The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Gerry McAlpine): Good afternoon, will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates for Children and Youth Secretariat.

We are now on Resolution 34.1, item 1. Children and Youth Secretariat (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $434,400--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $144,000--pass; (c) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($336,100)--pass.

Resolution 34.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $242,300 for the Children and Youth Secretariat, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Item 34.2 ChildrenFirst Initiatives $500,000--pass.

Resolution 34.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $500,000 for the ChildrenFirst Initiatives, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

This now completes the Estimates for the Children and Youth Secretariat. The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Department of Environment. Shall we recess briefly for a five-minute recess?

The committee recessed at 3:36 p.m.

The committee resumed at 3:40 p.m.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I wonder whether we might have permission to sit in other seats other than our own and whether it would be the will of the House that those members who choose to sit rather than stand while they make their statements, if that would be acceptable.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Is there leave of the committee to sit in other seats other than their designated seats in the House and to sit while speaking rather than standing? Is there leave? [agreed]

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): I was going to say since it is all right with the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), it is all right with me.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I thank the honourable minister for that. Does the honourable Minister of Environment have an opening statement?

Mr. McCrae: I do, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am pleased for my very first time to present the 1997-98 Estimates of the Department of Environment. I trust that honourable members will have had an opportunity to review the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review document prepared by the department.

Before proceeding with an overview of the activities of the department for 1996-97--actually, before proceeding with an overview of the proposed activities for 1997-98, I would like to acknowledge the dedication and the effort of all departmental staff in working to fulfill the mandate of the department. I was pleased to have been welcomed to the Department of Environment by a very dedicated staff committed to the environmental protection of our province. Of course, at this particular time it, is a difficult time for all Manitobans, but certainly environmental personnel are poised to play their rightful and appropriate role when it comes to the aftermath of the present crisis.

The mission of the Department of Environment is to ensure a high quality of environment for present and future generations of Manitobans. Of course, it goes without saying that we want to make our environment the best we can for ourselves, but in everything we do we should have in mind those people who come after us.

The department continues to pursue a number of specific strategies such as the harmonization of effort at the national level through the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, the building of partnerships with local governments, provincial departments, industry, et cetera, focusing on regional solutions, developing innovative approaches to enforcement, working with partners to prevent pollution before it occurs, reducing waste with an emphasis this year on the recycling of used oil and filters and containers, placing greater reliance on targets, objectives and standards rather than prescribing specific technologies or approaches, extending resources through involvement of others using delegation and empowerment, using financial instruments in licences and orders to ensure clients' respect, comply with and practise environmental stewardship, striving to provide quality service to all departmental clients.

The department's continuous improvement vision is to deliver the highest quality of service to achieve the best value for tax dollars. The focus is on satisfying needs as identified by clients. The following continuous improvement priorities have been identified for the next three years. With respect to training, Mr. Chairman, the department will be focusing specific training effort in the following areas: specialized training in areas such as process re-engineering, process improvement or qualitative research, performance measurements specifically to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the continuous improvement initiative; augmenting knowledge, skills and abilities in areas such as change management, quality improvement, conflict resolution, mediation, customer service, teamwork, other core knowledge and skills that departmental staff will require to do their jobs today and in the future. Continuous improvement-related training will become part of the core competency that is expected from all staff. Continuous improvement is not viewed as a separate activity, nor will the related training be treated separately--and management-focused training, problem solving, client orientation, program performance measurement.

With respect to planning, Mr. Chairman, a continuous improvement strategic plan linked to the department's strategic plan will be developed to guide all of the department's continuous improvement efforts. All staff will have opportunity to participate in its development and will share in the responsibility for carrying it out.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to recognition, various recognition activities will be continued or implemented, including the provincial environment employee recognition award. This initiative will be continued. Again this year the department will be holding recognition days to formally recognize exceptional employee or organizational performance. There will be a quality award follow-up in the areas of recognition, performance, management and communication about recognition.

Concerns or suggestions identified in the striving for excellence award feedback report will be reviewed and followed up. Discussion will ensue with Environment Canada and the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment to determine if collaboration and participation opportunities exist respecting recognition specifically and continuous improvement generally; and, with respect to external recognition, opportunities to recognize clients will be explored. There will be an implementation plan to address communication-related concerns raised in the quality award feedback report. That plan has been prepared, and implementation will occur during this fiscal year.

The department is committed again to solicit its clients and employees for their input respecting departmental operations and program activities and to identify improvement opportunities. An employee survey team has been struck to plan or carry out this initiative. The team will be tasked with formulating questions, identifying clients to be solicited, collating the information, interpreting the results and writing the reports, and it is expected that this task will be completed by May 31.

After the client-employee survey has been concluded, the department will be organizing a workshop to focus on how to innovatively respond to the survey results. It is expected that this workshop will be held during early fall 1997, and will be a key source of input into development of the department's 1998-99 business plan.

My officials and staff of Environment Canada in Winnipeg and staff of the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment are now co-located at the Via rail station at 123 Main Street. Manitoba Environment will maximize this co-location with Environment Canada and with the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment.

The following specific activities will be carried out. A number of specific program-integration and additional cost-saving opportunities will be explored and implemented: administrative and financial services, including human resources and information technology, dangerous goods and hazardous waste inspection activities, emergency response services, ambient monitoring activities. Other cost-saving opportunities will be explored and implemented where that is feasible in the following areas--and this makes a lot of sense, I believe. Photocopiers, vehicle use, joint field equipment use and replacement and other joint program-delivery opportunities will be pursued as new programs are considered.

I just earlier today had the opportunity to be present at the unveiling of a new virtual office respecting environment industries, Mr. Chairman, and that is a partnership between the federal and provincial Environment departments, as well as universities and the industry itself, an excellent opportunity to use far more effectively the resources that are out there and to make available to everyone, including the honourable members opposite, the opportunity to get information and to get it quickly and at any time of the day or night through the Internet. It is a great use of technology which now exists.

* (1550)

The department will continue in the 1997-98 year actively to review and amend many of its existing regulations to ensure their conformity with the criteria set out by the regulatory review committee. This follows from the zero-based regulation review that this department and all others carried out in 1995-96. This is an opportunity to ensure that obsolete regulations are updated or discarded and efficiencies made which are compatible with the department's goal of protecting human health and the environment. Any significant amendments made through this process will continue to involve stakeholder and general public consultation. That is, I believe, a hallmark, not only of this government in general, but in particular of the previous Minister of Environment and now the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) who, for many years, presided over the Department of Environment and did so with significant distinction, I suggest.

Administrative fees for permits, licences and orders under The Environment Act and The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act were implemented to facilitate overall fiscal responsibility. This year we expect to address a number of legislative and regulatory matters, for example, The Contaminated Sites Remediation Act. That was passed in the last session of the Legislature, and we plan on having it come into effect this year. This act provides a comprehensive process for dealing with all aspects of contaminated sites including site investigation, site designation, site remediation and the issuance of certificates of compliance once remediation has been completed.

There are four features of this act which I believe are of significant interest. It establishes a fair and equitable process for determining who should be responsible for site remediation. The degree of any cleanup required is based on the amount of risk to human health or the environment presented by the site and the cost associated with the cleanup are to be allocated based on the relative degree of responsibility for the contamination, the establishment of a registry of contaminated sites for Land Titles and municipalities so that there is adequate information available for purchasers prior to land transactions.

Liability for remediation will be based on the polluter-pays principle. This is of particular interest to lenders as they will not be held responsible for remediation merely because of their lending activities. Ideally, this will have a positive effect on lenders' willingness to advance loans to entrepreneurs and industries dealing with chemical products, for example, gasoline. In a similar vein, municipalities will not be responsible for the remediation of a site which they have involuntarily acquired through a tax sale. All of the refinements provided by this act should help us to redevelop contaminated sites in Manitoba, many of which would otherwise remain boarded up or sit undeveloped and unused.

There will be a review of The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act. In the 1997-98 year, the department will be undertaking this review. Although the act has served us well since it was enacted in 1984, there have been many changes in this field in the past 13 years and they need to be addressed.

As we undertake this full-scale review, there will be opportunities for major revision if they are considered necessary. Some of the issues that we will be considering include whether there should be greater emphasis placed on pollution prevention, whether there should be more encouragement given to onsite disposal and hazardous waste recycling, whether some less hazardous waste, such as used oil, used batteries and used asbestos, should be given different treatment under the act. If so, what rules should apply? And how do we encourage more recycling of household hazardous waste? To ensure this review is thorough, as usual we will be seeking stakeholder input. That is the success of what has been going on in environmental endeavours in Manitoba in the last few years. It has involved stakeholders to a degree, I think, not seen in recent history.

There will be a review of the waste disposal ground regulations. The department has initiated this review. The regulation under The Environment Act was registered in July of 1991, and the review was commenced as a result of concerns expressed by municipalities on the site classification system utilized, the various setback distance requirements contained in the regulation, and the department's policy of regular review of legislation it administers.

A review committee of representatives from the department, from the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, and the Union of Manitoba Municipalities has been established and is in the process of undertaking this review. It is anticipated that a final draft of the revised regulation will be completed by the end of this year.

A matter of significant interest, as I was reminded very recently as I participated on an open-line talk show, is the issue of livestock waste and the regulation thereof. Under The Environment Act that regulation is also under review. That regulation was passed in 1994. The department has received an increase in the number of complaints associated with these types of operations, and the enforcement of some specific clauses has been problematic. In addition, there is now a more comprehensive understanding of agriculture techniques to mitigate potential environmental problems caused by livestock manure application.

