not recovered. We have a capability of recoveri ng a lot of our departmental costs , but we have to verify and bill it We do not anticipate-at least I remember the discussions when this was raised bef ore, it is not likely, I do not think, to be contentious because Bristol bas agreed to it. Ms.

Norma McCormick (Osborne): Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I have a couple of items I wanted to deal with before we pass this item . One relates to the household hazardous waste program. You recall I bad asked when we were questioning in the are a of the Man itoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation about whether or not there would be a transfer of responsibility from the corporation to the department for a household hazardous waste program once the new corp. comes into being . I am wondering if there is any

3414 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 planning going on in the department to assum e this program. Mr. Cummi ngs: As I indicated before, the Hazardous Waste Corp. used to manage this out of their allocated loan authority from the department and was presumably managed out of cash flow, but it could be argued that it was to some extent rolled into their developmental costs. For '94, the funding is still available through the departmental Estimates in the appropriation for Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corp.

It is our intention-and I am told we already have a draft, we are worlcing on drafting a contract-to have the department contract with the corp. In this case, it would carry forward to the new corporation to manage that program, at least in the short term. Ms. McCormick: I also had some other questions when we were last discussing the Hazardous Waste Corporation with respect to the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.

Do you recall I had asked whether or not there had been any concern raised with the department that the Hazardous Waste Corpora tion was taking soils which were PAH conta mi na ted outsi de its licen ce? You ha d indicated that you would determine within the department whether or not you had received a complaint of this nature. In fact, I went back to verify my information and was told that the informa tion is known to the department So I was wondering if you have any plan to scrutinize the corporation with respect to the kinds of soils that are being taken for treatment and processing. Mr.

Cummi ngs: I am not sure I can speak to the specifics of the issue. I may be getting a note here in a minu te, but the longer-term monitoring approach that we will have to the corporation is already underway, and that we will have the capability in that region to have a person who will not necessarily be dedicated just to that corporation, but certainly will be dedicated with enough time to cover the corporation and regulate them in terms of their operations. Perhaps if the mem ber for Osborne (Ms.

McCormick) could share any more detail with us, I do not know if we are checking in the wrong place or with the wrong staff , but we have been unable to find any evidence of the concern that you have raised Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, yes, I will go back and find out if the person that has been speaking to me has not gone to the right complaint department, but if that is the case, I will make sure to forward it. I note in the annual report- Mr.

Cummi ngs: Just if I might interject on that point, certainly it is our policy that you do not have to go to any particular area of a department to get your complaint dealt with, but perhaps we have not asked the right people yet, but we would certainly appreciate any information and follow up on it.

In fact, this is something that I pointed out earlier in our discussions a week ago that you know it is now timely that people, the public, begin to ask not how well is the corporation doing but how well are we able to determine and regulate what they are doing, because they are now moving into a new era and they will have to answer to the department the same as any other corporation, and they have up to now except that they have had a different relationship with the pubic than they will have from now on. Ms.

McCormick: The Hazardous Waste Corp.'s Annual Report indicates that they processed 14,000 tonnes of hydrocarbon contaminated soil in the year 1993. I was wondering if you could give me any indication of how much is contracted for the first six months of '94. Mr. Cumm ings: I do not have the precise numbers. They are below prediction at the moment though, I can tell you that. Ms. McCormick: I guess that is what is causing some of us concern is there may be a temptation to bring the numbers up to broaden the amount of soil that they take.

You are saying it is not anywhere near what they had anticipated they would be doing last year or what they did last year. Mr. Cummings: Well, not necessarily what they had anticipated, but what they had budgeted for. They are running behind budget. I am not sure if that is cyclical. I think the mem ber wo uld

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3415 acknowledge that soils going for treatment there, there may well have been a backlog right at the start. It is my anticipation that there likely is still some backlog out there, and that the cotporation is still competitive and certainly I do not have any immediate concern that they will not be continuing to treat a significant amount of soil. Ms. McCormick: Another area of concern is with respect to the PCBs.

In the report it indicates that there was about 2.5 million worth of money appropriated in the 1993 budget year for the PCBs that were sent out of province. Can you tell me, with respect to the loads that went, how many loads went in 1993 and how many went in 1994 before the border closed? Mr. Cummings: Let me answ er that question in the reverse order. The border did not close, nor I suppose technically was it ever completely open.

Alberta, I may be arguing over a split hair here, was looking for soils to put into its incinerator to do a test-bum, and the member probably knows this better than I do, as I understand it, the testing was that if they could get a quality bum on specified PCB materials, they could get their licence approved; they would have passed their initial start-up tests. Some of the material moved in December, the majority of it did move in '94. I presume the member is asking the difference between the calenda r year, December, versu s '94.

If the member is asking that on the basis of which direction is this taking the budget, because some of the money was allocated in the year '93, some will be allocated in the year '94. There was, in fact, some detailed discussion with the auditors as to what was the best way to appropriate it or to recognize it as income. Some of it was recognized up front and the balance was recognized in '94. •

(2040) Unless the member has some other reason for asking the question, I suppose it was entirely- it was no different than on my farm or any other business firstly where you recognize inventory at your discretion in order to balance out your income and your expenditures, but the business end of it was completed prior to the end of the year. I think it was Novemb er when we first had an understanding that the material was going to move.

I am not normally that close to things the cotparation would do on a day-to-day basis, but this was an issue where Alberta had indicated they would take materials fr om sur roun ding jurisdictions, and that excluded Manitoba. So because Manitoba was one of the ones who drove the presumed co-operation between all of the western jurisdictions in dealing with hazardous waste, tires, newsprint, and all of the original co-operative discussions that occurred, we were somewhat offended that we were left out.

The result, however, was that Alberta found that the other jurisdictiom were not prepared to ship in the quantities or in the identified quantities that they needed in order to be able to get their bum done, so the minister in Alberta extended the opportu nity to sell or to take the materials to Manito ba. We were more than ade quately prepared. Manitoba Hydro had the vast majority of it, and it was stored, catalogued and categorized, and very easy to move.

As I said in my opening remarks, we moved out 40 trailer loads of PCBs, and obviously the vast majority came from Winnipeg and Manitoba Hydro, but there were quite a few school sites, private sites where material was moved from, but they obviously would not amount to huge volumes. I guess the auditors agreed that sort of a 50-50 breakdown of the total value of the material or of the sale-the profit was allowed to accrue on either side of the year-end. Ms. McCormick: I was trying to tie together three pieces of infonnation I found in the report. One was that they began the shipments departi ng December 20, 1993.

Another statement says that under the note on revenue recognition: PCB management revenue is recognized using a percentage-o f-completion method. Then the third piece of information is the $2,30 9,000 in the statement of operations and deficit. I was concern ed that the 1994 revenue projections were for, is it simply a splitting of a completed $4 million-plus deal, $4.2 million, and

3416 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 not another overestimation of revenue like it appears we got with the contaminated soils issue. The whole $4.2 million is for something that is packaged up and gone. It can certainly expect another $2.3 million to show up in the '94 operating budget. Mr. Cummings : That is correcL The dollars are not in question on this. I hope I did not mislead the member when we were referring to the contaminated soils. Was she implying that the figure that was included in the 1993 year of treated soils was somehow wrong?

The only question we have that I understand is outstanding between us at this point is whether or not the prediction on the amount of contaminated soils be treated in the year '94 will come to fruition. Of course, that is a budgetary prediction, and I acknowledge that, but the PCB sale was a $4.2 million sale, or vecy close. Ms. McCormick: I would like to move then from the corporation's management of these soils to the question of the sites, which are likely to be the originating so urces .

I was looking at the 1993 State of the Environment Report, and there is some discussion in the repor t on con tamina ted sites, beaded Identifi cat ion is just the beginn ing. I am wonder ing if yo u ca n give me any more information on the number of sites that have been identified as contaminated sites to date? Mr. Cummin gs: Our total number of sites on the registcy are a little over 400. Ms. McCormick: Any idea bow many of those would be petroleum contaminated from fuel storage tanks? Mr. Cummin gs: Ninety percent. Ms. McCormick: Any idea how many of them are outside of the Perimeter Highway? Mr.

Cummings: I do not think we have the precise split, but I am told that likely the vast majority of them would be in the city. Ms. McCormick: Any idea, then, whether the disproportionate representation of urban sites is because the urban properties have come under closer scrutiny or are more likely to be transacted in sales which would require so me kind of evaluation of the site, or whether fuel storage practices in the city were historically less rigorous than those in the rural areas? Mr.

Cummin gs: Well, I was just checking with my deputy, but I think his understanding of this is the same as I have, and that is, I do not think you can say it bad entirely to do with regulation or with operations.

It probably bad something to do with the fact that I guess this is something that is referenced quite often by people in the business, that in the city of Winnipeg where there are some vecy, what could be valuable properties that were at one time service statiops-tbe same as in rural Manitoba where there are small towns today who may or may not even have a service station but may have had two or three at one time in their life, and we may not be aware of all of those, frankly. We are doing, I think, a pretty agg ressive job of identifying all of the sites and gradually moving through and having them checked off.

