* (1440)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Gerry McAlpine): Good afternoon. Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Environment. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

We are on Resolution 31.1 Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits--$333,300. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I have not had the opportunity to just congratulate the minister on his appointment to the Environment department. I am going to do so now.

In terms of an opening comment, I know there have been some words put on the record by my colleagues, the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). Although, unfortunately our time is limited, I do not think I will. I will dispense with that, but I do have a number of questions I would like to raise with the minister regarding the state of our environment.

I would like to begin by just asking him, of course, the most pressing concern of all Manitobans at this moment is the high water we are facing because of the flooding of the Red River. It has been alluded to by the minister in a question asked in this House, and as well in a ministerial statement today from the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), about the impacts that this high water will have on the environmental situation here in Manitoba.

I just wanted to ask the minister just a general question, if he could just enlighten us as to the impacts as he foresees them to be and just what action his department is taking to both monitor it and to deal with some of the very serious consequences that will be a result of this high water. We know that the area that was flooded was a very broad area here in Manitoba, some prime agricultural land, as well as wilderness areas. Although we recognize that the flooding that is occurring currently is a natural event, still it will have negative impacts, I would suggest, on a number of the ecosystems here in the province. I just want to ask him if he could make a general statement about the flooding and the effects that it will have on our environment.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Mr. Chairman, the resumption of these Estimates occurs at quite an appropriate time, because my honourable member's question is so very relevant right now as we begin in Manitoba to see the beginnings of receding waters. Of course, nature can deal us environmental blows, the like of which you do not normally see, obviously. We can make a lot of efforts to be good stewards of our environment, and then disaster can strike or this type of crisis can happen. The honourable member will, of course, realize no doubt the reason for his question, that there are indeed environmental impacts when this type of flooding occurs.

* (1450)

The work of the Department of Environment in a time like this becomes something more intense than you might normally see. As we see communities moving back home and people who were evacuated moving back into areas that were either flooded or within close distance of flood waters, water issues, the safety of the drinking water supply, the domestic water supply, is of a very significant concern, so testing of water supplies would certainly be doubled up significantly to keep a close eye.

The Deputy Minister of Environment was spoken to about this recently and gave some information which I might repeat for the honourable member. Our monitoring is underway both upstream and downstream of Winnipeg. Samples are taken from various locations, certainly Emerson and occasional samples from the Letellier water treatment plant. We are doing this monitoring to ensure that water treatment facilities that are still operating in the flooded valley are able to continue to provide safe water and to ensure that by the end of the flood we have good information on any water quality changes that might have occurred.

I can give a brief overview of some of the results so far. We have only one detection of a pesticide--that would be trace levels of 2-4-D, and that would be at Emerson--a somewhat elevated fecal coliform bacteria count and relatively high turbidity or suspended sediment concentrations.

Specifically about temperature and the impact of colder temperatures, water temperatures are presently at about seven to eight degrees Celsius. Cold temperatures have the effect of lengthening the period of breakdown for some of the pesticides if they are present in the water. Colder temperatures are likely responsible for slowing the decay of the large amount of organic material that is being moved into the water, thus not reducing dissolved oxygen levels as we have seen in other high rainfall or late spring flood situations. There is some livestock in the water, and these cold temperatures might well delay decomposition of the livestock.

The main areas of concern, I will repeat for the honourable member. I think the highest priority would be drinking water. We are watching for hazardous chemicals that may have been part of the flood waters or joined with the flood waters. We are very mindful of biological contamination coming from dead animals and sewage overflows and that type of thing, and generally speaking, even though these might be seen as Department of Natural Resources issues, we, as a Department of Environment, are also concerned about the impacts on wildlife and their habitat.

The honourable member might have something more specific, but certainly, as the waters recede, that is the time for the Environment department to get into super-high gear with respect to very careful monitoring, so that they, working with Health department officials, can issue the appropriate warnings and orders to people, should that be necessary. I have no doubt that in some areas it will come down to, if not orders, then certainly warnings about the appropriate way to handle water supplies. There again, we will keep testing and monitoring very carefully, so that any water that is being used by Manitobans either will be safe or the appropriate measures taken.

Mr. Dewar: I would like to thank the minister for that answer. In your answer, you mention that the department is monitoring. Can you tell me where the tests are being taken?

Mr. McCrae: Samples, Mr. Chairman, are taken from various locations. Certainly we know Emerson and Letellier, south of the Perimeter, north of the Perimeter, and I understand a test was taken near Selkirk as well, and there will be more in the future.