There has also been growing support for regulatory changes from municipalities, industry, within the department, and from the public. From an environmental perspective the waste produced by livestock operations requires some additional management in order to ensure sustainability of both agricultural operations and the environment. A departmental committee has prepared a document entitled Our First Thoughts, which addressed concerns expressed to the department by its clients. A consultation process is underway, and this document has recently been widely distributed for comment from industry, the public, municipalities and others.

With regard to the environment accident-reporting regulation, this regulation under The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act requires revision to bring it up to date and to improve its enforceability. These revisions are planned for the upcoming fiscal year. With respect to the storage and handling of petroleum product regulation, a proposed new regulation will replace the existing one. The new regulation will, in large part, adopt the recently produced CCME environmental codes of practice for underground and aboveground petroleum storage tanks. These codes of practice deal with most aspects of the construction, siting, and safe operation of the tanks. The regulation will also require petroleum tank installers to be properly trained and licensed. A significant feature of this regulation will be the ability to require upgrading or removal of tanks that are out of service or past a certain age.

With respect to the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, also known as the NAFTA environmental side agreement, Manitoba formally signed on to this agreement on January 21 of this year, joining Quebec and Alberta as the first three provinces to do so. I was the minister who was given the honour of representing Manitoba on that occasion. For over the 1997-98 year, our department will become a more active participant in the many important trade and environment issues to be dealt with by the jurisdictions which are parties to this agreement. This way we can better ensure that Manitoba's interests are protected.

With respect to administrative monetary penalties in this fiscal year, the department will further explore the possibility of implementing a process for these penalties. AMPs, otherwise known as Administrative Monetary Penalties, are penalties imposed by the department when an individual fails to comply with legislation. We feel that this initiative would be a good alternative to court proceedings for many minor offences. The benefits of this type of system include the fact that it is cheaper to operate, because it reduces costly case preparation and court time, and it is more efficient so cases can be dealt with more quickly.

If we decide to proceed in this direction, it will only be after extensive stakeholder consultations have been held. An AMP program has been successfully implemented in Alberta as well as in several other jurisdictions. AMPs will complement, not replace, the existing ticketing and standard form prosecutions we presently have in Manitoba.

With respect to Shoal Lake, my department continues to monitor water quality at Shoal Lake. We are working with Ontario and the City of Winnipeg to ensure that any proposed developments go through stringent reviews with the full participation of Manitobans. We will continue to be in close communication with Ontario Environment and remain as active as required in the actual review.

* (1600)

There has been much talk in recent years about harmonization. Manitoba continues to be committed to effective environmental management in Canada, including the efficient use of the collective resources of all jurisdictions. We are continuing to take an active, in fact, leadership role in the continuing negotiations to harmonize environmental management in Canada. An accord and three subagreements respecting inspections, standards and environmental assessment are expected to be signed in May at the CCME meeting. Well, I am not so sure about that CCME ministers' meeting now, what with an election having been called, we are now in the midst of an election campaign. It may not be the best time for that type of discussion, but I have not heard anything yet on that point, so we will await further dialogue with the other CCME ministers on this point. Further subagreements related to monitoring and research and development will be negotiated after that.

There will be a review of a Canadian Environmental Protection Act in line with our goals on harmonization. We are working with the other provinces and the federal government to ensure that there is an effective process in place for the control of toxic substances in Canada. In this regard we have been taking an active role in national discussions respecting the review and rewrite of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the federal government is about to table for the second reading a revised copy of the act. Well, that is not going to happen either, is it?--with an election call just having been made.

My department continues to respond to numerous environmental emergencies. I think we are living through the big one right about now, and there will be much to be done in the aftermath of that. During the 1996 year, the department received 551 calls through the emergency system involving 410 environmental accidents. We will continue to dedicate required resources to this area to ensure that incidents of that nature continue to receive priority attention.

As part of the government's support of sustainable development, my department maintains a strong commitment to making pollution prevention the environmental management strategy of choice in Manitoba. To provide focus to this shift, the Pollution Prevention Branch carries out a variety of programs intended to promote the application of practices that avoid the creation of waste and pollutants. Last November, the 1996 Waste Reduction and Prevention Report was released to highlight the key achievements that have taken place to minimize waste in Manitoba and to identify the key initiatives that are underway to allow us to reach the goal of 50 percent waste reduction by the year 2000.

Looking back to 1991, there was a high level of enthusiasm among a core group of recycling enthusiasts but not much opportunity for widespread community participation. The overall level of recycling remained marginal and the danger of volunteer burnout was high, questioning the long-term sustainability of the recycling initiatives that did exist. An unprecedented expansion in the level of recycling activity from 1991 to 1995 demonstrated that the willingness and ability to minimize waste existed in Manitoba. This strong expression of initiative was actively supported by the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund, which over this period invested over $6 million in over 200 waste management-related projects covering areas such as recycling, infrastructure development and regional recycling initiatives, education and awareness, composting, regional waste management and market development. The goal of establishing a sustainable foundation for making progress towards the 50 percent waste-reduction target is being met through the changes in how responsibilities for waste minimization are maintained and viewed. Overall, Manitoba achieved a 20 percent reduction in waste going to landfill between 1988 and 1994. The estimated amount of waste generated per capita, according to a recent Environment Canada review, is now approximately 790 kilograms compared with the estimate of 1,000 kilograms in 1989. This is a good indication that the strategies that have been put into place are moving us in the right direction. It is not an indication that we have arrived, but it is an indication that we are going in the right direction.

The creation of stewardship programs such as the Manitoba Product Stewardship Program and the Tire Stewardship Board have been critical in this transformation. As of 1997, virtually all tires are being recycled, and over 85 percent of all Manitobans now have access to multimaterial recycling services. Our experience with the recycling of tires provides an excellent example of how we have been able to patiently develop sustainable programs to resolve our waste problems. The recycling of tires is now a common practice in Manitoba; virtually all of the tire stockpiles that have been eliminated from waste disposal grounds and storage yards in the province. Tires are being processed into a variety of products locally, and a burgeoning new industry has been established to collect, process, transport, manufacture and market new products. The program elements and the technologies that have been adopted in Manitoba to process tires are being adopted by other jurisdictions, including Saskatchewan, the Maritimes and the United States.

Over $200,000 has been paid to municipalities that recover used tires at the landfill since the program began in 1993, and over $4 million has been paid to tire processors that have manufactured a product from the discarded tires such as rubber pads, sidewalk blocks, door mats, docks, floats, or have sent the tires to an energy-recovery facility. Currently, 50 percent of the used tires processed are sent for energy recovery. The Tire Stewardship Board is taking steps to reduce dependence on this market and encourage value-added processing locally by investigating new market opportunities.

The program is managed outside of government. The funds that are collected through a levy at the point of sale go directly to a waste reduction and prevention fund that is dedicated to used tire waste minimization and management. My department ensures the accountability of this program. In 1998, the Tire Stewardship corporation will be submitting a new business plan. In reviewing this plan, I will be ensuring that the program will continue to operate efficiently and effectively. Similarly, the Manitoba Product Stewardship Program has provided a basis for sustaining recycling throughout the province to the point where 130 municipalities now operate registered multimaterial recycling programs, 130 municipalities. This means that 90 percent of Manitobans now live in serviced areas. Over 15,500 tonnes of MPSP-eligible materials were collected in 1995 through expanded municipal recycling systems. This more than doubled the reported tonnages in 1994. Recovery is projected to reach over 30,000 tonnes in 1996-97. When you think of what was happening not so many years ago, Mr. Chairman, this is extremely positive.

* (1610)

In 1998 a new business plan will be prepared and submitted by the Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation. My department will be working with the corporation to ensure that this process works smoothly. The objective for the new plan is to have a broadened funding base for recycling programs, as well as expansion in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. In addition, we will be looking to have even higher rates of participation and material recovery achieved. While building on established stewardship initiatives is the first element of the 1996 WRAP Strategy Report, the second component is the building of new initiatives.

In 1997, a stewardship program for the management of used oil, filters and containers will be introduced in Manitoba. About 41 million litres of lubricating oil is sold each year in Manitoba. Only 6.3 million litres is currently being collected of an estimated 23 million litres which may be available. The department is consulting with a stakeholder group to develop an appropriate Used Oil Stewardship program for Manitoba and to implement this program in a timely manner. Stakeholders include municipal governments represented by UMM, MAUM, the City of Winnipeg; public interest groups like the Recycling Council of Manitoba, the Canadian Automobile Association, and the Manitoba Environmental Council; and industry, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, the western Canadian task force, Canadian Tire, Esso, Nemco Resources, filter manufacturers and others.

Close communication with other provinces is being maintained to encourage harmonization to the greatest degree possible. Key elements of the department's used oil initiative have included: road oiling was banned in the fall of 1994, space heaters using used oil will be more closely controlled; review the classification of used oil as hazardous waste; examine requirements for improving the economics of collecting and marketing used oil. A used oil filters and containers stewardship proposal will be released for consultation later this year.

In addition to the Used Oil Stewardship program, other initiatives that the department will be focusing its attention on will be in the areas of composting and organic waste management, household hazardous wastes, construction and demolition wastes and used building materials. Major gains can be achieved in waste reduction through composting of organic materials, which represent up to one-third of the waste system, and by diverting construction wastes to useful purposes.