Obviously, more aggressive marlc:eting of some of what, as I said, can be quite valuable properties in the city will drive them to examination and cleanup. •

(2050) It does not mean that they are weeping sores sitting there. It means that if they bad been closed down 20 years ago perhaps, and there is now some opportunity to put a building over top of the site where there is contamination, they simply have to remove it. That is all there is to it. So, yes, it is a combination. Ms. McCormick: In terms of the department's planning process, is there any anticipation that there might be an equivalent number to the 400 currently identified remaining unidentified in rural Manitoba? Mr. Cummings : Thi s is very much a personal overview, but I do not mind saying it.

I know, as I said ear lier, I know dam well, there are lots of small communities who may only have one or do not have any service stations any more that probably bad two or three at one point. I would think that detailed examination of those sites would probably find some contamination.

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3417 That is, in fact, something that is causing us a fair bit of regulatory heartburn across rural Manitoba, because some of our opposition, including the fonner Leader of the Liberal Party, used to take a few shots at our decentralization program.

In fact, we have put regulators into rural Manitoba who are now doing things that have not been done there for a while, including checking potential sites of contamination and trying to get them, first of all, find them and get them on the list, but then, secondly, check them for contamination, if there is potential problems that can be deemed to be there.

One of the first potential problems is if you are putting sewer and water into one of these communities, chances of getting the contamination off a site into a newly excavated sewer and water trench, first of all, causes problems to get in there, but that kind of dis turbance to the ground encourages it to move, and we have had a couple of nasty surprises when we went to do improvements in some of these communities. Ms. McCormick : Fortunately, a new day has dawned and I have the portfolio now.

So you will not hear from me on that subject I do want to ask some mor e quest ions on your plans for contaminated site liability, but I am prepared to wait and do that when we talk about the Legislation and Intergovernmental Affairs section. Mr. Cummings: I do not think the list of contaminated sites is a secret. I wo uld also indicate, I am sure that some people have been quest ioning some of the pr ocesses that the department is using, but I think it is only fair to acknowledge that it is increasingly important that we do prioritization based on some risk analysis in cleaning up some of these sites.

Let me choose a random area, town X, where there is known to be a contaminated site, but it has been there for 20 years. In reviewing it for sale, it is identified, and the owner may or may not be prepared to assume the responsibility that goes with it, but at the same time you may well find that there are four more service stations within a block that have been abandoned, none of the above of which are contaminating any known aquifer or moving anywhere. Some testing can help delineate the areas where they are at.

But when you are talking at a half-a-million dollar cleanup in a community that might only have 250 people, you have to look at it in terms of, first of all, the risk to the environment; if that is minimal, what is the risk to human lives and water supp lies; and then devise a strategy to deal with it based on that infonnation, rather than simply ordering a cleanup the instant contamination is found. Ms.

McCormick: I appreciate that just because you find one does not necess arily mean that you have to order its cleanup, although I would expect that the community should have some input into that decision if the community feels that its water supply is at risk or there could be a land transaction that could result in the sale of a property which was contaminated without the purchaser being aware. This actually prompts another interesting area for consideration, and that is the concern that I have had for some time about the credentialling of people who offer environmental advice.

I know there was that terrible situation up in Onanole where there was some difficulty with respect to analysis which caused a site to be defined as contaminated, and then following some recalling of their operating line for the company, it was sub seq uently found not to be the case. Has the depa rtment, in terms of its plans to make amendments to

an act to deal with contaminated site liability, given any co nsid era tion to detennining who can in fact act as expert with respect to the sampling and the evaluation of core samples? Mr. Cummi ngs: There are a couple of aspects to that, one which I will deal with first while I am getting the answer to the second part, and that is the installers. We are certainly actively pursuing licensing installers. In fact, our most serious leaks lately have been from new installations that were improperly done-well, I say most seriou s--o nes that caused the most trouble when they leaked.

Th e second par t of your question about licensing, who may or may not provide advice, I suppose one of the things we have found is there is some terribly costly advice out there, and the

3418 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA J� 13, 1994 public does not necessarily know who they should be taking their advice from. There is an element of buyer beware. I am not sure government can protect a person who is seeking consulting advice completely from being charged a significant cost. We do not recommend but the department does require qualified people, qualified meaning-a qualified consultant would be one with appropriate formal training, being able to inteq>ret analysis for action. What we have done is undertake to compile a list of qualified consultants.

The department cann ot be seen to be recommending any one company. We make that list available to others. Obviously, I mentioned their formal education or training, but also whether they have appropriate equipment, whether they have had experience in doing it before. On the other hand, you will never get experience if you do not get a chance to get a job. So I suppose there is an element of that has to be considered as well.

I am informed the department has developed and distributed to consultants a standard procedure for investigating sampling and analysis of sites, and we will not accept a report if the work is not done properly. The case that the member refers to in Onanole was most unfortunate, but it was also unique inasmuch as the original test work was ordered not by us, but by Shell Canada in that case. The people who did the work were recognized as quality people in the area, but it is a horrendous situation that the family is caught in.

However, when the Department of Environment undertook to do the second test because they were not willing or prepared to pay for an y further testing, I suppose, to some extent, we shoul d have been acknowledged that we did in fact save them from what could have been an even greater cost, which was going in and actually looking to find the contamination that turned out not to be there. •

(2100) There was a real reason to be conscientious about the potential for contamination. It was not that far from a well that supplied a school in the area, so it was not exactly a remote and unimportant site. Ms. McCormick: I was curious when you were reading from the paper describing the guidelines which have gone out to consultants. Is it for a variety of contami nation sources or just for hydrocarbon contamination? Mr.

Cummings: I suppose you could say that these were designed primarily for hydrocarbons, but my own thinking tells me that would not be too much diff erent from what would be required for a lot of other in-soil investigations. I should not say my experience; my own understanding of it would be that. Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I want to ask a couple of questions related to activities at AECL. I am concerned about the import of waste fuel bundles.

First of all, maybe you could get some clarifications on why we imported waste fuel from Arkansas the last couple of years and where it came from, specifically for research pUq>oses at AECL. (Mr. Deputy Chaiq>erson in the Chair) Mr. Cummings : Was the member inquiring about the regulatory regime that is in place to deal with any movement of this type of a material, because first of all, they are regulated federally. Under an agreement that we have today, they must report to us what it is that they are doing, and they must justify that the material is being brought in for research pUipOses.

It is my understanding, and I am satisfied that the material that was being brought in was being used to test their capability on the hot side of it, as it were. They have the capacity to deal with, to work with radioactive material under highly controlled situations. The transportation of it is an extremely well protected system from what I have seen of it. I am not sure if there are other aspects of this that the member would like to pursue, but certainly the volumes are very closely controlled and every bit is accounted for in one way or another before the cycle is completed. Ms.

Cerilli: Is the department still keeping an inventory?

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3419 Mr. Cummings: Yes. Ms. Cerilli: So the department has an inventory of all the nuclear waste, all of the products that are being used at the AECL facility in Pinawa. Mr. Cummings: We do not keep it here in our Winnipeg offices, it is kept at our regional office. Ms. Cerill i: My concern is why are we having some kind of a trade relationship or exchange in this kind of material with Arkansas, with the United States. Mr.

Cummings: I am not sure that I can account for the source of the material that AECL sought out I am satisfi ed however that the handling, the auditing and the tracking of any material that comes in and how it is ultimately dealt with is quite satisfactory. AECL is highly, highly regulated. There are a fair number of federal authorities that are onsite all the time with the sole responsibility for regulating. Ms.

Cerilli: Well, August 1985, app arently there was an inventory that was made public of 1,344 used fuel bundles; 562 additional bundles; 136 cans of nuclear waste; 1,801 litres of high-level liquid waste from reprocessing; six used cobalt from 60 cancer therapy machines; 676 cubic metres of solid intermediate waste and 16,750 cubic metres of slow low-level waste. That was provided to the public and one of the staff at the regional office, I believe it was the director, had been keeping this inventory.

I believe she was then ill, and since then this group has been trying to get information about the current status of these kinds of ha zardous wastes, and I am wondering if I could get that information. Mr. Cummings: I do not know why not. That is why we keep the inventory. If the member is implying or stating that she thinks the inventory has fallen behind-that director was ill for a while, but I am not sure that has done anything to compromise the program. We get the information from AE CL. We use their federal regulatory authorities as they are responsible regulating people.

We do not intend to be the regulator, so this is a watching situation so that we are abreast of what is going on. Ms. Cerill i: Back then to my initial question, which is related to the source of this kind of material: How much of it is coming from outside of Canada? Mr. Cummings: I cannot answer that question, but I repeat, that does not imply that Pinawa is starting to become a repository for nuclear waste from around North America. It is all accounted for in the processes that they are operating over there.

I have been to the underground laboratory, and certainly, it is researching the capabilities of using that system for storage of waste, but they will soon have it so much like Swiss cheese down there that they sure will not be using that lab. Ms. Cerilli: My questions, though, are pertaining to the source of where this waste is coming from. I am wondering if the minister, when he provides me the inventory information, would also include with that any agreement with the United States source and detail for me what the agree ment is in the transport of this used nuclear fuel to Pinawa.