Mr. Dewar: The minister mentioned that there were some traces of fecal coliform that were detected. Do you have a figure as to the level of coliform that has been detected?

Mr. McCrae: I reported that there were somewhat elevated readings of fecal coliform. With respect to the specific readings, I think that is something we can retrieve. We can gather that up for the honourable member and make further information available to him. We do not have it at our fingertips.

Traces of fecal coliform were elevated approximately 200 micrograms per gram. If the honourable member checks with his specialists, he will probably find that higher readings might be a problem, but at these levels it is not seen to be a matter for alarm at this point.

Mr. Dewar: Another concern which could increase those numbers is the possibility of any backup in the Winnipeg sewage system, and there was a concern last week. It was reported in the media that there were a number of homes in the city of Winnipeg that were vulnerable to city backup because of the age and nature of the sewage system. Has the minister detected or is he aware of any backup of those systems, and is he aware of any cases of raw sewage being discharged into the Red at this time?

Mr. McCrae: I will give the honourable member an answer which might sound a little technical to him and I, but this is the reporting done by the City of Winnipeg to our department as would be required. It deals with the operation of waste water treatments in the city of Winnipeg during the flood crisis.

Manitoba Environment has been advised by the City of Winnipeg that the operations of waste water treatment facilities within the city have indeed been impacted due to high water levels in the Red River. The impact of these high water levels is that the hydraulic capacities of outfalls at two of our three water pollution control centres have been diminished to the point that in order for waste water flows to be adequately conveyed to the river, portions of the waste water treatment facilities have been shut down. I can give the honourable member some specifics.

The North End Water Pollution Control Centre is operating in such a way that the waste water receives screening, grit removal and primary treatment only. The South End Water Pollution Control Centre is operating such that the waste water receives screening and grit removal only. The West End Water Pollution Control Centre is fully operational with waste water receiving screening and grit removal, primary and secondary treatment, which is, I believe, the normal operation of such a pollution control centre.

This is expected to continue until such time as the river levels have receded to a point that hydraulic capacity of the outfalls has been returned to a suitable operating range.

Information respecting the instruction of residents on sewer backup has been prepared and has been advertised in detail on the flood channel, Channel 11. Information bulletins have been distributed to city residents and rural municipal offices. The honourable member needs to realize, as I have been advised, that there is some good and some not so good when it comes to high water levels. One of the things about high volumes of water is, there is a dilution factor that is greater than you would see under normal circumstances. You have a greater flow that moves that stuff along, but it also, with the higher volumes of water, dilutes the contamination to such that the levels are like what I have reported to the honourable member.

* (1500)

In fact, they expected when they were taking those readings that I referred to earlier, they were expecting higher readings than what there were so, in a sense, this is somewhat of a relief. We need to keep a very close eye on the condition of the river water because of the concerns that the honourable member and his constituents and everybody else along the river would have.

Mr. Dewar: Of course, as the minister knows, the Red, as it flows north, eventually finds its way into Lake Winnipeg. I am sure he is aware, there are a number of recreational opportunities in that area, both swimming and boating and so on in Grand Beach and Winnipeg Beach and a number of other beaches in that area. It was reported, I believe it was a couple of years ago, in '94 or '95 about the high levels of fecal coliform that was detected in the beaches at that time.

Do you foresee any impact upon the opportunities for people to enjoy those areas this summer? I assume we are going to get a summer. I know that many individuals use those beaches in those areas. I am just wondering if you can reassure them that in fact the water in that area will be safe to swim in and to boat in and so on.

Mr. McCrae: Well, I am sure the honourable member will agree with me, at this moment at least, Manitobans are thinking of matters other than recreation but, nonetheless, we are looking forward to better times. There is no doubt about that. In order for us to realistically do that we need to be mindful about the condition of lake and beach waters. We will be doing lake and beach monitoring on a regular basis this summer.

It is just too early for me to say to the honourable member what the forecast might be because testing, I take it, has been concentrated more with a view to ensuring the safety of the drinking water supply at this particular point. On a routine basis, this kind of testing is--lake and beach monitoring is done in any event. I know that in previous years, nonflood years, there have been reasons at various places to be concerned about fecal coliform levels, and it has resulted in warnings. Sometimes no-swim areas have been the result even in nonflood years. We are not sure necessarily to what to attribute those counts, whether it is from the Red River source or some other source. So all we can do is do the lake and beach monitoring that has been done and perhaps step it up this summer, but today it is just simply too early for me to be able to say to Manitobans at what point swimming might be permitted or safe at any particular beach in Manitoba.