Increased opportunities to properly manage household hazardous wastes will be pursued through stewardship initiatives being proposed by the household hazardous waste industry stewardship committee. The regulation requiring the establishment of industry-managed stewardship programs as a condition for selling these products in Manitoba will be adopted shortly.

The biggest shift in Manitoba's waste reduction strategy is the third Waste Reduction and Prevention Strategy component to focus on reducing waste at source, the first "R" of the three "R" hierarchy of waste reduction: reduce, reuse and recycle.

While there have been important accomplishments in reducing waste by individual businesses, organizations and households, additional gains in overall waste reduction will require new approaches targeting the industrial, commercial and the institutional sectors.

In order to shift emphasis towards the prevention of waste and pollutants in the first place, the following will have to be achieved: raise awareness of opportunities and benefits; support the application of waste and environmental audits; support application of pollution prevention techniques; establish a recognition program for achievements in pollution reduction; and restructure incentives to promote pollution prevention. Accomplishing this means working in close partnership directly with generators of waste and pollutants.

In 1996, my department co-operated closely with the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada under a memorandum of understanding committed to raising awareness and developing methods to improve environmental performance and competitiveness. Information materials, success stories and procedures for conducting site audits have been prepared, and plans are now underway for broader application in Manitoba businesses. I am optimistic that the encouragement of voluntary initiatives to prevent pollution will be an effective complement to my department's existing compliance enforcement programs.

Another initiative that is currently underway to enhance the management of waste in Manitoba is the effort to develop a waste management strategy in the Capital Region. Since the waste disposal ground regulation was enacted in 1991, there has been increasing pressure to close substandard waste disposal facilities. Currently there are an estimated 27 waste disposal grounds in operation in the Capital Region serving a population of approximately 700,000. Each local government is responsible for providing waste management services to meet the needs of their municipality. Several regional projects have been undertaken in the past several years. The Capital Region includes the city of Winnipeg, the towns of Selkirk and Stonewall, and 13 rural municipalities: Cartier, East St. Paul, Headingley, Macdonald, Ritchot, Rockwood, Rosser, St. Andrews, St. Clements, St. François Xavier, Springfield, Taché and West St. Paul. Following the 1995 Clean Environment Commission hearings on solid waste management in the Capital Region, the Capital Region Committee began work in this area. The first phase of its effort, the preparation of an inventory of facilities in the region, has been completed with the co-ordination of my department in this effort. The next phase, the preparation of a strategy, is now underway.

I am pleased to confirm that the Environmental Youth Corps program will operate again in 1997-98, and they are going to have lots of work to do this year. The program offers Manitoba's young people an opportunity to prepare for environmental challenges of tomorrow by helping them gain valuable education and experience today. The Environmental Youth Corps encourages youth to volunteer for projects to improve and protect Manitoba's environment. Youths participating in these EYC projects are provided opportunities for hands-on learning experiences leading to increased knowledge and awareness of environmental matters. The Environmental Youth Corps program allows youths the opportunity to be involved in a variety of environmental activities which may otherwise not occur. Environmental projects eligible for funding to a maximum of $5,000 include, but are not restricted to, water quality, waste minimization, protection of flora and fauna, rehabilitation of the natural environment, wildlife conservation, and habitat preservation, tree planting and composting. The program focuses on maximizing the involvement and participation of youths in environment-related projects throughout the province of Manitoba. During the last six years, $808,707 have been provided to 318 community projects involving over 31,000 youths. During the 1996-97 fiscal year, a total of 43 projects received EYC grants totalling $139,439 and involved over 5,000 youths. The EYC program is administered by Manitoba Environment with support from Manitoba Education and Training and the Sustainable Development Co-ordination Unit. This partnership provides for efficient and effective program delivery through the use of existing infrastructure and resources.

Manitoba Environment is working with other Canadian jurisdictions to develop a national water quality index that could be used to better assess and communicate complex information on water quality to the general public, water quality managers and other scientists. One index has recently been used in Manitoba with success. Water quality indices will assist in reporting on progress made toward environmental sustainability. Manitoba Environment will be undertaking water quality studies and activities aimed at getting a better understanding of impacts caused by expansion of the agriculture industry in Manitoba, such as increased livestock production, increased irrigation needs, additional wastes generated from food processing industries, et cetera. One major study was completed last year regarding runoff from fields during spring melt following the application of hog manure during the winter on snow-covered fields, and additional studies will be undertaken this year.

This spring, my department will be releasing the fourth State of the Environment Report. Manitobans are asking questions about the sustainability of our province. This document intends to keep them informed, trying to link environmental conditions with socio-economic factors, reflecting the interdependent relationship that exists between humans and their environment. The 1997 State of the Environment Report is to be a transitional report from the traditional State of the Environment reporting towards a full sustainable development reporting. The report presents the information through the use of trend data, environmental indicators and indicators of sustainable development. An important characteristic of the indicators of sustainability is their capability to integrate the economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability into a single indicator. The International Institute for Sustainable Development has contributed in the development of these indicators. Refinement of the indicators will draw on provincial, national and international efforts to better develop, understand and measure sustainability. This report is an example of the Manitoba government commitment to sustainable development.

The department is currently responsible for about 1,450 licensed operations in the province. These operations are obligated under the terms of their licences to meet certain environmental and health conditions. A number of the key areas of focus in this regard include increased environment act licence enforcement respecting forest management activities in support of the sustainability of this industry, including audit of the Louisiana-Pacific air-monitoring program, continue to give priority attention to addressing Flin Flon air-quality concerns, placing increased emphasis on ambient water-quality monitoring to ensure this critical resource is protected, regularly inspect all licensed sewage treatment plants to ensure compliance. A risk-based approach will be implemented with respect to environment act licence enforcement to ensure that departmental resources are targeted at those operations posing the greatest risk or concern.

* (1620)

The department in conjunction with related partners, such as Manitoba Health, local governments, water plant operators in the Manitoba and Canadian Water & Wastewater associations, will take all measures necessary to protect and ensure the quality of all Manitoba drinking water sources. The following activities will be undertaken: The development of a risk assessment protocol to determine the need for, or frequency of, inspections or sampling with regard to water supply sources, enter into partnerships with the industry, such as the Canadian Water & Wastewater Association relative to playing a more active role in the operation of facilities. Through regulatory review, a number of regulatory processes will be streamlined with more authority being delegated to environment officers and public health inspectors. Improved operator training will be pursued. Mandatory training will be considered. Local entities will be encouraged to take a greater interest. Those who use the water need to be more involved. Partnership opportunities with the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Northern Affairs, First Nations organizations, seasonal operations in the Parks Branch will be explored and conduct northern community water and sewage treatment plant operator training sessions in conjunction with Northern Affairs.

Now, I apologize to the honourable member for the length of my opening remarks, but I felt that for the benefit of herself and myself and all of us, Mr. Chairman, that it would be useful certainly as a new minister to present that type of an overview. So I hope that has not inconvenienced honourable members unduly, but that concludes my opening remarks with respect to the department's 1997-98 Estimates. I look forward to the review of these Estimates. Thank you.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I thank the honourable minister for those comments. Does the critic for the official opposition, the honourable member for Swan River, have an opening statement?

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, just briefly. I would just like to make a few comments. I want to just indicate to the minister that our critic the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) has allowed me to go first with my comments because of a schedule conflict that I have later, and he will then do more detailed questioning than I will. I want to indicate to the minister that we, too, believe that the environment and the state of our environment is one of the most important things that we have to address, that we need to have a high-quality environment not only for us, but for future generations, and we have to work very hard to ensure that that environment remains a safe and sustainable place for future generations.

The Department of Environment faces many challenges. As we move towards increased livestock production, there are challenges there that are brought, and the Department of Environment and other departments of government have to ensure that we find a balance with the economic growth that those people involved in the industry want as well as those people who live in the community. As we move towards increased use of our resources, whether it be the forestry resource or our soils for agriculture uses, we have to ensure that, as we use those resources, they are used in a sustainable way and, again, that we have the ability to ensure that they are protected. The resources that we have are given to us to use for the time that we are here, but it is our responsibility to use those resources, but not abuse them in order that we have long-term sustainability.

Certainly there are other areas that have to be addressed. We have to look at more recycling. The areas that I want to address have to do with the agriculture industry and the use of some natural resources. The minister, I am sure, is aware that I have some questions that we began during Question Period with respect to the Louisiana-Pacific licence and those issues.

When my colleague the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) has his time, he will have more extensive comments on the whole department. My colleague the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) will ask some questions first, then we will get into the area that I am interested in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I thank the honourable member for those comments. I would remind members of the committee that debate on the Minister's Salary, item 1.(a), is deferred until all items of the Estimates of this department are passed. At this time we would invite the minister's staff to take their place in the Chamber.

We would invite the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae) to introduce his staff present in the Chamber for the committee this afternoon.

Mr. McCrae: I am joined by Deputy Minister of Environment Norm Brandson, Assistant Deputy Minister Dave Wotton, Assistant Deputy Minister Serge Scrafield, and Wolf Boehm is our Director of Administration. They are all with me this afternoon. They may be familiar to honourable members; we will be pleased to have their assistance as we proceed.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I thank the honourable minister for that introduction, and we welcome all the minister's staff to this committee.

The item before the committee is item 31.1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I have questions on one area that the minister referred to in his opening remarks. I might remind the minister and tell the staff that I am the Urban Affairs critic and have shared some concerns with the minister's predecessor about the issues of sustainability in the Capital Region, in particular, and most particularly, the whole issue of BFI as it relates to the City of Winnipeg and the whole idea of sustainable development. I was interested that the minister actually spoke about some of the issues about BFI. I would like to ask the minister some general questions, if I may, about his government's position and his position with reference to that.