Would the minister agree to do that? • (211 0) Mr. Cummings: I do not have a problem with the inventory reports. I do not think that I am in a position to offer to table any agreements that they may have made with the various jurisdictions, but I will certainly make sure that the inventory material is available. Ms. Cerilli: Is nuclear waste considered a good? We see a lot of billboards now with waste being promoted as being a good that is being transported across borders. I am wondering if the minister has a definition, if nuclear waste is considered a good. Mr.

Cummi ngs: Does the member mean good as in commodity? Ms. Cerilli: Yes. I am talking about a good that can be traded, a commodity. Mr. Cummings: Well, I think we ha ve to recognize that what we are talking about here is rese arch material. We have one of the best research laboratories in North America at Pinawa. The expertise from Pinawa-as a matter of fact, a former schoolmate of mine is responsible for travelling to a number of sites across North

3420 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 America, he lping them with their waste management using the exp ert ise he gai ned working at that particular site. I cannot claim any personal knowledge because of that except that he seems quite hale and hearty. Even the member , in her own quest ions, referenced the fact that some of this was spent on X-ray equipment and that type of material.

There always seems to be this aura around AECL and nuclear questions that arise, particularly from the concerned citizens group and through the NDP caucus, that lead me to believe that they think that there is another imminent Cll ernobyl at Pinawa. I think it was her colleagues from a previous administration that declared this a nuclear-free zone.

I know that had a tremendous impact on international relations, but the fact is that this is a test fa cility that is seeking information and knowledge that may or may not unlock some of the secrets that need to be mastered if nuclear energy is ever going to develop the potential that it has. Nevertheless, the pe aceful use of nuclear energy or radioactive material is absolutely fantastic. There are a lot of people who owe their lives and their entire futures to the fact that radioactivity and the benefits that can flow from it through medical uses are vety dramatic and vety beneficial.

But it needs to be handled carefully, and that is why we keep a watching position on Pinawa, but we do rely heavily on federal authorities to make sure that it is being done correctly. Ms. Ce rill i: I hope the minister is not ttying to suggest that my concerns about the situation and the world in terms of nuclear energy is misguided. I think concerns in these areas are certainly well founded. I have concerns about Canada's Cando program, I have concerns about Mr.

Filmon's promotion of re ac tors in Indones ia, I have concerns about the import of nuclear waste in terms of NAFT A, and I have a lot of concerns about uranium mining in Saskatchewan. I have a number of concerns about the depleted uranium that was used in shells during the Gulf War that is contaminating the Middle East and Iraq and Iran and destroying-yes, and I am concerned that some of that uranium came from Canada. I think this is a very serious national issue, and I wo uld re ally like to have the minister 's co-operation to see that we are being responsible.

I think we have a history in this country of not necess arily being responsible in what happens with our Cando uranium program. In tenns of NAFI' A, does the minister have any kind of advice with respect to our authority under NAFI' A to maintain autonomy in jurisdictions that are provincial jurisdictions? Mr. Cummings: Well, as I have said a few times on the record, Manitoba was vety much in the lead in the discussion of the envi ronmental side agreem ent and the recog nition that in fact provincial autonomy does survive under certain aspects of the NAFI' A agree ment, particularly in the environmental area.

That is why the penalties are structured the way they are, that if a jurisdiction should be proven to be substantially in violation of exercising their environment laws, or if they have a complaint brought against them, as I understand the proposals that we saw last, that will accrue back to the jurisdiction, i.e., the province, where the problem is deemed to occur.

So I really am impressed that the member continues to forge forward on this particular line of questioning with her stating her belief about the Cando reactor and presumably the slowpoke reactor, which is considered one of the safest and most usable systems in the world, and at the same time our NDP cousins in Sas katchewan are looking to open two open-pit mines without an environmental hearing. So I suppose she is now going to disown th e Ro manow government because they changed their stripes once they found out that there actually was some economic spin-off from the uranium mine. Ms.

Cerilli: My dissatisfaction with that is known within my party. Back to the NAFTA issue and the other question I was asking with respect to nuclear waste, if AECL is successful and they go through this process of, what do they call it, the tenn that is used, the Ca nadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program where they dispose of nuclear fuel waste in a deep underground vault in

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3421 intrusive igneous plutonic rock, which is in the Canadian Shield. So if they are successful with this program , could we be in a position to be involved in trade in nuclear waste with the United States? I have heard that all of their current disposal sites are either tied up in litigation or are full, and they are desperately looking for alternative s. I think that a number of people are concerned about the implications for Canada based on those kinds of situatiom . •

(2120) It raises all sorts of questions in terms of intergenerational rights and the kind of situation we are going to be leaving for an incredible number of years. Does the minister have any way he can explain the possibility in this area under NAFrA? Mr. Cummings: To begin with, the underground test facility at Pinaw a is just that. It is an underground test and research facility. There is no intention of massive intake and no capability of massive intake and storage and waste in that fa cility . Their responsibility is to e� Point of Order Ms.

Cerilli: I just want to say on a point of order, I said given that their testing goes forw ard as they hope and that this program is accepted in the country, however many years down the road that may be. We may all be gone by then, but I just want to clarify for the minister. Mr. Deputy Ch airperson: The honourable member does not have a point of order. ••• Mr. Cumming s: The member is asking me what might happen several generations down the road from when she and I have gone on to our just reward.

The fact is, as I was beginning to state, that the faci lity is not being designed as a long-tenn penn anent storage facility . It is being designed to test the capability of that type of a granite rock structure as a potential pennanent storage site for nuclear waste. I suggest that the member would not be ill-advised to take the opportunity to sit down with some of the doctors at Pinawa and review what it is that they are doing, because it attracts international attention, people come from aroun d the world to be able to do resear ch there.

The lab, incidental ly, it is no secre t, it is under some considerable pre ssure for funding today. The present administra tion in Ottaw a is not going to extend funding to this laboratory beyond the next few years, other than to keep it in a very minimal state of operation unless they can develop private sector funding through doing research and lab wolk for contract .

That is why I referenced earlier that, in fa ct, some of the people with the expertise from that fa cility are being contracted to and through other national fa cilities of the Canadian nucle ar program being contracted by the Americans, in some cases, to help them with their waste, to design systems for cleanup, caps ulation, et cetera.

So I think the member can take some comfort in the way NAFr A is designed that Manitoba is not going to become a nuclear dumping ground, and in fa ct, I would hold some hope that in the long run the type of expertise and knowledge that is being developed at Pinawa would continue to be an asset to this provi nce. The capability for testing for other contaminants for dealing with other environmental problems, using the knowledge and the equipment that is available in relationship to the nuclear industry, has a very high degree of possibility to aid research in other areas. Ms.

McCormick: I have just a couple of miscellaneous little water issues I would like to deal with before we move on. I had a letter from the Pembina Valley Protection Associa tion with respect to their concerns about vandalism to the riparian culvert, aware of the Pelican Lake Diversion. The correspondence I had with this group dated back to the 1O th of May, at which time they expressed concern that they had not heard from you with respect to a resolution of this issue. Is this still an ongoing issue, or have you responded to the Pembina Valley Protection Association? Mr.

Cummings : Yes, that issue did drag on longer than perhaps it should have. We have

3422 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 responded to them. I cann ot remember the contents of that letter. Ms. McCormick: They had indicated to me that should they hear from you they would report to me so I could clear it off my file, but your belief is that they are now satisfied that the issue has been resolved to their satisfaction? Mr. Cummings : We will attempt to find the letter. If you will hold your question until a little later, I will try and find the letter. Ms.

McCormick: The other water issue is a recent letter from the Winnipeg Water Prote ction Group, again expressing concerns about the Consolidated Professor Mines intention to operate their gold mine in the Shoal Lake area. The last I understood wa s that they were planning on doing the processing of this mining quite far away from the water source, but it seems that this issue has come back again as recently as the 7th of June.

The pos ition being taken by the Water Protection Group in the letter is that they would expect that there would be a full environmental assessment of any gold mining initiative in the area, and the stated position of the mine is to have the B.A. withdr awn. Can you give us any additional inf onnation on that? Mr. Cummings: Just a moment till I get the fact sheet here to update myself. The issue is simply ongoing.

The problem is, as was raised in the House not that long ago, that Ontario has been busy working with their native bands that live in their area but as sures us that they are striking an arran gement to have a framework for discussion, not going beyond that, frankly. Of course , it leaves us very uncomforta ble. Interestingly enough , there have been a couple of indications that Ontario is going to try and take this project off of its environmental assessment list. I do not think that has occuned yet, and that is in fact encouraging, although that could come off pretty quickly I guess.

There certainly was a rumour circulating for a while that they were considering taking it off that list. That would be the most stringent environmental assessment that a mine, any mine, in Ontario had ever been put through if they in fact were to continue with that. •

(2130) Moving the process site out of the basin, I sup pose, does lo wer the level of potential problems, but as before, I have said I would wait and see before I would pass much comment on any design of the project, because what we had hoped to have is a basin-wide management plan. Of course , my conclusion is that Ontario really does not want to have to deal with us, although my conversations with Mr. Wildman recently have been much more cordial in this area, and he does want to reopen the lines of communication.