Mr. Dewar: When I focused on this department in the past, I used I think a very good source in terms of environmental issues, and that, of course, is the State of the Environment Report for Manitoba. Now, I have the 1995 one, and I believe typically it is released in the spring two years after the other one was released. I was just wondering when we can expect that report and what will be the focus of the new 1997 State of the Environment Report.

Mr. McCrae: As we speak, Mr. Chairman, this report work is being done. However, like almost every other department, our personnel are very much preoccupied these days like everybody else seems to be, but I am informed that we expect to see that report available early in the month of June.

Mr. Dewar: The 1995 report focused on agriculture and the impact that had on our environment. What will be the focus of the 1997 report?

Mr. McCrae: The overall sustainability of the prairie ecosystem would be the focus of the 1997 State of the Environment Report for Manitoba.

Mr. Dewar: In the 1995 report, it states that the department is moving toward environmental indicators, it says here, similar to the cost of living or the gross national product to show the significance of an activity and its impact on the surrounding environment. This is from the 1995 State of the Environment Report. Can you tell us today how far have you come along in establishing those environmental indicators?

Mr. McCrae: I think it would be fair to say pretty good progress has been made in this area since the department has been working with the International Institute for Sustainable Development on sustainable indicators, and there will be good reference to that in the 1997 report. So I think good progress has been made, and it will be borne out when the report becomes available.

Mr. Dewar: I will look forward to reading the report. I find it to be a very useful document. In terms of the distribution of the document, how wide is the circulation for the report?

Mr. McCrae: Overall distribution amounts to about 5,000, and that includes all those the department would identify as having particular interest in the contents of the report. But every school library in Manitoba and every other library in Manitoba receives copies.

I will just invite the honourable member, if he knows of some agency or organization that is not on the list and might usefully be on the list, we would certainly consider that. [interjection]

Mr. Dewar: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) would like us to pass this, yet I was raising concerns about the quality of the Red River. It was not that long ago that he was out there testing the quality of the Red River first-hand. I recall watching him take that dip in the Red, and I am glad that he survived that experience.

We will talk a little bit about the waste management and recycling and so on for a few moments. I read your opening comments and am interested in the issue of recycling and waste management, and, of course, there was a goal established in, I guess, it was 1988 to reduce waste by 50 percent by the year 2000. We are fast approaching the year 2000, and I guess my question is: How far are we along in achieving that goal of 50 percent?

* (1510)

Mr. McCrae: I certainly appreciate the comments about the Minister of Agriculture who has demonstrated for more than 30 years that not only does he have convictions, but he has the courage of those convictions. He has demonstrated to all Manitobans many times his commitment not only to the environment but also to the healthy viability of industry and agriculture working within a sustainable environment. So I am pleased that the honourable member has recognized that about the honourable Minister of Agriculture, as have I for many years. He continues to be an inspiration to myself.

The question the honourable member asks about reduction of pollutants by the year 2000, we think that we are making reasonable progress. The commitment, the honourable member needs to remember, so does everybody, is that it was a national goal. Manitoba was a strong player in the development of that as a goal, and I do hope that across this country we achieve the goal that we set out to. We are a little over halfway to achieving it in Manitoba. Again, though, I think it needs to be remembered that part of that national consensus included provinces which are greater polluters than the province of Manitoba, so the starting point for Manitoba was probably further along than many other provinces to begin with. So I think that it could probably be said that Manitoba is making very good progress towards its goal, but other provinces have to make a considerable effort in the next two or three years to bring their part of the control of pollutants into line with the kind of commitment that has been made by all of Canada.

Mr. Dewar: But what percentage are we at the moment? I just want to know how far we have come so far, and will we meet that goal that was set nationally? Will Manitoba meet that goal that was set nationally by the year 2000 in terms of reducing 50 percent of the waste?

Mr. McCrae: I am advised that by the year 1995 we had achieved a reduction of approximately 20 percent of pollutants and that today we would be in the range of 28-29 percent reduced to this point.

Mr. Dewar: I do encourage the government to continue with that and hope they do meet that goal.

I am interested in the 2-cent environmental levy on nondeposit beverage containers, and, of course, that is being used to fund environmental programs or recycling programs in this province. I would like to know if the minister can give us an update in terms of that particular fund and if there is a surplus in the fund or whatever and just let us know, enlighten us as to the status of that fund.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I will be tabling in the House the report of the Manitoba Product Stewardship board and that will contain the kind of information the honourable member wants to see. I hope it contains information he wants to see, but what it shows is that the expenditures under the program are now matching the revenues so that we are not developing or accumulating a surplus anymore. The result of that is going a long way towards the achievement of what the honourable member was asking about in his last questions.