* (1630)

The minister stated earlier in his comments this afternoon that it was necessary to set targets and standards for companies and individuals in order to ensure sustainability, et cetera. One of those instruments that he talked about were financial instruments to ensure the respect and compliance with environmental stewardship. I am wondering how the minister sets that statement, with which I completely agree, next to the acceptance of the landfill site for BFI in the community of Rosser against the complete and total rejection of the entire City Council of the City of Winnipeg and virtually all environmental and waste management strategies. I do not see how the two, the statement on the one hand and the actions on the other hand, meld together.

Mr. McCrae: I think I understand the concern being put forward by the honourable member, and indeed work is underway to develop a Capital Region Strategy. I think the honourable member's question is one of those ones that says, well, if that is what you are doing, then why would you proceed under the old rules in the meantime?

It would have required a moratorium, which to be fair would probably have had to apply everywhere, and the decision made, as a result of a pretty fair understanding of all the issues involved, was to carry on with the work, to work toward a better strategy for the future, but not in the meantime to impose moratoriums. That would, I think, be the answer to the honourable member's question.

Ms. Barrett: Well, I have to refresh my memory here because it was quite some time ago, but at least the first set of Clean Environment Commission hearings that were held in the city of Winnipeg were supposed to deal with the issue of solid waste management in the Capital Region and not reference any specific potential change to the current situation. I remember that the City of Winnipeg and the presentation by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, during those presentations, the chair of the committee was very clear, at several points, telling the presenters that they were treading on ground that was not part of the terms of reference of that first set of hearings, which was to discuss the whole issue of the solid waste management strategy in the Capital Region.

The terms of reference for those hearings were never really addressed to our satisfaction. In the discussion, BFI was allowed to make very open-ended presentations, and it was very clear to us at the very beginning that, if I could put it this way, the fix was in. Far from a moratorium being put in place, the Clean Environment Commission had no intention of developing a solid waste management strategy in the Capital Region prior to agreeing to the licensing for the BFI facility in Rosser. I would think, and most people in the city of Winnipeg think that this was a classic case of the cart before the horse, that if you are going to have a solid waste management strategy for the entire Capital Region, you do not give a large multinational corporation the right to go into the Capital Region to put in a huge landfill site that is going to, in effect, decimate the City of Winnipeg's very successful waste management strategies. The City of Winnipeg had a very successful set of programs designed to educate people, to raise awareness, to do prevention, and to recognize people and organizations who had done a good job in reducing materials going into the waste cycle.

All of those things were things that the minister just spoke about in his opening comments. So I would like to ask the minister again how he can justify now beginning the preparation of the solid waste management strategy in the Capital Region well after the opening of a landfill in Rosser by BFI, which establishes a huge--they are there now. The solid waste management strategy for the Capital Region now has to take that very large organization and landfill site as a given, rather than looking at the strategy ahead of time and then deciding whether it was fulfilling the principles of Sustainable Development to put that landfill there in the first place. I would like the minister to comment on that.

Mr. McCrae: I will try, Mr Chairman. I think that my recollection of being in the opposition, which was for a couple of years, is that there is a luxury that one has of viewing things in hindsight and viewing things as they are happening and then coming along later and saying, well, just think how it could have been or just think what might have happened if we had done this or that or the other.

I think we all engage in that. I do not mean this as any particular criticism, but I say we all engage in that sort of thing when it serves our purpose or when we are making comments on matters of public concern. All that being said, we had no legal or legislative process by which we could stop applications coming forward, and indeed we had a process in place where applications could come forward and that process is the Clean Environment Commission process.

The hearings of the Clean Environment Commission can be extremely helpful to Manitobans. In this case the hearings recommended that some lead be taken by the province with respect to Capital Region Strategy. That was a recommendation of the Clean Environment Commission, and that is a recommendation we have accepted and we are moving forward with that now. I know that the honourable member is left with the feeling that, ah, yes, that is not a bad thing to do, but we have got this other development now in place. I understand the honourable member's feelings on this matter, but nonetheless that recommendation came to us from the Clean Environment Commission respecting a Capital Region Strategy and that work be done to build one, and that is what is happening.

Ms. Barrett: Well, I think whether you are in government or opposition, you sometimes view things differently in hindsight than you do while it is happening or even before it is happening. I would suggest though that if the minister remembers or does an analysis of the statements and comments and concerns that have been raised by people on this side of the House since the beginning of the possibility of BFI coming into the Capital Region, he will know that we have not changed our position. We do not have any view differently from hindsight than we did when the whole process began. We have been and were and will continue to be opposed to the BFI landfill site in Rosser, or anywhere else in the Capital Region. There are a whole number of reasons for that which I will not go into now, because it is a fait accompli. I just wanted to put on record our continuing concern that the process was--I will say it, I will say it--the process was manipulated.

The Clean Environment Commission, I understand, recommends and advises to the government. The government makes the ultimate decision as to what happens or what does not happen. The government had the authority to say, wait a minute, we need to look at the strategy as a whole. We need to have a solid waste management strategy in the Capital Region. We need to look at where we are. We have to start from where we are. Well, our position is, you start from where we are. You do not put in this huge landfill site and then say, okay, now we will develop the strategy. It does not work that way.

One final question to the minister on this whole issue of one of the impacts that BFI has had on the City of Winnipeg is not only a reduction of the money coming into the city through tipping fees. I understand, if it has not already happened, that BFI is looking at reducing its tipping fees. They made comments in their presentations, I believe, that they were in the business of waste management, and as a business, they were going to take business from wherever they could find it. One of the major ways that you get business, especially if you are a multinational corporation like BFI, is you undercut the competition in your pricing. Undercutting the competition in the pricing means lowering the tipping fees particularly to corporate and business clients. I am wondering if the minister does not understand one of the basics of environmental stewardship; one of the basics behind the Reduce element of the four Rs that the minister talked about in his opening remarks is that you try every way you can to reduce the waste stream. One of the ways that works really effectively is having the tipping fees, having the cost of putting something in the waste stream, high enough to make it uneconomical to put it in the waste stream, to make it more economical to try and find other ways to utilize the waste or to reduce the generation of the waste to begin with.

* (1640)

So this again seems to me to fly in the face of what the minister says is the goal of his government, which is good sustainable development and good stewardship, and an emphasis on the reduction of the solid waste stream. I think that you will find that is the case, when you look at what is happening or what will happen with BFI.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and respect some of the points of view and positions put forward by the honourable member. The points she makes, or the allegations she makes about these tipping fees, are something that I think require us to review, look into that matter a little further. This was not something that was well known to the department. I would like to know--maybe the honourable member can share with us--a little more about this particular information. It might be useful as we follow it up.

But it might be said that this licence having been granted, it is the view of some, perhaps many, that the BFI site could be a useful part of a regional solid waste management strategy. It may indeed have a useful role to play in the future, but that remains to be examined, and firm conclusions arrived at.

If the honourable member would care to maybe expand a little on the information that she has brought forward, it might be of use to departmental officials as we review the issue she is raising.

Ms. Barrett: I do not know specifically the details about whether BFI has, as of yet, reduced the tipping fees. That has always been a concern of the city, and I am assuming--and maybe it is an assumption, and we all know what assumptions can be, but on that, and just one final question for the minister is: Do you agree as a policy that, as you said, financial instruments should be used to ensure compliance with environmental stewardship, and that a tipping fee established high enough to discourage solid waste going into the stream is a good idea, in principle, that you need to say to individuals and corporations and governments, municipal governments as well, we are going to make it challenging enough financially for you to urge you to reduce your waste and use other avenues, to explore other avenues to try and get to that 50 percent reduction by the year 2000, which is the goal?

We use fines as disincentives all the time. Now I am not saying a tipping fee is exactly the same thing as a fine, but it is the same principle, I think, that you make the cost of doing business, i.e., generating solid waste, high enough that it is worth your while financially to explore other alternatives. I am wondering if the minister agrees with that in principle.

Mr. McCrae: I think we need to make a creative use of whatever financial instruments might be available to us as a society. I do not want, by having fees so high, that we create an unsafe environment for us outside the landfill site. I do not want to see that happen, and neither does the honourable member. I do not want to see fees so low that they would encourage careless disposal of items that might well be something that could be recyclable or used in some way other than simply dumping them at a landfill. So it is a question of the balance referred to by the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) in her comments when she was talking about livestock waste. We do need to achieve balance so that objectives can be achieved.

The honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) is thinking along the same lines as I am, that we should be as creative as we can to get the maximum result which benefits the environment we live in.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I have several areas that I want to ask the minister questions on, but I think that I would begin by having a bit of discussion on the Louisiana-Pacific waste management, the surplus bark. I raised this matter with the minister some time ago, and I guess I would want to talk a bit about the licence and what is happening. I want to say that we have heard lots of discussion that when people raise questions, they are opposed to the plant, lots of those kinds of things from the minister and from the other members of the Conservative government. But I think that there are many people in the community who raise these issues, and I want to assure the minister that people who raise these issues are not against the plant. They were not against the plant when they raised the issues during the Clean Environment Commission hearings, but they did put some serious concerns on the table that they had.