I think, as we discussed before, he has had a very difficult winter and probably ref lects on the lack of commun ic ation that I have had with him . Neverth eless, we cann ot afford to in any way risk what is going on with Shoal Lake and the water quality there. Really, not much is occurring that I can add to what everybody knows about the proces s, except that we are still committed to the basin-wide management plan, and we still have the one ability to demonstrate our commitment to putting that management plan in place .

That is, quite simp ly, with about a week 's notice, I can gazette our Sen sitive Are a Regula tions that we intend to implement on the Manitoba side of the border, surrounding the lake, to dem onstrate that a regulatory regime for the protection of water quality can in fact be put in place. Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, I just want to follow up on the minist er's comment. What is the status of the Sensitive Area Regulations? Are you saying that they are done ?

Are they the same regulations that are basically the one kilometre border around the lake that does not go up into the tributaries that feed the lake? Mr. Cummings: I do not think one kilometre was the criteria. The drainage area around the lake was the criteria. These are the same regu lations that the member for Radisson dumped on from great heights , which in my view do a rather adequate job of protecting the water quality, if they were to be implemented in the same spirit and effort all the way around the basin.

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3423 We withdrew them from proclamation because the native bands asked us to in the interest of co-operation with them. They fe lt they bad some legitimate concerns . They felt it was impinging on their abil ity, their right to do certain things on their propert ies. They wanted to embark on further discussions with Ontario. I have always said that I would like this sort of thing cleaned up and managed co-o peratively rather than on an ad hoc and an adversarial agen da.

So we withdrew them, but I still indicate that those regs will demonstrate Manitoba's intention to deal with this and would demand a reciprocal action from Ontario, except that I would rather continue the negotiations than to follow that app roach. Ms. Cerilli: Does the minister now accept, I think, the changes in the Ontario prop osal to take the processing of the extracted res ources away from the lake ? Is that outside the scope of the Sensitive Area Regulations if they were app lied in Ontario? Does this proposal now satisfy the department? Mr. Cummings: No, because we do not have precise deta ils. Ms.

CeriDi: Is the department , on behalf of the prov ince, now part of the Shoal Lake Worldng Group? Mr . Cummings: I am sorry. Would the member repeat the question, please? Ms. Cerilli: I just asked if we are now part of the Shoal Lake Working Group as the Province of Man itoba? Mr . Cummings: I have been told three times that I will be invited very shortly. It has not yet occurre d. The latest was two weeks ago. Ms. Cerilli: But we are all set to participate in that , sounds like it anyway . Mr .

Cummings: That is correct, but of course our first approach to those meet ings will be to determine precisely the nature of the agreement that Ontario believes they have struck with their native community. If it is of the nature that I described ea rlier, then it is a fram ework for decision making, but it is not an agreement on specific issues and therefore might be something that we can work: within.

Until I have seen it, and we have seen really nothing because the natives, whether they have chosen to divide and conquer I do not know, but the native groups have in their wisdom decided that they do not want Manitoba at the tab le. In return for that position, Ontario has said that they will only take the agreement so far until they have Manitoba at the table. Frankl y, Manito ba's position is, of necessi ty, going to continue to be very tough on any conditions around what might occ ur in that area until we see something concrete, if you will , in tenns of what is being proposed. (Mr.

Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) Ms. Cerilli: Part of the letter that I have from June 16, 19 93 , says that First Nations expect that Man itoba will either join the Ontario Frrst Nations Memorandum of Understanding or seek their own agreement with First Nations. So there is still that option that yo u wo uld come to your own agreement with Frrst Nations in that area, even though, as I understand it, they are under fe deral jurisdiction. Is that correct? I have never really been clear as to why they are dealing just with Ontario, how that came to be. Mr. Cummings: I think it is pretty clear.

The Ontario government has taken a position that it wants to empower the native communities there . My concern has always been, are they doing it at the expense of Manitoba? Ms. Cerilli: The other thing I have that related to this is a letter from the minister sent to the Minister of Environment from December 15, 1992. I think this was when the heat of this debate was going on. There were fou r concerns that the minister had expressed in that letter. One of them maybe dealt with the mine shaft being sub ject to a known amount of water seepage. Excessive precipitation will overflow the closed circu its.

I am wondering then, there are two others, and I am wondering if you have some indication if those have been addressed, the cyanide and the mercury leve ls. Mr. Cummings : No, and we are still awaiting -we do not have the information from the company .

3424 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 Ms. Cerilli: We are going to move on to talk about hog lagoons and your favorite topic -sewage lagoons, I should say, and the incredible exp ansion of the hog industry in southern Manitoba. I do not know if this issue consum es as much of the minister's time as it consumes the time of the critics in this portfolio, but maybe I can begi n by asking the minister -! have been trying to get some infonnation with respect to the scope of the expansion of this indust ry.

I am wondering if, especially considering the minister's background, he would have that kind of infonnation and be willing to share it with the committee. I think it will help us with this discussion, even though, you know, it is not part of the Environment Estimates per se, but it certainly is pertinent to the discussion. Mr. Cumm ings: It is very pertinent to the discussion.

The business side of the hog industry and the agricultural portfolio in general recognizes an expan sio n oppo rtunity, world market op port unities that sa y that there could be a doubling of the hog population in this province, and it could be ade quately markete d. The member should not run off and say that I sa id, there will be a doubling of the hog population. I said that there could be and it could be adequately markete d. There is also a demand for bee f, of course.

The member will remember the debate we had last Thursday on the Crow rate benefits, Western Grain Transportation and all of the associated aspects of that part of our economy. •

(2140) Being that we are cen trally located, we have the highest transportation costs anywhere probably in the North American continent to get our product to market. We need to have value-added product. We cannot continue to subsidize the production of wheat, subsidize the transportation of it, and then subsidize the sale of it. We need to have a product that we can market that has a higher value, and one of the highest value pro ducts right now is PMU production, frankly.

It take s a lower quality land out of production into livestock-style production more enviro nme ntally friendl y inasmuch as the erosion possibilities of the land is dramatically reduced. There is a market, obvi ously a good market for the Premarin produced from the urine, and there is also a good market for the livestock. Taking that through to the hog industry, the capability of producing here I think is very high. The member asked what are the expansion figures that are occurring right now.

I would think that op timistically we believe if we were to fill the market demand we would need, as I mentioned, a doubli ng. The exact figures I have not got for the proposed development of facilities this summer. I think we have about eight prop osal s in front of the department. The infonnation was pulled together as a result of questions that you had asked before, I believe.

Fonnal application s to date, only one in the R.M. of Macdonald, approximately 20 inquiries, and since that doe s not alway s translate into development, I suppose we are a little disappointed in tenns of from the economic point of view about whether or not some of the potential investors have backed off, frankly, because of the very negative publicity that they have been receivi ng.

In my own area there is a redevelopment of a large hog enterpris e, but it may ultimate ly-i t will be a larger production unit after they have redeveloped their production facilities, but I am not aware of a high number of new facili ties going into place. That is troubling, given what I said earlier about the world markets for grain and the need for higher value product if we are paying the freight for it out of here, that it should be worth a lot more. It should be worth $3 a pound rather than $3 for 60 pounds goi ng out; it is much easier to pay the freight.

I think we probably can produce the precise numbers. I am sure you do not want to get hung up on just that number, so I would invite you to ask further que stions. Ms. Cerill i: I actually forgot I had this. Issues relating to value-added proce ssing of agricultural products in Manitoba by the Rural Develo pment

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3425 Institute was just issued April '94. It talks about approximately 2,000 commercial bog producers currently operating in Manitoba. They represent about 7 percent of the bog producers in Canada. One of the concerns and questions that I have is are these fanns getting too big? Are we excee ding the caring capacity of the ecosystems that they are putting the waste into?

Are we already at the point where before you brought in the regulations, and I am not going to get into dealing with specifics of the regulations right now, but are we already in a situation where we have allowed the expansion to occur? That is why I wanted to get an indication of bow many new hog operations are there in Manitoba over the last fo ur years and bow much expansion does that represent of bow far we are going in this direction? Mr.

Cummings: Well, I think this is the kind of dis cussi on that we all welcome on both sides of the Chamber, because when I suggest that there bas not been a rapid expansion right in my local area, it just went through one of the larger expansions in the last four or five years. We have got other areas of the province, the municipality of Rhineland, that general area, the larger sense, 30 percent of the bogs are produced in this pro vince, 35 percent of them are produced by Hutterian Brethren. Their expansion is ongoing althou gh it is not any more rapid than it was a couple of years ago.

So, no, we have not seen the expansion and then have to come back in behind and regulate. What we have seen is a growth that bas been driven by very low grain prices and by a need to get a higher value product coming off the fann s. Are we starting to exceed the ecological capacity of some of the farml ands? I would say that you could find examples where that might have occurred, but good fanning practices mean that that will get dealt with fairly quic kly.