Through this levy and the work done as a result of this levy, the reduction of pollutants has decreased very, very significantly. It has been a large part of the decrease in pollution in Manitoba since 1988 where the honourable member's question started. It should be said that a very large leap will also be made when a long-scale composting of organics takes place and this is something that is being promoted by my department. But, certainly, that levy has made a big difference as well as the whole issue of the Stewardship Tire. Stewardship progress has been made there. Recently, we have made steps, significant ones, towards the development of a program for used oil and containers and oil filters.

So we keep moving in the right direction. I am sure that it could be said it could be done quickly. If one wanted to be critical, that could be said, but I think we are making good progress.

Mr. Dewar: The issue of the levy and the fact that the levy is taxed is an issue that has been raised before. Does the minister have any comment on that? You pay the 2-cent levy and then on that you have to pay the PST or the GST--I assume mostly it would be the GST that you would pay on that-- so in fact the government does receive additional revenue from the levy.

I guess the question is: Is he aware of that? Has he done anything about that?

Mr. McCrae: Yes, I am aware of it and, no, I have not done anything about it. The reason I have not done anything about it is that initially I had thought that maybe the honourable member should address this question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), but then I realized that the taxation on the levy also winds up in the revenue stream of the Manitoba Product Stewardship board, which is the right place to have it. The money is being used for something that I think we all support.

So, until or unless there is a change in that thinking, I realize it is a tax on--what some might call a tax; it is a levy. It is a tax on that, but it goes to the same place. It does not go into general revenue and then stay there. It ends up being used constructively throughout Manitoba by the partners of the Manitoba Product Stewardship board.

Mr. Dewar: Last year I attended a conference in Portage regarding recycling. It was sponsored by the government. At that time there was concern that the prices of recyclable goods, certain products, in particular paper, was in a bit of a down cycle at that time, but I have not been made aware of what the situation is recently. Could you enlighten us as to the market for recyclables and how that market has sustained itself or in what position it is in this fiscal year?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that this market, like some other markets, is cyclical in nature. It is subject to highs and lows, and it is at a lower ebb at this moment. That just reflects ordinary market forces and not much else but ordinary market forces.

* (1520)

Mr. Dewar: Also at that conference I had a chance to take in a seminar sponsored by an individual from the ministries of environment and energy from the Province of Ontario. They had an information package there. I sent away and received some more. It was entitled "Business Opportunities for Recyclable Materials" sponsored by the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Has the minister had a chance to look at some of this information that is provided by other jurisdictions in terms of enhancing opportunities for businesses for recycling?

Mr. McCrae: There is a wealth of information coming out of other jurisdictions and a wealth being generated here as well. Obviously, officials in my department would be aware of and will have seen the type of information the honourable member is referring to. I simply hope that other jurisdictions are looking to Manitoba on occasion for an example too because in some areas we certainly have been able to set an example for them. So, if there is something specific flowing from that information to which the honourable members refers that leads to some kind of new policy direction that he might like to urge on us, I am obviously interested in knowing what that is so that my colleagues within the department here can have a look at that. So we kind of await something maybe a little more specific from the honourable member.

One of the mandates of the stewardship corporation is market development for recyclables, and I think they have been doing their work in that area. Certainly, the Pine Falls Paper projects flowing from that operation would be evidence of the work of the corporation, and there are some pretty good success stories.

Mr. Dewar: In one of your answers you mentioned, and again it was an item that was raised at that conference last year, and that is working to develop a Used Oil Stewardship program. Can you enlighten us now as to how you plan on funding that program and maybe enlarge a little bit about the program in general?

Mr. McCrae: It was only a couple of weeks ago that a regulation was passed by the government allowing for further steps to be taken in the development of a used oil recycling program in Manitoba. We expect to see that program taking shape in a real way come fall of this year. If the honourable member, in the interests of time, would prefer, I can have a written response drawn up for him giving him the whole picture of how we seem to be proceeding, but we have to be careful at this point because not all of the program has been put together. Simply put, Manitoba wants to have one, because there is too much used oil that is being lost on us, and we want to put an end to that.

We expect this program to be funded through the industry. We expect that they will determine the type of levy that is required and, of course, the simple competition will determine how much of that levy or how much of that cost will have to be passed on to the consumer, but the leadership has been shown before I got here. I am fortunate to be the one to preside over the further development of this program. We will certainly benefit. We have already got good co-operation on the use of oil on our roads, so that will make more oil available to the program for recycling. I would be quite happy to lay out for the honourable member a more complete answer in writing if that would be useful to the honourable member.