I remember saying to the people who had some concerns, oh, well no, I do not think we have to worry. As long as we have regulations and things put into the licence that will control pollution of any kind, we do not have to worry. Then when we saw the licence saying that waste material could not be moved off the site without permission and without a plan, that seemed like insurance. When the plant ran into their problem with a surplus amount of bark, I knew that the people in the department were working with the department, and we thought that all the concerns would be addressed.

So I have to say to the minister I was quite disappointed when I found out that all of this material was leaving the site, and there really was not a plan in place, and it had quite gotten out of hand. Material was going into sites where there was no--in fact, the department did not even know where the material was going. I have seen the correspondence that was sent back and forth, and there was no approval given, as I can understand it. There was no approval given in writing for it to be used as livestock bedding until, I believe, March 24. After I had raised the issue, that is when the approval was given in writing. It seems like the process was very loose from the Department of Environment, and the department did not know where the material was or where it was being deposited and what was in the material. The minister himself indicated that they did not know where the material was being disposed.

So I would like the minister to indicate, then, what guidelines there are to ensure that this would not happen. Are there guidelines that were spelled out to say where it can be going? Is there a guideline saying how thick the material can be spread on any particular site? From what I have got, the information that I have, it says that for agriculture purposes, it has been sent to the Department of Agriculture and that has not been approved yet, but for livestock bedding, my understanding is that, and I will quote from the letter, it says: You may use wood waste not contaminated with resin or hazardous waste as bedding material for livestock production operations. Must be less than 50 metres from surface water and the area do not cause pollution to surface water.

I have imposed an additional condition that would not waste, not be stockpiled for future use, but be placed for bedding purposes as soon as practical, and please maintain a record of locations where the material is being taken and the amount of material taken to each location.

* (1650)

So the guidelines in that spell out what can be done, but that is not really what happened. What really happened is that material was put in lots of areas that are not livestock yards. Material was put in places where there was surface water, so I would like to ask if the minister could tell us, were guidelines spelled out clearly ahead of time and did the department have any control of where this material was going or was it all after the fact when we raised the matter with the minister?

Mr. McCrae: It certainly was not after the fact as the honourable member has suggested. The department has been involved with the Louisiana-Pacific project for some time. The process for developing this particular option, indeed, started more than a year ago now, last April. So that has been a long time coming. It is not something that just popped up when the honourable member started asking questions.

It is not to say her questions do not have some merit. I am not suggesting that, but to suggest that we are responding only because she is asking questions is totally incorrect. This material was always understood to be used unless further uses were allowed at some point in the future. It was always clearly understood that this material was to be for livestock bedding purposes only and to suggest that, as the honourable member did, we did not know where this stuff was, that is also incorrect because part of the deal was that we were to be made aware and records kept by Louisiana-Pacific as to the location of all this material, and that information is to be made available to the Department of Environment when it requires it.

(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

The one point that is bothering me--it is true, we found in one case some material was placed too close to a water course, and there is no indication that I have that this was done intentionally, and the indication I have is that it was fixed just as soon as environmental inspectors became aware of it. Even that one, I think we were aware of before it was raised by the honourable member. I could be wrong about that one.

The point is that pile of material was moved back immediately when it was found to be in the wrong place. The thing that is bothering me about the honourable member's comments the most, I guess, takes me back to my days when I was in another regulatory department and that was the Department of Justice. It always bothered me that we have had a law on the book, I guess, right from the beginning of our nation that it is against the law to kill other people, and yet we have these offences happening in our jurisdiction and they happen in other jurisdictions too.

The simple act of writing a law and making it illegal does not stop things from happening. So that is what is bothering me about the honourable member's comments, and I hope she does not mean it this way. I think reasonable efforts are being made by the department to ensure compliance with the rules that we lay down, and we lay them down for a good and proper reason. We do not just go to Louisiana-Pacific or the people in the neighbourhood and say, well, we do not like you doing this; therefore, we are going to stop you from doing this, that, or the other thing.

Do not forget there is an assumption here based on research that the material we are talking about is nontoxic. The material we are talking about is not harmful. In larger quantities this material could--nobody said "would"--but could be harmful, and therefore in large concentrations could be harmful. That is why the caution and the rule with respect to not having it close to the water was put into effect.

I think the Agriculture department has been involved in looking at potential other uses for this material, even though it is expected that in time there will not be any more of this material generated because it will be used up in the Louisiana-Pacific process anyway. I think there has been an abundance of caution taken on the part of this department. Where there have been breaches, we have moved to deal with them. I do not know what more the honourable member is suggesting ought to be done.

As a citizen of Manitoba and as a member of this place, the honourable member has raised the issue. She ultimately provided detailed information about location, but we already knew the locations of all the material. If the honourable member knows of some that we do not know about, that would be interesting to me, because then I would have something here to deal with. I would have Louisiana-Pacific not telling us about people who are taking this stuff away. That would be a problem. That would be a lack of co-operation between the company and the department. That would be a problem.

I do not know if the honourable member has some specific questions, or specific locations that we are not aware of. That would be a surprise to me, and I would be happy to do something about that if that were to be the case.

Ms. Wowchuk: Well, the minister is certainly saying something different than he said when I raised the issue, because the minister said they could not check the sites until I identified them, and that is what caused me concern.

Mr. McCrae: Point of order, Mr, Chairman. There may be a wee misunderstanding here. What I was doing with the honourable member was saying, look, I know of the locations, and I do not know of difficulties except in the one case I identified. The honourable member, in my opinion, was holding back some information, certainly initially, and later she came forward with the locations that she was aware of. I do not think I am saying anything different today than I was saying then.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point of order.

Ms. Wowchuk: I would challenge the minister to check some of the comments that he made earlier, because clearly he indicated that they did not know where the sites were, and that is why I am raising the issue. Can the minister indicate then that, before the material was taken off the Louisiana-Pacific site, the Department of Environment was given each one of the sites, and that the department inspected the sites and said that these were okay?

I have no problem with its being used for livestock bedding. The livestock bedding issue has been addressed, and it is suitable for livestock bedding, and farmers are using it for livestock bedding. They quite like it, and that is acceptable. But what I am saying is that there are sites where it is deposited where it is not acceptable, and where we recently had some high spring runoff. These sites were in water, and the guidelines clearly say it must be at least 50 metres away from surface water. So I would ask the minister if it is accurate then that his department checked the sites and gave approval for them before the material was deposited there.

Mr. McCrae: No, Mr. Chairman, and we have never suggested that was done. The honourable member is perhaps assuming that the Environment department inspected every site before it gave approval for each individual site. That was not the way it was, and I never said that to the honourable member either. If the honourable member ever thought that each and every place that this material was going to was the subject of review and examination by the Environment department, she is wrong. I mean, I have never said that, and it would be wrong for her to come to that conclusion.

We allowed this practice to go forward, as a department, based on certain rules being followed. When the honourable member was kind enough to bring forward the instances where she believed there may have been breaches of the rules, that is when we swung into action, which was a perfectly appropriate thing to do.

* (1700)

I think if you examine the thing in that light, you can see where there might have been--there was one location. There may have been another, but when they were brought to our attention, then we put our people to work on it, and not unlike other infractions or alleged infractions, they are reported on and action is taken on them. That is what we have been doing here. But to suggest that we have been out looking at every site where that stuff was going to go is not a correct assumption.

Ms. Wowchuk: Maybe the minister could clarify. He said that you had a list of the sites; you knew where the material was. Can the minister indicate what the process was? Did Louisiana-Pacific, or the contractor who had the contracts to move the material, send in a submission to the Department of Environment? I am just trying to understand what the process was, if they were then moving the material, who made up the list and where was that list registered? Because I have correspondence from the Department of Environment with all of this waste management, nowhere in this correspondence that I received was there a list of the sites that were available, so can the minister just clarify where this list was registered, who registered it.

Mr. McCrae: I guess the one advantage of the Estimates process is we can ask the question more thoroughly, and we can answer the question more thoroughly too.

The department required Louisiana-Pacific to keep records of all persons coming to take material, to keep record of where the material was going to be placed, and also to advise those people, I assume farmers, who come to get this material of what the rules of the placement of this material were to be. That was the arrangement that had been arrived at, so that should any question arise such as the type raised by the honourable member, we were then able as a department to contact Louisiana-Pacific and say, did this material get turned over to Mr. or Mrs. X, and did you advise that person about the rules of this. That was the procedure that was put in place.

So, when I said to the honourable member previously that the department knows where all this stuff is, the only way my department would not know is if Louisiana-Pacific did not disclose the information that it was required to disclose. That would be a somewhat more serious matter, I suggest. If the honourable member is alleging that sort of thing, then, yes, we have got a concern; we have got something to deal with here.

When she suggests a site that is not properly looked after, we will look into it, but the suggestion was that--and I had to talk to many representatives about this--the honourable member was putting across the point that this was highly toxic, noxious, objectionable sort of material. It might be objectionable to the honourable member, but in terms of the science behind it, the level of toxicity is not there to justify the kind of concern the honourable member was raising.

In any event, the sample that she filed in the House one day had a little bit of that strand board in it, and if there were high concentrations of that in a load of stuff--I call it stuff, but we are talking about bark and wood fines that are the byproduct of this operation, or the result, or one of the results of this. If there is a higher concentration of the finished stuff, the finished product in the load and it was too close to the water, sure we have got a genuine concern, something that needs to be handled very seriously.