Let me demonstrate by saying that I bad a person in my office on Saturday who bas access to technology that can be install ed in large bog operations that would ca pture the biogas, that would use biological activity to enhance the nitrogen capacity of the material, reduce the volumes and have a guaranteed level of fe rtilizer content in the product that is being removed to the field.

When you consider that that is being put in in a situation in Alberta where everything has been done for 10 years to try to block the development of a bog production facility in a particular neighbourhood, that plus a lot of other known technologies that are available from Denmark and other parts of Europe , I think we are in a pretty good position to take advantage of known and developing technologies to deal with waste. What will force that is changes such as we have made in our regulations. I am continually impressed by the idea that industry is moving very quickly to stay ahead of this.

We do not have a lot of examples, in my knowledge, where there are operating fac ilities right now that have their neighbours anx iously trying to shut them down. There is the example of two or three new fa cilities that are being developed where there is opposition.

I acknowledge that, acknowledge that that will or will not be proven to be an appropriate investment, depending on bow well they operate when they get up and get going, but I know from my own experience and from what bas been demonstrated over the years that if you want a good saf e operation, whether it is in bog production or in any other agriculture endeavour, that you will probably find that the willingness to put money into innovation and technology is very often made available through the large operations because they, in fact have a little bit more decent profit margin and they have a beck of a lot more at stake if for any reason they should be shut down or start to lose money . •

(2150) The very fact that we say we are prepared to regulate the amount of nitrogen, for example, that is available on a given field that bas bad bog waste put on it, or livestock waste of any kind put on it, indicates to the industry that they are going to have to be more conscientious in their ap plication of their waste. It is over app lication of the waste that will contaminate the aquif ers, and that conta mination will occur from nitrates,

3426 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 pa rticularly, and phosphates leaching into the lower levels. The positive aspect of that is that every gallon that goes out there has a value for fertilizer purpos es and you combin e a bett er -known tec hnology so they can verify and in fact enhance the value of the fertilizer, i.e., the waste that they are putting on their fields.

You will find that the industry will be extremely imaginative in finding ways to ttansport it to other fields so that they get the sam e nu tri ent buildup, if you will, or enhancement for their crop production without overdoing it on a field. So that takes care of one part of that. There are numerous new app roaches being made to the application of manure. There is resear ch going on to enhance the smell reduction in the ha ndling of was te.

There is a very strong movement afoot to develop better -we ll, in fact, I think we have come through one of the most progress ive two decades in tenns of developing feed and the genetic capability of livestock for feed conversion. The last 20 years, it see ms, I do think. there has ever been a more dramatic change in the quality and capacity of the combination of feed and genetics that are producing efficiently. All of that means that these farmers are capable of reacting to environ mental regulation. The question that nee ds to be answ ered is, how quickly do you move in working with the industry?

I think the industry is prepared to start being self -regulating inasmuch as they can be requested to report the nitrogen fertilizer levels of the fields that they are putting their waste on. We are seeing companies, colonies, that are prepared to invest $300,000 to a half a million dollars into waste-handling systems. They are prepared to invest that kind of money; they are not going to do it in something that is going get them shut down under violation of The Environment Act down the road. So I have a high level of confidence in where I see the industry going.

I have a high degree of unease with some of what I call fear tactics that are being used by some advocates who are clearly opposed They can dress up their opposition in terms of concern for the environment; they can dress it up in terms of concern for animal rights; but, in the end, it is an out -a nd-out opposition to this type of development I maintain that the capabil ity is there to respond to those concerns if we can get the appropriate information into the hands of those who count-in other words, the neighbours of the appropriate hog developments. Ms.

Cerilli: I am quite concerned by some of the ministe r's comments. He just finis hed sayin g that you do not deny that there has been a problem, and I think that a lot of the people who are raising this issue are concerned about specific areas. The regulations do not have anything that deals with sensitive ground water hazard areas, the lagoon that is going into the Delta Marsh area. So this is tied up with the whole debate that is going on with respect to se wage lagoons, but the mechanism for decision making, I think is- Point of Order Mr.

Cummings : The member is implying or made the statement that there is a lagoon going into the Delta Marsh. There is a lagoon going on a farm that is within a few kilometres of the marsh. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Bob Rose): The honour able minister did not have a point of order. ••• Ms. Cerilli: The effluent from that will flow where? Mr. Cumming s: Well, the effiue nt is not going to flow anywhere.

I guess that is the concern that I have about comments that are made by some of us who have not necess arily taken the time to look at it You do not have to go to the most expensive ope ration in the country; you do not have to go too far, howev er, to find some reasonably well managed hog operations; and you do not pull the plug on a hog lagoon and let it run anywhere . You have a valuable asset in the lagoon. It is waste man ure which has an or ganic value for the improvement of the soil.

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3427 Mr. Acting Deputy Chairpers on, I would really encourage the member to pick up the phone and phone Manitoba Pork Inc. , invite them over to her office and sit down and talk about where they see the bog industry going in relationship to regulation and in relationship to environmental protection and really take an opportu nity to look at the industry. This is not the same as dealing with the effluent from a town lagoon, where you are dealing with a situation where you are treating the material before you are letting it out.

This is livestock waste that in appropriate quantities-of course, that is the issue; we are talking about large volumes-- is very much considered a way of enhancing the organic content, the mulch within the soil. It need not be a pro blem . It must be managed appro priately , but it need not be a problem . We have advanced quite a way in terms of the regulations that are laid down for the disposal of livestock waste. Now the member constantly asks , what is our ability to enf orce? The first issue that always comes up is, what is the structure of the lagoon? The lagoons are leaking is always the accusation.

Wel l, that is pretty dam easy to deal with under new constructions, that you lay down the standards of impermeabili ty, and they are constructed to that level . My level of distaste for this debate stems from the discussion we had in the Oakville area about a human effluent lagoon that was servicing seven families, and because there was a fight over the development of the colony in that location, I know that we spent tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money testing that lagoon to prove that it was sound. The fact was there was so little going into it that evaporation took care of the surplus. •

(2200) It is a most distasteful product to have to deal with. Nobody likes to really get into the discussion of-and we all know the colloquialism with which we refer to hog manure, but it need not be a problem if properly managed and regula ted, and I think we are embarked in the proper direction, if only some rational voices would be brought to the argument. I have several times had it argued to me that Quebec is a shining exam ple of what not to do in the pork industry and that we are about to follow Quebec down the tube, for lack of a better analogy.

The fact is we are far further advanced than Quebec is in terms of development of systems for handling their waste. We are in good shape . (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Olair) Ms. Cerilli: I realize that the minister is one of the hog experts, the bead hog, but I would just let him know that a lot of the inf ormation and concern that is raised with me does come from farmers. I have also written to Manitoba Pork , and I have not received a response to letters I have sent to them .

I think, though, that some of the things that the minister has just referenced are le gitimate concerns, that when I look through these new regulations , I wonder how this is going to be enf orced? How was the determination made, and why was it made at 100 metres from a surface water course ? How are we going to look at case by case when each proposal comes forward? How is that decision making going to happe n, especially when there are so many municipalities without development plans and all of the concern that that raises?

I am wondering if there is a requirement for the field that the manure is spread on to be used for production. One of the requirements is that the nitrogen content cann ot exceed the requirement for- AD Honourable Member: How much is that? Ms. Cerilli: I imagine that that would vary, but I am wondering if there is a requirement for the field that is used for the hog manure to be used for production during the time that the manure is spread on the field. Mr. Cummings: Well, this is a little different approach to regulat ion than what has been traditionally used in Manitoba.

It is quite intentional to what we have done , that is, state the regulations that the pr oducer must conform to, but we have stated it in such a way that they can then

3428 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 make adj ustments to be sure that they are living within those regulatory standards . The amount of nitrogen that can be applied, that can be fo und on a field or in a field as a result of bog waste app lication is a good example of applying that method of environmental protection. What it says is that 60 pounds of actual nitrogen for ann ual crops or on light soils up to 225 pounds of actual for alfalfa. In fact , that is somewhat lower than what you might find under noimal production using artificial fe rtilizers.

So these are not unreasonably selected figures. Now the other question about it being in crop, one of the methods-and the reason I point to the fact that larger operations are not necessa rily prob lematic is that they are sometimes prepared to invest in equipment, because they have more opportunity to use it, and they have better fi nancing to put on a per tonne of available manure. They have a better cost base to spread it over.

Injection of the manure into the soil at a fo ur- or five-inch level is a very acceptable way of trapp ing the nutrients and minimizing the amount of runoff, minimizing the amount of smell that goes with the operation, and all of those things. In fact, injection bas been the agree d-upon method for application in the Delta Marsh bog operation. While we are mentioning Delta Marsh, we should remember the reason there is a marsh there is that there is a good clay content underneath. That is what holds the water from soaking aw ay. The clay level is there.

So this is not an improper area to have an operation, provided the surface water movements are controlled. It is unlikely, from the inf oimation I have given, that there would be any possibility of ground water contamination from that type of operation. So a distance of 100 metres from a surface water course--o f course, those figures were somewhat arbitrarily set, but they were set on the basis of the knowledge that people who have been working in environmental protection for a great length of time in discussion with the industry. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 100 metres is 300 fee t, or a little better.