Mr. Dewar: Thank you, I await that. That would be very useful. An issue that was raised, it was raised in the media, and maybe the minister could just deal with it here, and that would be the former site of the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management facility. I guess it is down in the R.M. of Montcalm, and there was concern that it could be threatened by high water. Could the minister just assure the House today that there is no risk of that facility being overtaken by the Red River?

Mr. McCrae: I think with the water receding, Mr. Chairman, we can give the honourable member that assurance and everybody else who would be concerned that water might be washing over this contaminated soil.

Back on March 27--was that not the date that they made their report, their plan?--Miller hazardous products company filed its plan with the department. It has required that certain products on the site be removed or placed at a high level so that it would not be affected by the water. The only remaining issue had to do with the contaminated soil that was there.

It is the driest spot in the area, I am told by colleagues. The honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) and myself had an opportunity to be down in that area, but we did not fly over the site, we flew over another one and maybe thought it was the site, but it was not the site, because we would have noticed that all the implement dealers parked their millions of dollars worth of farm machinery there, Clif. The site we thought was Miller Waste was not. We would have known because it is the driest spot in the area. All the implement dealers have been parking their equipment there to keep it dry, so I can give the honourable member for Selkirk the assurance he is looking for, other than the local water that would be there through rainfall or runoff or whatever, not runoff but melting snow, would be there, but flood waters did not drench the site, which is a great relief no doubt to many.

* (1530)

Mr. Dewar: I thank the minister for that answer. I am interested in discussing an issue that is of concern to myself as the member for Selkirk and representing the area of the R.M. of West St. Paul and that was the ground water pollution in the area, or the Rockwood area, and as the minister is aware there were concerns that the very real fact that the ground water was contaminated by some solvents and the solvents were used at the Bristol Aerospace propellant plant and if he recalls that, that whole debate and that whole issue. If he could just give us a bit of an update as to the level of contamination in that area, so the constituents in St. Andrews and Rockwood and Rosser and West St. Paul, individuals that live in that area, can be reassured. I understand of course that a number of them that were in the more seriously affected areas have their water piped in, but there are still a number of individuals who live on the periphery of that. Maybe you can just give us an update. Has it been monitoring that contamination? Is the contamination area growing? Is he still monitoring it?

I recall years ago, I guess it was '91-92 when the issue first surfaced, that I asked the minister at that time if he would test the artesian wells that are very prevalent in that Oak Hammock Marsh or the St. Andrews bog as it is commonly called, or locally called, if he had a chance to test those wells, because I know my family live in that general area and other families in the area, they often use those artesian wells as their source of drinking water. I do not know if those wells are ever tested for the contaminants, but maybe you could just comment on that.

Mr. McCrae: Here is another case, Mr. Chairman, where I think a more complete answer should follow our discussion, by something by way of in writing from myself to the honourable member. One of the major concerns here with respect to the contamination is that might it be moving? That would be a concern and that is something we will follow up with the honourable member and give him a report on that. It is the subject of some frequent check by the Department of Environment, and I will bring the honourable member up to date on that shortly after these Estimates and in writing.

Mr. Dewar: The last session we passed The Contaminated Site Remediation Act. Now would that act have an impact upon the remediation of the site in terms of who is responsible and who will be paying for it, both for the remediation and for the significant cost of providing drinking water to the residents?

Mr. McCrae: We will undertake to make a response available to the honourable member as to the effect that the new act would have on this particular site and what requirements the new act might impose.

Mr. Dewar: Following on the issue of ground water, I think it is probably one of the more serious environmental issues that we face as Manitobans, the issue of ground water, both the quality and the quantity of ground water. The majority of rural Manitobans rely upon ground water as their source. The city of Winnipeg, of course, relies upon Shoal Lake for their drinking water, but I would suggest even open water would be affected by ground water and the various impacts that civilization has upon ground water.

Has the minister been monitoring ground water? Is he satisfied that there is strong enough legislation in place to preserve safe drinking water and safe ground water for Manitobans?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, under ordinary circumstances, I think it could be said that we have taken appropriate steps thus far in our history to protect the water supply wherever it happens to be for now and for the future. Sustainability is all wrapped up in that to ensure that we do not do things today that holds future generations hostage to our irresponsibility. It is so much like other areas where care must be taken. It is maybe trite to say it, but too much care can never be taken. We need to be ever vigilant, and that is going to be the key to the success of this generation, the next one and the one after that, the respect we show for our ecosystem, and that includes water.