As it was, I think the department handled the matter very seriously when it was raised by the honourable member, indeed handled it very seriously before it was ever even thought of by the honourable member. The approval for this bedding business had been negotiated throughout the year 1996. There were some verbal approvals in late 1996, and written approvals are pending with regard to uses other than simply livestock bedding. So that is not done yet. But Louisiana-Pacific was responsible for the movement of this waste, and that is the point that we talked about a minute ago, and they will be responsible. To the extent that they are at fault should there be some problem or some inappropriate storage of this material, our recourse is to go back to Louisiana-Pacific, because Louisiana-Pacific is the one that we, as a department, allowed to allow this material to leave their site, but under certain conditions.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that farmers come to the site to pick up the material. That is not quite accurate. Louisiana-Pacific has hired three contractors, and the contractors then come to the site. The contractors come to the site and pick up the material and dispose of it. None of the farmers come there. So then the minister said, I think, that if there was a violation, if there was a problem, it would be Louisiana-Pacific's. There has been some discussion that the contractors are the ones that have some responsibility here because they are the ones that find the location. So the minister is saying that Louisiana-Pacific keeps a list of the sites. My understanding is it is the contractors who find the sites, and so they would then have--I guess I am asking the minister then, does the responsibility in his opinion rest with Louisiana-Pacific or is it the contractors who, once they have the material and move it off the site, have some responsibility as well as to where the material is being deposited?

Mr. McCrae: Any contractor, and my department confirms the honourable member is correct that this is a way that Louisiana-Pacific moves this material, but any contractor contracting with Louisiana-Pacific is simply an agent of Louisiana-Pacific. So our position is that this waste belongs to Louisiana-Pacific, and when we need to do some investigating, we go straight to Louisiana-Pacific who is responsible to keep records as to the disposition of this material. So that is the position we take.

Ms. Wowchuk: I understand that there were some 25 or 26 sites inspected. Can the minister indicate whether the sites that were inspected after I raised the matter in the House, were sites that were presented by Louisiana-Pacific, and can he perhaps provide me with a list of all the sites and a summary of the report, or a copy of the report, because I understand there is a written report that has come to the minister? I would be very interested in seeing the outcome of those inspections and also having a list of the sites that were inspected.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I have seen a list of all of those sites that would be more familiar to the honourable member probably than they are to me, but I am advised that there is no reason why she cannot see that list and go out and check them out all if she wants to.

The point is you can take pictures of something, as the honourable member has already done, and create something of a concern--and maybe she has found out about it locally, the kind of concern that she has raised, probably on both sides of the issue. If this material is, as I am advised--well, relatively, it is nontoxic and nonhazardous, except in higher concentrations and then only to fish.

* (1710)

The obvious concern is about the waterway and appropriate rules have been laid down. When the rules get broken, yes, you want to deal with them, and that is where my concern is on this. I understand that this is a temporary issue, in any event, because this material will ultimately be used up in the process in the longer term. We are not going to keep having this material produced and needing to find a place for it for the long term. So I will look with my department at making that information available to the honourable member. I think she probably knows about a lot of the sites, in any event, but we will make that available to her.

Ms. Wowchuk: I will look for that report from the minister, but the minister keeps referring that this is not a harmful material--

Mr. McCrae: I do not know whose word the honourable member wants me to take, but the chemical analysis of this material is that it is nontoxic. The bark is nontoxic, but runoff from the pile at certain levels of concentration could be toxic to aquatic life, and that is the issue we have addressed. That is the issue we have addressed by insisting that the material be stored away from water courses.

Ms. Wowchuk: As I was beginning to say, the minister refers to this as being no problem with the material, but when Louisiana-Pacific was applying for their licence, they in their own EIA said that it could be--there was leachate in this material in high concentration and could cause problems for aquatic life.

The Department of Environment, in issuing the licence, said that the log yard had to be lined with clay, I think something like 3 metres, and my understanding is that lining this yard cost Louisiana-Pacific millions of dollars. The Department of Environment found it necessary to control the runoff within the yard by lining the log yard, putting in a special pond to control the runoff from this log yard. They even required that the stream, the Sinclair River, be monitored up and downstream to ensure that there are no leachates in the water.

Well, Mr. Chairman, if it was necessary to do that to control leachates, you can understand then why people in the constituency had concerns when they saw it in very large piles--and the minister said that you can play games with pictures. I have absolutely no intention of playing games. I was trying to get some answers for constituents, and it was very obvious, and those piles are still there in places.

The minister talks about them being safe distances from rivers. There will be people in the constituency that differ with the minister on that. If it was necessary to require this kind of expense to control the runoff from the log yard, can the minister not understand then why people would have concerns when this material is then moved into areas where there will be spring runoff, in areas where there are large piles which will have runoffs into the water stream? Does the minister not understand what the concern is from constituents who have said this can wash downstream and then end up affecting the fish in streams?

The department took a very strong stand on making sure that there was no runoff or leachates coming out of the log yard. Then why can the minister not understand why it is a concern to people in the area, when they see it piled in areas, where we would see a risk of the leachates out of this material collecting in spring runoff and ending up in the streams?

Mr. McCrae: I certainly do understand, Mr. Chairman, and, yes, I certainly am concerned. I do not know why the honourable member suggests I am not.

Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister, one of the areas where Louisiana-Pacific--as is my understanding, there was a huge gravel pit that was dug out just a short distance from the mill. Was there an application made to have this material used to fill in this gravel pit, and then covered up with topsoil in order that it could be used as a field? Was this application made, and was it rejected by the department? If it was, why was it rejected?

Mr. McCrae: My department will make inquiries about that. The people with us today are not aware of that and will make inquiries. If it is okay with the honourable member and her colleagues, when we do not have immediately available information, my habit in the past and in other Estimates has been to undertake to make the information available.

Ms. Wowchuk: Of course, that is acceptable. What I am trying to get at here is, my understanding is that the Department of Environment, when they looked at this application to fill in a gravel pit, an old pit and then cover it up with topsoil to make it into a field, the concern was that they could not do this because there would be leachates coming out of it into the waterway. So if there was concern in that particular case and the river was not anywhere close by, I do not know how then there could not be concerns in other areas. That is what I am looking for. Why was one area rejected, and was it rejected?

I understand also that there was an application; they started to apply this material to Crown lands. When it was being put on Crown lands, the department also said, no, that is unacceptable to put it on Crown lands, but in areas where it is more sensitive, there does not seem to be the restriction on it. If the minister and his staff can find that material for me, I would be happy to take it back to constituents who have raised it with me.

Mr. McCrae: As I said to the honourable member, we are going to check that one out. But it needs to be said that it is highly unlikely to be acceptable, any suggestion that filling up a gravel pit anywhere with any material is not likely to be acceptable. Not likely to be, and I do not know that this was ever asked for in this case; that is the part we are going to check.

Ms. Wowchuk: I look forward to that. If it is what has been brought to my attention, if it is unacceptable to fill in a gravel pit--and I agree with the minister--how is it then that it is acceptable to fill in a slough? I have brought this to the minister's attention, this site that is being filled in with chips, a place where cattails are growing. I have gotten a letter back from the minister saying basically that there is not a problem with this site. In this site there is particle board in it; it is not just sawdust. How can the minister say that it is unacceptable to fill in a gravel pit? I agree with him on that one, because it would be a high concentration of material and we could have seepage, and that is what we are trying to control by having the clay lining in the Louisiana-Pacific yard. Then how could it be acceptable to have material used to fill in a slough?

Mr. McCrae: My department, as I told the honourable member, we take legitimate concerns quite legitimately and deal with them that way. The site the honourable member is talking about is a site about which my department is asking some questions and demanding some answers on it. If those answers are not acceptable, that site will have to be changed. That stuff will have to be moved from there, if what the honourable member says is so, No. 1, and if--we want to ensure in this and other cases that come to our attention that the use agreed upon is the use to which it is put--if that is not happening, then the honourable member has a very good point.

* (1720)

Ms. Wowchuk: Indeed, and I am sure the minister's staff, and I hope the minister's staff has checked this out, because the use agreed upon is bedding for livestock. In this particular site, which is a slough where ducks and geese nest, there is a tremendous amount of material put in there. Again, guidelines say "not containing resins." In this site there is material, board that has been broken up, because it is probably not the right quality for sale and it is in the site.

I look forward to hearing from the minister and his staff what is happening with this site and the other ones, because there are others that we have raised. I want to assure the minister that none of these issues have been raised for the sake of mischief. These issues have been raised because people downstream use the water. People are concerned about fish habitat, and they should be. The minister talked earlier in his opening remarks about protecting our environment, and this is a concern. So I look forward to those results.

Mr. McCrae: I know the honourable member is sensitive to what I said at one point about the way she raised this. My only point here is if the concern is as she has just stated it, my office is right here in this building, and the quickest way to get through to me is with the telephone or to come see me, or whatever it is. I do not want to go into it very much because I know it is upsetting here, but--

Ms. Wowchuk: It does not upset me at all, Jim.

Mr. McCrae: It does not upset the honourable member. The process the member used was a somewhat round-about process, in my view, looking at it today, and as I looked at it then. I have always, in all of my years as a minister in this government, responded responsibly and seriously and with appropriate and sensitive concern to issues raised. Whether it had to do with Justice issues or had to do with any of the portfolio responsibilities I have held, I have never, never turned away a member of this Legislature, of whichever party, for bringing forward, in a serious way, concerns that there are. So I needed to say that in response to what the honourable member just said.