You can control with a fair de gree of certainty what is likely to happen in teims of cons truction. You are far enough aw ay; presumab ly, the elevation will be appr opriate. I think there is a reference to elevation as we ll. Neverthele ss, for construction of a lagoon that is certainly a distance away, a distance that can be pointed to as an appropriate setback. You do not have-these are not lagoons that discharge.

Another reason you want it a fai r distance back is if someb ody is trying to play games and discharge s, it is a beck of a lot easier to catch them if they are at least that far back from a water course. You tie that to the fact that we have required that there must be significant capacity to store all the waste from the operation for I believe it is one year, that you have a situation where the operator can then-the intention of that aspect is that the operator can then time whenever they would apply the material to the field. They do not have to do it when it is frozen.

The fact is, I bad it pointed out to me by an operator just this week that application of manure to frozen ground early on in the winter season is a lot less likely to-you will lose the fe rtilizer benefit, but you will not end up with a polluting field nearly as likely as you will if you apply the material very early in the spring before all the frost bas come out of the soil , so conscientious man agement of the waste within the regulatio ns that are set down here.

The overall statement, of course, that there will not be a po llution result directly from the application of the waste means that a regula tor, if they find evidence of violation, will be able to find or take whatever other appropriate actions are deemed necessary. Ms. Cerilli: In a diff erent vein, we talked earlier about the increase in this industry and the ongoing expansion I think the minister and the government hope to see. I think we would also expect that there would be an increase in the number of p roces sing jobs. The Swift's plant is in my constituency, and I have

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3429 talked to residents there who say there has not been an increase in the processing jobs and, in fact, that they have laid off inspe ctors. There are often layoffs in the processing side of this industry, so I am concerned what is happe ning. Are we seeing an increase in export of pigs for breeding purposes or other pigs that are not slau ghtered? Can the minister explain the situation? Mr. Cummings: The member raises a good point, and I think it is well worth spending a little bit of time on this, because the creation of job opportunity is very important .

This is not just a discussion about opportunities in rural Manitoba. It is not just a discussion about environmental protection. It is a discussion about where we will take the future of this province in a very real sense because agricultural production is a big part of the provincial national product, if you will. The development of jobs -an d I had the figure in front of me here not very long ago. I think we are talking about 100 jobs for every 500-sow production facility that is put into place. I will find the figure. The job crea tion also includes the marketing of the fe ed and the production of the fe ed.

I think I am out on the numbers, actually, but certainly the processing and marketing is very important. •

(2210) The member raises an aspect that I am sure she had not perhaps totally thought about, and that is that this raises the issue of marketing. A lot of Manitoba hogs are being slaughter ed out of province, and that has a lot to do with the demand for our hogs. They are very good quality hogs, but they are, in fact, being marketed by our own marke ting board on occasion outside of the province. The hog plant in my home town, which is Neepawa, is short of hogs. The killing plants here in Winnipeg, by and large, need more hogs.

In fact, they will tell you that they need a new facility perhaps to be built in the province, but they want the efficiencies of size to go with the increased production in hogs. We shoul d be doing everything we can. In fact, we are, but it has a lot to do with the approach that some of the farm community is taking to the marketing of their hogs as to what is the most appropriate method of marke ting. Should it be Manitoba first? Excuse me, I have the figures here now that have been worlc:ed out as to what the normal job ratio would be from an in crease in hog production.

The Chatfield operation, for example, would probably produce 20,000 weanlings per year. Ultimate spin-off benefits, by the time that was completed, could be as much as 100 jobs. So I am-basis of 6,000, six jobs per 1,000, until you go-that is right onsite, but when you take it through to the final spin-off jobs with the feed and the processing and the trucking, you can indica te that those are the numbers that would come to pass. Now, first of all, we would have to recognize that in the killing industry right now, a lot of them are on an a per-hour basis.

They are not getting a 40-hour week or even a 36-hour week, and that is one of the problems they are having in that industry. So some of that capacity is not going to show directly in a job, but what it will mean is the person who already has a job will get more hours. I would be the first to acknowledge that in terms of there is excess capacity that can be gobbled up without that first bulge of additional jobs.

The development of the industry also means that Manitoba is going to have to make gains in the next year to 18 months in the number of hogs that are available to be killed in this province, or we are in danger of being overtaken by Alberta and, to some extent, Saskatchewan. The member asked very ea rly on, what is the increase in hog production? The fact is, Saskatchewan in the near term is outstripping us in their percentage of growth in hog production. They were behind us to begin with, but they are rapidly increasing their hog production.

I have to go back to my original premise that if there is any place in North America where hog production should be able to expand without creating environmental problems and without creating a lot of planning problems, surely it is in

3430 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 western Canada somewhere, given the relatively small population and the high number of acres that we have in agricultural production. Ms. Cerilli : To bring this back around to the obvious environmental concern, especially given what the minister has just said, I think we have potentially some of the worst kind of economic development you could have if we have the marketing difficulties that the minister explained. Well, but I also have heard that pigs or hogs are being exported, by-passing the marketing board.

I have discussed this with our Ag critic, and she says she has also raised the issue. Now, what ends up happening is we have a very small number of f anners making a whole lot of money , especially when they are vertically integrated with the feed companies, and we have a whole lot of other people with threatened water, if not contaminated water, and the smell that is disrupting commun ity lif e and the lack of diversified jobs, so the line goes: We are getting the manure but not the benefit. The minister wants to clarify that this is not so.

With some of the points that I have raised , I think that ther e is a real need for some strong intervention Mr. Cummings: Certainl y, Mr. De puty Chairperson, we are wandering now into an area that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enos) could have the figures at his fingertips much more accurately and quickly than I have. I did not say that the producers were by-passing the marketing board. The marketing board itself is shipping the hogs out of the province without them being slaughtered here locally. So that in itself raises another dimension to the discussion.

The marketing board, when the plants here choose not to bid enough for the hogs, the marketing board ships them out of the province. So I guess I was speaking assuming that the member was comfortable with that knowledge, but that in fact is one of the issues that will be dealt with over the next period of time. I have been a strong supporter of the marketing board in Manitoba. It is not a production-limiting board.

It is a marketing board, but it does control all of the hogs and how they are marketed and can, by its own volition, choose to market them other than through a local slaughtering plant That, I am confident, can be dealt with in the long run if we are able to increase our production and increase our capability of slaughter here in the province. As I started to say in my last answ er, if we do not make that move in the next 18 months, we will probably lose the hog slaughtering capacity to Alberta, the same as we did in the cattle industry.

The cattle industry-there is now a huge plant built by Cargill, very efficient plant, but the reason that it is located in Albe rta, probably part of it is at least that the largest number of finished stock are there. They got the largest number of finished livestock or cattle there because they had a feed subsidy program up to $17 a tonne and higher for supplementing the feed costs of finishing cattle.

We cannot afford to lose the hog industry to Alberta and/or Saskatchewan in the next short while, or Winnipeg, which at one time was billed as the Chicago of the North, will simply be the little city on the forlcs. Ms. Cerilli: I was going to ask questions about the amount of subsidy going to this industry as well , but I am going to see if the member for Osborne (Ms. McConnick) wants to get into the discussion.

I know that she has also been dealing with a number of the people from rural areas, the number of farmers from different communities and different groups that are springing up over the province that are trying to keep up with the increase in this industry. I hope that the minister does take seriously the concerns that are being raised. I will pass the chance to get into the debate to the member for Osborne. •

(2220) Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just as a beginning point, I think this Fann Practices Guidelines produced by the Department of Agriculture is worth commending. I am a big fan of plain language information, and this is an excellent document. I think, that being said though, there are some lapses or gaps between some of the issues that are raised and, in fact, when

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3431 you get to the regulation section, the ways that they are addressed. For example , the first

section sets out the importance of water pollution as an environmental and health concern and goes on to make the statement that Manitoba Environment has responsibility to prevent pollution, to detect pollution if it has occurred and to take legal action to correct the problem. You know, that is right up front in the first section, and it is unequi vocal. However, when you get a little further on into the how-to, I think it does break down just a bit. One of the areas that I wanted to sort of focus on was the issue that was raised in the House when we were talking about the regulation dealing with siting.

It seems to me that this is one area where the regulation is weak, that it says that you can pretty well go anywhere and that the guideline raises those areas which might be inappro priate, but the regulation itself, when you get to the

schedule in terms of 5 and 6, Siting and Construction Requirements for Earth and Storage Facilities, it does not de al a lot with the geo physical characteristics of the area. It seems to rely very hea vily on there being an informed lo cal government district who is very well aware of the geophysical conditions in their area and who is going to make good decisions about where they allow these things to go. It also says that the minister may vary any requirement of the regulation. Here is the essence of my question to you.

If you identify one of these operations which is requesting a permit in an area where there is not sufficient local planni ng control, is it possibl e that you could, knowing the geophysical characteristics of the area, deny the permit or put on more stringent requirements on that operation? Mr. Cummings: The reason to add the catchall, if you will, for the building to vary the regulations was to acknowledge specific concerns that might not have been addressed and in fact require somet hing more than what at first glance the re gulation might have been prepared to allow.