To be asked if I am satisfied, I am not used to answering that I am ever satisfied. The reason being is there are too many possibilities for human beings to make mistakes in the future and for human beings' legislation to continue to require improvement in the future. So by saying I am satisfied, I rule out improvement, and I am not about to do that. So I think the watchword here is vigilance and always to invite the honourable member and his colleagues, when they become aware of problems or when they become aware of weak links in the chain of environmental protection, to bring those forward. It is a welcome exercise. It is not always politically welcome to find out where your weak links are, but it is always good for everybody to find out where they are so we can do something about it.

So that is the kind of answer I would give under any circumstances, no matter how good I thought the officials in the department are, or how committed the people in the department are in safeguarding our environment. I will continue to challenge them just as the honourable member would continue to challenge me.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, is the minister prepared or is he looking at establishing water quality objectives for aquifers or maintaining an inventory of the ground water resources or increasing public education on the importance of ground water? You know, when you consider that 24 percent of Manitobans rely on ground water for their water supply, and we see the very serious impacts that one simple little--well, not simple--but one act of carelessness can have on the ground water supply when you think about what happened in the Rockwood area and how that contaminated that major aquifer in that area and the hardship it caused the residents there and the expense that it is costing all of society and governments to remediate, I just wonder, does he think there is some more that he can do, and if he does have specific plans in place, can he tell the House those today?

* (1540)

Mr. McCrae: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) steps into this committee from time to time. I know that he and his water services branch are very concerned with the issues raised in a question today by the honourable member. The Department of Environment serves as a department to more or less make sure that compliance takes place with standards set for the human consumption of water. In terms of overall quantity and quality of water, we look to the water services branch of Natural Resources to make sure standards are adhered to.

I am not sure if I am getting right at the honourable member's question in a sense that I will go back to what I said earlier. Any kind of contamination, I think it can safely be said, is too much contamination. Therefore, we want to keep moving towards ensuring that contamination does not begin but, where it has begun, that all reasonable steps are taken to remediate the situation and to continue under the concepts of sustainable development to ensure that water supplies are not impacted in a way that is contrary to the principles of sustainability.

So it is that kind of an answer. I do not know if the honourable member expected much of a different one, but my department works very closely with the water resources people of Natural Resources and with Agriculture people to ensure water supplies, wherever they may be, are the best that we can make them. And, yes, there are benchmarks obviously for the use of water by human beings.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask a couple of questions as well about waste management. As we have the increase in hog production and a movement towards larger operations and larger facilities, there is a concern about whether or not there is a sufficient land base to properly apply the manure. I would ask the minister if he can tell us whether or not this is a concern for his department and whether the minister is looking at how this can be better addressed and what the land-base requirement is? Have steps been taken to ensure that before a facility is built that there is an adequate land base to ensure that there is not too much of a concentration of manure waste on a particular piece of land resulting in future environmental and water problems?

Mr. McCrae: Clearly livestock waste is a matter of interest and concern. As my colleague and his partners in agriculture move to expand production in Manitoba, we have to ensure that the proper infrastructure is there so that what my colleague wants to achieve is done in a sustainable way. As part of all of that, there has been a review going on of our livestock waste regulation, lots of discussions, lots of meetings, lots of questionnaires and lots of answers. That is a process that is under review now. It may well be that changes will be made.

Meanwhile, while we are doing all of this, the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and others report to me from time to time of new and emerging technologies which render livestock waste issues somewhat less of a concern than they would have been had it not been for advances in technology.

Now, I hope the honourable member is not going to get me going on all of those advances, because I am still learning about them. The handling of hog manure, for example, has been the subject of a lot of work by experts and agriculture people, and, obviously, environmental people have been following that process very carefully.

I am not proceeding as if it were a fait accompli and that hog manure, for example, is no longer containing nutrients that we do not want or that there is no harm at all, because I think we have to work with what we have. What we have is the concern raised by the honourable member. That is why the livestock waste regulation is under review and is being reviewed by many.

I think I mentioned to the honourable member previously, or maybe it was on the radio program I was on recently, that I met with the Keystone Agricultural Producers. Their concerns are very much like the honourable member's and like mine; they do not want their members breaching regulations. So where enforcement is required, they want that to happen, and so do I. That will produce better producers if we all take the attitude that KAP has taken with me in my meeting with them. That is the best assurance we have that there will be safe and sustainable hog production in the future.