Ms. Wowchuk: I can understand what the minister is saying, but I have to tell the minister, too, that these issues were raised, and sometimes when you cannot get somebody to pay attention, you have to use another form. No, I did not raise it directly with the minister, but we have a responsibility and a role in this House, as well, to bring issues that are on our constituents' minds. That is what this House is for, and I am sure that when the minister was a member of the opposition, he also brought issues on behalf of his constituents to this House and did not go to the minister responsible before he raised them. I will do some checking back with previous members to see whether that is accurate, but if that is what the minister did when he was a member of the opposition, I would commend him for taking all of his issues directly to the minister first of all. But I have to assure the minister that I did raise the issue, and he can check the records. I called his department much before I raised it here in the House, and we felt that because it was a sensitive issue for the constituents, we had to raise it.

One of the questions I want to ask as well is that I attended the stakeholders' advisory committee, the citizens' committee where there was a report on this. His department had reported. The people that were making the presentations said that the guidelines they were following for the disbursement of the material was the livestock manure regulation, and I found that quite disturbing to say that the guidelines that--this is not livestock waste. It will be incorporated with livestock waste after it is on the feed lot. So I want to ask how it was that the guidelines on how this material should be distributed--and that is where I understand a measurement of 50 metres from high water came, from the livestock regulations. So how did the department decide that it should be the livestock waste management guidelines that should be used to decide how this material should be distributed when it is not a livestock waste and there have to be guidelines? That is why I was asking whether there are any guidelines for how this material--but it is not livestock waste. I do not think it is acceptable to say that this material will fall under livestock waste. It is material that has to be disposed of. There should be guidelines. There are guidelines in other provinces as to how this waste material should be distributed, but it certainly does not fall under livestock waste.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has made the point, and she is correct that, you know, we all raise our issues in the way we choose to raise them, and sometimes we will raise them directly with the minister, and in the course of doing so, she did acknowledge that never did she raise it directly with me until after her press conference. I agree with the honourable member that there are different ways to raise things. I know from experience in dealing with Howard Pawley, when there was a very serious issue to be raised or he wanted some results, he raised it with the minister. When you want to play politics, you raise it with the CBC or with the House or wherever. I mean, let us put our cards on the table. The honourable member is a politician and so am I, and I know when it is the right time to--when you are really concerned, I will go straight to a minister. When I am really concerned but I want to have some political spin, then there are other ways, and in this case, let us be honest about it, the honourable member chose other ways, and that is the point we agree on. I do not dispute her right to do any of those things, but if you want to get something done, I can tell you, and Howard Pawley can tell you, that when you really in your heart of hearts are quite serious about something and you want to get something done, there is a more responsible way to bring something forward. I have experienced, and Howard Pawley is my witness, a colleague of mine from the southwestern corner of the province and myself were extremely concerned and worried about something. Rather than go to the CBC with it, we went to Howard Pawley who was the Premier of Manitoba at the time, and the matter got resolved very quickly and resolved very well.

Those are just my comments. The honourable member is absolutely right that there are different ways to raise different issues, and I guess that is where the matter stands. She asks about using an agricultural regulation to regulate this material. There is a certain leaching capability, whether you are leaching good stuff or not good stuff. There is a leaching capability in wood bark that is similar to the leaching capabilities of other farm waste materials like straw and manure and those sorts of things.

That is one basis and there is a technical analogy that can be drawn here. It has to do with leaching capability, and that is why this particular reliance was placed on an agricultural type of regulation.

* (1730)

Ms. Wowchuk: I have to ask the minister: Is he saying that because this issue was raised in the House, rather than directly at his office, that he gave it less serious attention than he would have if I would have raised it directly with him? If that is the case, I am appalled that the minister would even say that. This is a serious issue that was brought to his department's attention, not only by myself but by other people in my constituency. Other people phoned in to the department raising this concern and no action was taken. No action was taken by the department to address this.

They said that they inspected the site where the racetrack was built. They did not know. There was no list of sites. The minister is saying that they had a list of sites. I do not think that is true, because when I raised the issue I gave the location of two sites that the material was on. There was no action taken to check out other sites. It is quite disappointing that the minister is saying that this issue deserves less attention, because I raised it in the House rather than coming to him directly. There was not action taken on this as there should have been.

We finally got action after we raised it here in the House. That is when they began to pull back material out of that one site, but they continued to put the material. After we raised it here, they continued to put it in sensitive sites. There is a site by Bowsman that got filled up with water in the spring runoff, and it was a site that the minister's department looked at and said that there was no problem with.

So these are serious issues that we raised with the minister, and I think that it is quite disgusting that the minister would say, well, just because you raised it one way, you raised it here in the House and caused me some embarrassment, we are not going to give it as serious attention as if you would have brought it to our attention. We did bring it to your attention, not only myself, but other people called different people in the department, and the minister should have taken it seriously. Then we would not have had to take the channel that we did.

Mr. McCrae: Much as I respect the honourable member for Swan River and her work in this place, I am not going to let her put words in my mouth. I do take issues seriously, whether they are raised in the House or they are raised privately or in any way they are raised. They are all issues, and any politician works at his or her peril if they do not look very carefully at every issue raised in whichever way it is raised.

I will not let this honourable member put words in my mouth, because I take everything--[interjection] The honourable member is still doing it, Mr. Chairman. She is putting words in my mouth, and I will not let her do that, much as I respect her and her work around here. I just cannot allow that to happen because it is not true, No. 1, and No. 2, no matter how an issue is raised, it is taken extremely seriously. The gentlemen sitting in front of me today could testify, if they could speak in this Chamber, about how seriously I took the issue raised by the honourable member. I was somewhat offended by the way she did it, but offended not for my purposes, because the honourable member sits there day in and day out and tells us how much she supports Louisiana-Pacific and the work it is doing in her constituency and the jobs it is creating and, at the same time, plays the games.

If she was telling me the truth about how serious she is about her support--she tells me that she supports Louisiana-Pacific, and yet she does things throughout the process. I mean, this is nothing new. It is just simply to have the honourable member suggesting in this place that I do not take issues related to the potential contamination of our environment seriously, I simply cannot let her say that and get away with it, because it is not so.

So all I was doing was making a comment about the tactics the honourable member was using. She never once came to me directly. If she had done so, it might have been a little different, but to say that only because she--[interjection] No, it might have been a little different in my comments about the honourable member and her tactics. The issue is there no matter how the honourable member wants to deal with it. She can deal with it responsibly or irresponsibly, and I think in some ways she dealt with it irresponsibly. It is still an issue. It does not make the issue go away just because the honourable member does not know how to deal with it.

The fact is, she has, I suggest, created some problems for herself in her own constituency, and the fact that she wants to spend as much time as she wants to today on the issue tells me that she is somewhat sensitive about the matter; but, when you strip all the politics away, there is still a matter there, there is still an issue there.

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

The honourable member can play the politics her way and I will have to do it my way, but my job in this place and everywhere I go in this province is to do everything proper to protect the environment of our province. So if there is any hint of any veracity in the things the honourable member is saying in the House, I am going to have my department personnel look very seriously at that issue. That is exactly what I have been doing. Where remediation is required, that is what is happening. We are quibbling. I mean, that is what we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, quibbling, but it becomes a personal problem for me when the honourable member wants to put the wrong motives in what I am doing, and I guess she feels the same way when I make suggestions about her. So that is about where we are at. The issue is still an issue and will be dealt with very seriously.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. I am just going to make this comment, that we are into the Estimates of the Department of Environment. I think that we should be discussing the Estimates, and I hope that we can stay on that course. So I now acknowledge the honourable minister.

Mr. McCrae: I hear what you are saying, Mr. Chairman, and I just remind the committee what the honourable member for Swan River said at the beginning. The ordinary critic is the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) had some specific matters that she needed to deal with and then, I take it, will be handing over the reins, as it were, to the member, so I am allowing a fair amount of latitude myself. So, if that is acceptable to you, I think that the honourable member's initial comments were agreeable to me and so, to that extent, there is I think a willingness to allow the honourable member to ask the questions that she needs to get asked before the honourable member for Selkirk takes over as the ordinary critic for Environment, not that the honourable member for Swan River is not extraordinary or anything like that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I thank the honourable minister for those comments, and we will monitor the discussion with the idea of staying on course as far as the Estimates process is concerned.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with the environmental policies of this government, environmental issues, and if I am not on the right line, I hope that you will show some discretion here. As the minister indicated, I wanted to ask my questions before my colleague the member for Selkirk comes in.

The minister has indicated in his comments that this environmental issue that I have raised has caused me some problems in my constituency. I would tell the minister to not worry about my constituency. I am quite capable about my constituency. He has a responsibility to worry about the environmental issues in my constituency, and I hope that he will take them seriously. He gives me his word that he will, but there are still outstanding issues.

The minister talks about my lack of support, or questions my support for Louisiana-Pacific, and I have heard that a few times from members of the government. Louisiana-Pacific has an impact on the environment in my constituency, and it is an area that I will continue to raise issues on. But I can assure the minister that I have met with representatives of Louisiana-Pacific. We have talked about these issues, and I do recognize the importance of the jobs that they create, but I also recognize that there are people outside. Not everybody works at the plant, and we have to ensure a sustainable environment for everybody in the area.

I think if we put those issues aside, I would wait for the minister's answers and hope that I can take assurance that he will address these issues seriously.

* (1740)

I want to ask again, related to the disposing of this material, in the guidelines put forward by the government, it says there is a maximum thickness, that the material cannot exceed 4 inches, and this is in the area for road closures. It cannot exceed 4 inches. When I look at guidelines from other provinces, it is also a very limited thickness that this material can be spread. So then, if there are restrictions on the thickness that it can be spread on roads, and the material cannot be stockpiled for future use, why was that same restriction not applied in other areas that the material is being spread? Why would you have a restriction on roads, but not have a restriction in other areas, and again, in areas where there would be a risk of water contamination?