Sensitive areas would be the one that would immediately come to mind. Ms. McCormick: So your response indicates that you would vary the requirements up as opposed to down, using that section. Mr. Cummings: Ye s, but also part of the answer did not provide for your first question, as well as that I think we cannot always act paternally towards the local government.

Local government has been very adamant about how they want to at all times retain the right to virtually veto a development because their argument, which I have to acknowledge has more than some small amount of importance to it, is that if it is sited in an area where it is unwanted, unaccepted and distrusted, it will probably never be succe ssful. We have examples of that in the city where poor planning has led to conflicts that have just never gone away. So municipal authority has attempted to keep their right to, through plann ing, make a decision.

Now, in unorganized territory or in areas where there is no planning by-law, then the citizens have , by not having a by-law, made the decision that they are an agricultural area. The siting guidelines then come into play to help in decision making as to an appropriate location. You might argue that guidelines under those circumstances could be flaunted, but the bottom line is if they appear before the Fann Practices Board for any reason under that proces s, they will not be seen to have opened up with a proper approach, and no amount of sound management will save them from ongoing examination.

I hesitate to use the word "harassm ent", but that is virtually what it could amount to if they are not properly sited Even in the unorganized areas, that is something that they are going to have to be acknowledging when they meet with either the municipality or an advisory group. In fact, Chatfield, as I understand it-and I suppose we do not need to discuss them specifically-but they altered their proposal after the initial reaction of the community , in their reaction to the initial advice from the dep artment, advisory board. So it did work even though the

3432 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 commun ity is still not really happy with the location. Ms.

McCormick: I understand what you are saying then is that the pate rnalistic intervention that you are saying you would pref er not to involve yourself in would not be in the area of expecting a hostile community to accept a facility, but, in fact, to challenge an operation inappropriately being sited in a potential ly friendly community, that the concern would be where you, for example , know from your own department information that you have potentially porous soil conditions that you would, in fact, intervene to challenge the siting in an area that is unsuitable. Mr.

Cummings: We ar e ta lking about two separate approaches. One is under the farm practices act and one is under the livestock regulation. At least, I believe we are following two separate approaches . Within the regulation, it is fairly specific about the storage area. Water rights legislation comes into play, even though it is not directly referred to here , if they are withdrawing a certain volume.

In fact, the application of manure on porous soil does not mean that you are automatically going to have a leaching into the soil if it is appl ied at the kinds of levels that are recommen ded here , that is, in fact, regulated. It might mean that they would have to get more land or change their cropping practices because the general statement , the prevention of pollution of surface water -un der both provisions, livestock wastes shall only be applied in a manner that prevents pollution of surface water, ground water or soil and does not escape from the boundary of the farm.

That is a pretty general prohibition, but it does leave the operator to his own devices as to how he might achieve that. Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, I was specifically at this point questio ning the siting and construction of the storage facilities, not the application of the manure on the fields .

One of the things that has been raised as a concern with me that I would like to have you address, the general construction requirements make reference to a requirement which may be placed on the constructer to place a plastic liner acceptable to the director to recognize that the soil conditions may be porous and cause leaching into the water table. •

(2230) One of the concerns that has been raised-and I would like your comment on it-is that there is a requirement for periodic deslud ging of these lagoons , that over the course of time, there is a necessity to get rid of whatever cannot be incorporated into the field.

During that process of desludging, which occurs evety so often in terms of years, there is a potenti al for the earth-moving eq uipment that is used to-maybe it is not earth-moving equipment, but the equipment that is used to conduct this desludging operation has the pote ntial to break through plastic liners , and then once that is done , you have a real problem . Has this been given any thought with respect to inspection following the desludging operation? Mr.

Cummings: We ll, with livestock lagoons and the systems that are used presently , and I would think with future systems as well, desludging is likely not to be a problem as it is with a large lagoon that covers acres , as in a town or village or city, because the material is deliberately agitated during the removal. That is one of the problems. It stinks the whole neighbourhood out if it happens to be at the wrong time. Is it contemplated? No, I guess it is not because I would not expect that it would occur.

Generally spe aking, this can be managed or is managed in such a way that pumps create enough agitation that you are not likely to require desludging in the long run. It can occur, and, of course, the general prohibition against allowances for leaking could lean to testing. I suppose there is always an opportunity for the kind of thing you are talking about to occur. I do not think it is one we anticipate in the regulations . Ms. McCormick: The specific requirement is fairly general .

It says a plastic liner acceptable to the director must be installed Is there any place in the regulation with respect to the sort of mil thickness or whatever would be considered to be

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3433 acceptable to the director where you are requiring a liner? Mr. Cummings: No, because what is anticipated here is that the proponent would have to satisfy the director that they were going to put in a liner of sufficient strength and durability that it would not be in danger of rupturin g. Again, I say we wrote the regulations very specifi cally. This is n ot an accident that it was not referred to, because the conditions might vary such that the regulation that would suggest a certain type of liner in one place might not be suitable in another.

I cannot think of a precise example , but I p resum e that is the reason we have it, so there is some discretion on the part of the director. Ms. McCormick: An other concern that has been raised is the size of these operati ons. I note in the regul ation, when you are talking about animal units, the potential goes up in excess of 40,000, 40,000 -plus with respect to the weanlings. Is there a number that is considered to be simply too big in terms of the department 's approval process? (Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chahperson, in the Clair) Mr. Cummings: No.

I would suggest that the restricting factor is the amount of suitable agricultural land for disposal of the waste. Of course, we have had a demonstration of how that can create an issue in the Interlake . It is interesting in the discussion in the Interlake debate about whether or not appl ying hog manure to that land can be managed.

There are lots of examples of some pretty large cattle farms in that area which have their cattle in a confined area and they do not have them on cement and they do not have them on poly-l ined yards and the opportunity for contamination of the ground water from those sites is every bit as real as it is in the case of hog operation and the distri bution of the material on the surface of a 50-acre plot or 150-a cre plot of alfalfa So, while the hog industry might be the focus of this-that is why these regulations are written the way they are- I think there were people who were swept up in the issue of a large hog operation coming in who maybe had not thought about the fact that-it seems to me four hog units equal one livestock unit, which is the equivalent of one adult cow.

I am stretching my memory here. It has been awhile. My point is that there are intensive livestock operatiom in existence that have not attracted the kind of attention that these hog operations have , but some of them nevertheless have simila r potentials to pollute the ground water. Ms. McCo rm ick : Mr. Acting Deputy Chairpers on, one of the other areas that I was really intrigued by was the soil monitoring, soil sampling procedure , which is the beginning. Appendix F says: monitorin g soil nitrate, and then says : Why is monitoring necessary?

It goes on and outlines quite a comprehensive monitoring regime , but it goes from the initial introduction of why it is neces sary to describing a monitoring program and the first statement starts that it is recommended.

I went back into the regulation looking for some evidence that there was some kind of regulatory requirement for this soil monitoring and the argument is made further along that if you are getting good results on your soil monitoring, then it would give you clear indication or at least some positive indication that excessive nitrogen or nitrate leaching would not be as great a concern with respect to ground water contamination. Am I correct in understanding that the monitoring that is described as necessary is still only recommended by the guideli ne and not something that can be enforced? Mr.

Cummings: It can be enforced, but it would be enforced through the nitro gen requir ements. The recommendation would follow the Farm Practices Guidelines that you are referring to there . I understand your point , but I guess there are different ways of imposing it. We have chosen to do it from the lower end of the scale , I sup pose , working back, depending on how you view this. By setting the limits to do a test on the content, the nitrogen content in the so il, is not parti cularly difficult or compli cated.

3434 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 To set up an ongoing monitoring program may not be much more than having the local fertilizer dealer do tests with a probe that is capable of going to several different depths. It is not necessarily a real complicated, wel l-monitoring type of process . So we catch it by saying that they must not exceed certain lev els. In order to know what they are, they have to do testing. The elab orateness of that testing , I guess, is not prescribed. •

(2240) Ms. McCormick: So you are saying that the requirement for the nitrogen testing is not in this regulation but in some other regulation? Mr. Cummings : Well ,let me quote what I have in front of me here: Livestock waste supplied to land must be at a rate not to exceed crop nitrogen requirements . Recommended rates are set out in the Fann Practices Guidelines documents , ranging from 60 pounds of actual end per acre for annual crops in light soils to 225 pounds of nitrogen per acre on alfalfa fields.

So what we have is the ability under the regulation, a matter that is regulated, to say that it shall not exceed, but the guidelines lay out what the procedure would be for setting up a monitoring program and the reasons that you are ref erring to there , which, I think, do a pretty good job of explaining what they should do. Ms. McCormick: One of the things I wondered which would perhaps strengthen the regulation, and again we do not get the opportunity to have input into the discussion as we would if it was

an act, but I note that there is a permitting process which applies to the construction of the storage facility or the lagoon, but no equivalent permitting process when we are talking about field storage. It sort of stops being a permitting process and is simply what looks like a permissible

section of the regulation. Given what you have just said, that it is in that process of the-in terms of allowable application onto land where the rate of application should not exceed the amounts necessa ry to meet crop nitrogen requirements, that in fact becomes the point at which the monitoring activity would verify that the livest ock waste is being properly incorporated.