Ms. Wowchuk: I am not going to get the minister to list a whole bunch of different things that they are looking at, but one suggestion that has been made is that, when there are very large hog operations, in particular, where there is a tremendous amount of waste, in some jurisdictions, it is a requirement that that waste be processed before it can be used, applied to land. So I wonder whether the minister's department has looked at this possibility of processing waste: whether it is a viable operation or whether it is too expensive, or whether the minister can share whether they have looked at it, and whether he thinks it is viable to consider such an option as a method for disposing of waste and in that way addressing some of the concerns such as smell and lack of a large enough land base to deal with the waste.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that that indeed is part of the consideration. I think the honourable member is asking whether all producers of hogs ought to be subject--[interjection] No, not all. I missed that part of the question.

Ms. Wowchuk: What I was asking the minister is that it is my understanding in some areas where there are very large operations that produce a tremendous amount of waste and do not have adequate land base to dispose of their waste, in those cases, there is a requirement that they process their waste and then reduce it to a state of fertilizer or compost it where it is more environmentally friendly. I was asking if the department has looked at these as a possible option to address the concerns that are raised and make the whole operation more environmentally friendly.

Mr. McCrae: Yes, I thank the honourable member for further clarifying for me the intent of her point here. Yes, that is part of the review that is going on, whether there ought to be that type of requirement for, as the honourable member pointed out, the larger producers coming together on a relatively small land base. That is something that is being looked at.

Ms. Wowchuk: It is my understanding as well that in other provinces they are looking at doing an analysis of the province and looking at the different types of soils and base, water tables and then from that, once they have the whole province laid out, decisions are made. It is sort of a blueprint laid out as to where livestock operations can be established, and in that way it is long-term planning and you avoid some of the problems that we run into when we do not do planning, where we end up with large operations in water-sensitive areas.

I wonder whether any work is being done, and I realize that that would probably be work that would have to be done in co-ordination with Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, but can the minister indicate whether there are any plans of that sort taking place right now to ensure that we have a long-term plan in place and do not run into the problems that we occasionally see where operations end up being established where there is water sensitivity or where the land base does not have the proper clay base to have waste distributed on it.

* (1550)

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, these criteria are a part of the work that is underway and, obviously, nitrogen levels in the soil and the intentions of a particular producer as to the crop that might follow spreading, that is all important because some crops require or need or use soil that has higher nitrogen levels or lower nitrogen levels depending on the crop to follow. So that is a criterion that might well be taken into account in consideration of this. Run-off studies have been conducted to assist, not only in our work, but specifically in the review that is underway. The run-off studies have been conducted where manure has been spread and the results have shown that if the present guidelines were followed, the present guidelines, it is the opinion of some that the impacts would be minimal under the present circumstances.

Well, we are going to be doing more soil-type studies and typography studies before we arrive at a final conclusion about what is the best thing to do in the light of a growing industry. On the one hand, that is not a bad thing, but on the other hand, we have an environment to protect and so those are the types of things that will be taken into account.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question that I would like to ask the minister and it is on a completely different subject. I want to ask the minister, we spent some time discussing Louisiana-Pacific's licence on the plant. Louisiana-Pacific also has a licence for the forest that the Department of Environment approves, and under that licence they were required to do environmental research on the ecological system. I believe that research was supposed to start on May 24, but it is my understanding there have been many applications, but there has been an extension given to that research.

Can the minister indicate why the extension was given and how long is the extension going to be given? Is this just an extension, or will they not be required to do this research? I think it is very important, and there are lots of proposals that have been put forward that are excellent. As we work to using more of our natural resources and using more of our wood, we have to think about the environmental impact. So I would like to ask the minister why the extension was given and when can we expect that this research will proceed? What role will the government, the Department of Environment or other branches play in this research?

Mr. McCrae: The date to which the honourable member refers is a date for the receipt of recommendations or proposals from the stakeholder group, and there have been some delays in that process. To date, there has been no extension nor has one been asked for, as I understand it, but that is a significant possibility, as I think we can both see that one coming. At that point, the department will review that request, should that happen, and make their recommendations and we will go from there. But there have been delays at the stakeholder level as I understand it, and if the honourable member has other information, that is okay, but my information is that the stakeholders' advisory committee has not yet made its proposals known to Louisiana-Pacific.

Ms. Wowchuk: I do not know whether we are talking about the same process then because I do not understand where the stakeholders' advisory committee comes into this. Louisiana-Pacific put out a request calling for applications for people to make proposals, and now these proposals have to be reviewed and a decision has to be made as to which of the proposals is going to be accepted and what kind of research on the ecosystems is going to take place.