Jim, different section? If I need somebody else to answer these questions, is it the wrong place to answer them?

Mr. McCrae: No. The honourable member wonders if we are asking this in the right place. Technically, probably not, but that is the issue that you raised, Mr. Chairman, and I do not feel very constrained by that if there is agreement between the members that she can ask it and I can answer it. I am going to try and answer it.

The part about roads is almost an engineering issue, as opposed to an environmental one, although there are environmental aspects to it. If you pile this material onto a road too thickly, then as it is compacted or pushes out to the sides--

Ms. Wowchuk: They are closing roads. It does not matter.

Mr. McCrae: What was that?

Ms. Wowchuk: You are closing the road, so it does not matter. You are using material to close--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. I would just remind the members that the Estimates process is a time to ask and answer questions, not for dialogue back and forth. It is important that this information is put on the record, so I have recognized the honourable minister to respond to the questions.

Mr. McCrae: Sometimes microphones and machinery do not adapt to the kind of dialogue that sometimes, I think, the honourable member and I would like to have. Nonetheless, I will finish what I am going to say, and then we will try to remember what you have said, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe I should stop and let the honourable member explain a little further, but what happens, as I understand it, is that you do not want to have it in logging roads, in thicknesses that go beyond what is appropriate from an engineering standpoint, to bear the weight of what is going over it and all of that. It is for those kinds of reasons that these parts of it are found in these types of regulations, but I think I will maybe hope the honourable member can give me some more--[interjection] Oh, okay.

Here is a note, that the logging roads are not open to the public in any event, if that is what the honourable member is referring to. These are not public roads we are talking about, in any event.

Ms. Wowchuk: That was what I was saying. These are not public roads that are being built. It is material piled on roads and temporary access roads. So they are putting them on the road after. They are not access roads anymore, so I could not understand you would restrict it only to 4 inches there but not restrict it in other areas. That is my concern, that you have no regulations to restrict the amount of material that is allowed to be put on for livestock bedding. Particularly in places in some of the sites where it is piled very deep, yet you are restricting the depth of it in other areas, that is where the lack of consistency is. That is the concern that I have. How can you allow, close to a waterway, the material to be piled up 3, 4 feet high, but then you have a guideline restricting it on a road?

Mr. McCrae: I now understand the honourable member's question a little better. Certainly these uses are not in any way consistent, so that you would not have the same rules applying to the different uses. One is a logging road. That is why, as I have tried to explain, there is going to be heavy equipment travelling over it and whatnot, so we are talking more of an engineering issue in this case than we are an environmental one.

With regard to storage of this stuff to be used for animal bedding, that is a different use altogether, which would explain any inconsistency, I think.

Ms. Wowchuk: I do not think that that is exactly right, because I think the concern would be that when you have a large pile of material that you would have leachates coming out of it. The restrictions in load, you are restricting the material in water areas when you are using it to road access and you are restricting the thickness of it, but when you come to the agricultural land, you are not restricting the thickness of it.

My question is: Do you not have concern about seepage and leachates from the runoff in these areas, which I would assume is the concern on the road area as well?

Mr. McCrae: The issue of leaching is the important issue here that we are addressing. During the wintertime, of course, the issue of leaching is not as acute as it is when springtime arrives and when things start melting and seeping into the ground and those things that naturally occur as the seasons change. It is, we are advised, safer, if this material has to exist at all, to be piled rather than spread, initially at least until any harmful effects of leaching would pass over a period of time, but if you were to start out taking it from the Louisiana-Pacific site and spreading it out, that is the issue that is still being looked at, because it is felt initially, at least by some, that it is a safer thing for the environment to pile it rather than to spread it out. That is the initial advice that has been provided.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding from the correspondence that I have seen that the application for wood waste to agricultural land has been referred to the Department of Agriculture for review before the approval is being given. Can the minister indicate whether there has been any discussion or whether there is any information, any work has been done by the Department of Agriculture to address this and whether any recommendations have come back to the Department of Environment with respect to the application of this wood waste on agricultural land?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, the matter the honourable member raises has been referred to Manitoba Agriculture for their opinion on this, and we have not yet received that opinion in order to work it into any regulatory process that we would have. So we await that just as the honourable member does.

* (1750)

Ms. Wowchuk: I only have one more question on this area. It is my understanding that one or two people in the constituency have brought to the minister's attention, asked that some of the sites that have had material deposited on them be probed for a sampling to look for other material in them. I ask the minister whether that has been given any consideration.

Mr. McCrae: Does the honourable member mean probing on the ground beneath where this material is or in the material itself?

Ms. Wowchuk: It is my understanding that the request has been made that in a couple of the sites where there is material to quite a depth that there has been concern that material that does not meet the guidelines has been deposited, and a request has come to the Department of Environment to probe these sites to look at whether or not contaminated material has been put into them. This is what I have been told, and this information has gone to the department. I am wondering whether any direction has been given to follow up on this request by a constituent.

Mr. McCrae: I am trying to understand. But is the honourable member saying that there is the suggestion that someone is hiding something inside the pile and covering it up with the more acceptable type of material and putting less acceptable material in the middle of the pile? Is that the suggestion?

Ms. Wowchuk: That is my understanding as to what has been reported to the minister's department.

Mr. McCrae: I was looking at my officials on this, but the ones that we have here today are not aware of the call or the complaint. Nonetheless, three sites have been probed in the way suggested by the honourable member, and whatever they were probing for or whatever they might have suspected did not turn out to be there. But, as I say, we are not aware in this Chamber whether any such complaint or suggestion has come forward. We will check our records on that.

Ms. Wowchuk: I was going to ask whether the information, on those sites that had been probed, had been relayed back to the person that had raised the issue with the minister, but it does not seem that has been done and I would ask that the minister follow up on that. It was a call that came to my office, and I had suggested that they just direct it to the department and raise it and I am sure that the department will follow up on that one.

Mr. McCrae: We will indeed. Simply because I do not know about it or the officials in the Chamber today do not know about it does not mean the call was not made or that it was not received by somebody in the department, and we indeed will look into that matter.

Ms. Wowchuk: I want to thank the minister for the information that he has provided on this particular issue. As I have said to the minister, it is one that has caused people concern and I would suggest, and I am sure that we will never have to use, as the minister said, it was a short-time problem, and I hope that we do not see the same kind of waste material again.

Louisiana-Pacific has said that they are using most of the material, but I would suggest that perhaps, whether it be through the Department of Agriculture or through the Department of Environment, when these kinds of issues arise and we have to be doing something, and the minister knows it is a sensitive issue, that if this happens again, that we try to, and the department of Environment or Agriculture take the opportunity to put some information out. We do it all the time. There are press releases on lots of things, and the Department of Environment puts out lots of information to make the public aware of what is going on.

So I think when this kind of matter arises again that there be some information put out, so that the public is aware of it. Even with the idea of using it for livestock bedding, I have no objection. If it is a good material to use for livestock bedding, then let us put some information out that is positive or gives the people of the area the information that they require, so that there is not uncertainty. Put the information out for the people downstream that are saying, yes, this material is being deposited in such and such areas. You do not have to worry. It is not going to contaminate your water supply. No, it is in a small enough concentration; yes, this material has been tested and there are no resins in it.

I would ask the minister if he would consider something like this. I think that we have to do a lot more on educating the public, and when there are things that are being done wrong, bring those people into line but keep the public informed. On this particular issue, when this material was being deposited in the way that it was, people found it objectionable. It did not fit in with what they were told was going to happen.

I think it is in the best interests of everybody involved that if there is a way to get information out and give the people more knowledge, we could avoid some of these things. So I would ask the minister if he thinks that there is a way that this could be addressed that we could get the information out to people. As I say, when there are negatives as well, there have been sites that have had to be cleaned up. There is one that is causing a serious problem, but somehow we have to make the public more aware of what is going on.

Louisiana-Pacific, for their part, they used to put out a newsletter, sort of a good news, everything that was going on. We have not seen that newspaper for a while, so maybe it is partly their responsibility, but I think that there is some responsibility with the Department of Environment, since it is the Department of Environment that issues the licences. The licence is coming up for review again and will have to be issued, but somehow make the public aware that things that are happening are aboveboard, and there is not going to be a problem for them in years to come.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I can see the problem the honourable member is attempting to address, and it is always a good idea to be on the proactive side when it comes to sharing information or keeping a community informed or whatever. Obviously, the company has a role in this regard to play, and I invite the company, obviously, to look at the comments the honourable member has made.

When it comes to all of this good news stuff and everything, I like good news as much as anybody, but as a regulatory agent in this particular scenario, I would never want my department to be seen in any way as a proponent. We are the regulator and that is our proper role. So whatever public information my department gets involved in has to be what is the right thing to do for the environment, and our citizens' understanding of the environment it is not. I may have my personal opinions about this, that or the other thing, but it is not the role of Manitoba Environment to be on one side or the other politically of a particular issue. We like to be those people who safeguard the environment. So you cannot really get on any one side of an issue except the right side when it comes to the protection of the environment.

The role that is appropriate for my department to play in terms of public information, I accept that and would read over the honourable member's words again to see what role I might be able to pluck from that for the department. But there is a role for all of us and Louisiana- Pacific included.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. The hour being six o'clock, committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): The hour being after 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).