Then it goes on to say that you cannot cause pollution or surface of ground water or soil, but in absence of a requirement or some kind of enforceable mechanism for requiring these excellent soil testing activities, it seems to me that many farmers, being like small-business people-! mean, I have never been a fann er, but I have a small-business person 's abhorrence to record keeping and to these kinds of onerous things that it seems is a waste of my time sometimes to do. How is the department going to ensure that these objectives of not contaminating surface ground water or soil are going to be met? Mr.

Cummings: An example of a large operation would be that they could be asked for fe rtilizer, for something as simple as a record of soil tests having been done by either themselves or their local fe rtilizer supplier, which would more than likely be the case. If they cannot supply them or if they seem inadequate when they are presented, then they could order tests. That would be a very simple way of doing it. It would be as a response to the fact that there is a large operation there, and we should do a random test on what is occurrin g. That would be one way of enf orcing and ensuring.

I do not have the answ er in the sense of field storage. Field storage, you are probably talking about something that is set up for composting purposes, probably, or you are talking about more of a dry waste, or it would not be field storage. You cannot pile up liquid waste. The opportunity there for ground water pollution is probably significant if it is sitting in an area that is inappropri ate . Yes, at this point, that is not something that is required permitting. It is not something that occurs in great amounts.

I think it would normally occur from fe edlot operations where if under spring conditions, things were getting wet and the lot was bec oming unacceptab le. They might take a bulldozer and move it, but that is not likely to be there permanently . I cannot think of too many other situations where this would become a situation-dairy f anns

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3435 where they have a concentrated number of stock in one area and they are using a stacker, a mechanical stacker. Generally , they are set up so that they retain their liqui ds. That would be an exam ple of where maybe there needs to be something further thought of in that area. Originally when we looked at this area, we thought of this as composting prim arily, not as long-term stora ge. Ms. McCormi ck: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I think that is an area, particularly as climatic conditions can change.

I mean, you can get the stuff on dry, and then it can start raining the way it did last summ er, and you have yourse lf a bit of a probl em. 1be other area that I was somewhat concerned about-and actually you ventured into this, and I would just like to pursue it a little further. You talked about a large bog operation giving cause for the department to want to ask for monitoring activity to occur. I am interpreting your remalk to say that this would be proactive rather than reactive. You are not envisioning a complaint-driven syst em.

You are not envisioning a system where people have to come and say, prove to me that this is saf e, as oppo sed to a system which would say because of the size of the location or the nature of the operati on, the department bas reasonable and probable grounds to request monitoring to go on, and then you would have the strength of the regulation to require the kinds of monitoring activities that are currently outlined in the regulation. (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Clair) Mr. Cummings: The member is correct. I think it would be a combination of complaint-driven and random sampl ing.

When I say large, generally speaking, the larger volume areas would be the ones where you would anticipate there might be a proble m, because perhaps they are storing larger amounts of a lagoon or whatever. This is one of the things we have done with decentralization. We have people in the regions. We have Department of Agriculture st aff who are pretty cognizant of where the operations are. We also have much better knowledge of where some of the sensitive areas are in terms of locations. I think all of that adds up to all owing us to be able to get a monitoring program in place.

It bas been pointed out to me that the director, if this is a new operation and there is a permit required, be can as a condition of the permit, if be bas reason to believe it would be the right thing to do, require monitoring and add that to the condition of the permit. •

(2250) Ms. McCormick: Actually , this is better news than I bad anticipated getting tonight. Are you saying that in the permitting process which is really for, as I read it, the construction of the storage facili ty, that you could also extend the permit conditions to a requirement which would satisfy the transfer of the waste to the agricultural land? Mr. Cumm ings: I think so, but would you explain that a little bit further? Ms. McCormick: Yes.

Actually , when I first read this, I was quite-as I described with the concerns with respect to the liners-satisfied that there was sufficient protection with the permitting process in the siting and the construction of the lagoons, but when I got down to the sections on field storage and transport ation and application of the waste , it seemed to get quite weak. I did not see that the permitting process went that far.

To believe that permitting conditions could be extended to place conditions on the transfer of the waste to the agricultural land, that as surance would go a long way to making me a bigger fan of this regulation than I am now. Mr. Cummings: Well , I am not going to give her a team shirt yet. When the member ref ers to being able to regula te the transportation, does she mean the app lication? [inter je ction] Okay , the app lication. I am looking at the pre cise wording under transportation and app lication of waste.

We have, in fa ct, an example right now of where we have conditioned the application of the material to the soil, but that is in conjunction with the R.M. of

3436 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 1994 Portage Ia Prairie. The R.M., in fact, and the proponent agreed to use injection methods to handle it. So that was a specific agree ment. I guess we did not regulate it, but it was an agreement that was struck while we were at the table . That was before these regs were actually in place. It was a tripartite approach, and Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture were all at the table along with the municipality, and that was a condition that was agreed to by the parties at that time. Ms.

McCormick: Given that condition is agreed to, it would take the form of some kind of contractual agreement between the land use approval process and the operator. What would happen? Who would enforce it, and what would be enforced if there was, in fact, a breach of the agreement? Mr. Cummings : I think the agreement that I ref erenced would not be one we would enforce from an environmental point of view. It was agreed to under the conditions of their Planning Act.

Because we all recognized the importance of the Delta area and wanted to make sure that this was not a probl em, they would have to enforce it as a condition of their planning agreement which really extends into an operating agree ment, which is not unusual for a planning area to be able to do that. They can restrict, under their Planning Act, location and land use. Ms.

McCormick: Yes, actually, that answer brings me full circle, back to my original concern that some of these operations may wind up in LGDs without a planning process in place, and then I was looking for the assurance that the department could place on the operations the necessary restrictions, and saw the regulation as somewhat weak when it came to-stronger when you can regulate the siting and the operation of the storage lagoons, but weaker when it would attempt to regulate the incoq>oration of the waste on the surrounding land.

So I will leave it with you, and I am just happy to have the opportunity to get the clarification as far as we have gone tonight. I would like to see that either the permitting process extended or some kind of de facto powers given to the deparunent to imist on some kind of monitoring that could alert people to problems bef ore they actua lly manifested as ground water contamination. Mr. Cummin gs: I think we are talking about two things, one of which we have a better handle on, by the member's own definition, than the other.

In terms of requiring monitoring to demonstrate what is happening, I think we have the capability to do that through the regulation that talks about the amount of nitrogen for production puq>oses, as an examp le, that is allowed in the field.

If a soil sample shows up that there is nitrogen three feet down to the equivalent of 30 pounds to the acre, first of all, you have problems if you know it is getting down that far, so the director, I think, under those circumstances- I am getting an affirmative nod-could impose additional monitoring and conditions on the appl ication ofliquid waste or any other waste to that field or could perhaps require that appl ication be stopped to that field and an alternative found. 1be second part of that, in terms of mandating the precise method of application, I see this as being able to be-and we had some considerable discussion about this-mandated still through the other requirement, and the director may have to correct me here, but under the prohibition against application: shall only be applied in the manner that prevents pollu tion of surface water, ground water, or soil and does not es cape from the boundary of the farm.

A good example is one well-known operation in south central Manitoba that farms some very hilly la nd , and they will have to exercise some considerable caution how they apply their waste. Presumably worldng them in or injecting them will be their best way of controlling surface runoff, which they could very likely have a problem with under the wrong conditions. That, I think, could cause them to be in violation, which ultimately would mean that once you are in violation that conditions could be put forward on the operation.

It is not as strong , perha ps, or as direct as the member was seeking, but the ultimate hammer is still ours under The Environment Act.

June 13, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3437 Ms. McCormick: I am prepared to wrap up on this area now just with a concern that I worry about the hammer, which is only used after the fact and not before the fact, but I am will ing to give it a rest now and we can move on to another area. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Are we ready to pass this item? We are de aling with 2.(

b) Environmental Management

(1) Salaries and Fmployee Benefits $2,530,700. Ms. Cerilli: We spent quite a bit of time on that area I wanted to also try and deal a little bit with some of the issues around sewage lagoons specifically-I guess, the human waste lagoons. One of the requests that has been made is for there to be a study on the effectiveness of the earthen sewage lagoons in Manitoba. Can the minister clarify the nature of this study? I think he has indicated that there is some work being done on this. I do not know if it is in keeping with what the concerned citizens are asking fo r.

I do not think it is, but can the minister clarify what kind of research is going to be done in this area? I know that there is a request for 10 to 15 lagoons to be used to do a sampling and comparison. Is that happening? •

(2300) Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairper son, the member is correct There are 15 lagoons that are going to be monitored quite closely this year in response to some of the issues that have been raised, and I guess we will have a better look at it when summer is over. Ms. Cerilli: One of the other issu

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-5-46b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 5th hansardpdf 46b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c8622f2e63af45931dbf2cd15750f3d0973e488a

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