It was my understanding that there has been an application for an extension, and what I am asking the minister is what role will his department play? Does the Department of Environment play a role in deciding selection of these proposals? I have talked to Louisiana-Pacific, and they have talked about an advisory committee. The name escapes me right now of who the committee is that is supposed to be screening these applications.

There does seem to be a delay, and I guess I am looking for assurance from the minister that because this request for research was in the environmental licence that it will take place, and if there was a deadline that it should be happening this year in May and June. The participants should be knowing which of their proposals were selected for research, that we go ahead, that this is not an ongoing delay, and we do not get the work done. Because the changes, as I say, in our environment with the increased use of different wood products in the area does have an impact in the environment, and we should have all the research done that there was a commitment to do.

Mr. McCrae: I would like to give the honourable member some comfort on this point. I think that because we are dealing with something that has been the subject of a bit of delay--not the kind of delay that would result in moving into another year and all the rest of it, no, we do not expect that--but I think that I would like to undertake to give the honourable member a full explanation on this particular topic because there has been a delay, not a particularly significant one I do not think, but sometimes one can think that a delay might lead to a greater, longer one or lack of commitment to follow through on licence requirements. That is not there, that is not part of the deal here at all. I think if the honourable member would agree, then I would be happy to write to her with a detailed sort of answer on where we stand on this.

Ms. Wowchuk: Perhaps I can provide the minister with the name of the committee--that has escaped my mind now, and the minister can follow up on that. I will call his office, and thank you.

Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member is speaking about the forestry advisory committee? [interjection] No. So if that is not the one, then we will get some more information from her, and then we will get some back to her.

* (1600)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Environment. Actually, it is an issue which I brought up last year and was somewhat disappointed in terms of the government's action with respect to the BFI in the Capital Region when it comes to waste disposal. I had articulated at that point in time that there appears to be no plan from this government dealing with the Capital Region and all that waste, and even the CEC through recommendation had suggested that the province play a stronger, more leadership type of a role in the development of waste facilities in the province of Manitoba with special focus on the Capital Region.

I was disappointed in terms of the then minister, and I appreciate the fact we are under a new ministry, but no doubt that would have been brought to cabinet because of the significant decision that was ultimately made in terms of allowing BFI to build another waste disposal site again in the Capital Region. Having said that, I am interested in hearing from this particular minister how many landfill sites this minister believes the Capital Region of Winnipeg, and in particular that feed off of the city of Winnipeg disposal, is actually necessary or needed for our population.

Mr. McCrae: I have already begun the process, Mr. Chairman, of discussing this particular topic with stakeholders in Manitoba and with members of the Department of Environment to get a good handle on where we ought to be going with landfill operations in our province. I do not really want to accept anything critical the honourable member has said about my predecessor because I have heard too many expressions from people right across Canada about the quality of the previous Minister of Environment, so I am not likely to accept--I can always accept some criticism, but in terms of the overall performance of the previous minister, he has to be given very high marks because that is certainly the word I have been getting everywhere I have been since taking on this new responsibility.

The honourable member is right that the Clean Environment Commission did recommend that work be done towards the development of a Capital Region waste management plan, and that work is going forward. However, we do need to get the co-operation of the city and all of the surrounding rural municipalities just like we do in other parts of Manitoba need to get support for the development of, I think we will be calling them regional landfills, in the future, which would obviate the requirement for landfills everywhere in Manitoba. I guess we have about 300 landfills in our province. I can tell the honourable member if he wants a specific answer, I do not think we need 300 landfills in this province. Because of all the recycling we have been doing and expect to do in the future, and because of the will of the people of Manitoba to reduce the number, reduce the capacity for landfill, it is going to be possible and it would be a very happy result of efforts to recycle.

We were answering questions a little while ago from the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) about the reduction of pollutants and the reduction of waste in our province and, yes, we are part of a national consensus that wanted to see a 50 percent reduction by the year 2000. Well, we are making very significant progress toward that goal and, as we do that, the need for landfill will be diminished.

Now that does not change the situation whereby the Clean Environment Commission granted a licence in a particular case. That happened and that is history, but we want to continue to work toward the reduction of waste which will reduce the requirement for landfill capacity in our province. That is something that I see as a role I can fulfill. I already have some partnership going with some rural municipalities in Manitoba, and, as we show that it can be done, I expect to show other rural municipalities and the Capital Region that by those kinds of examples we can do with less landfill capacity. Nonetheless, the previous decision has been made, but with it came a valuable recommendation. That was that there be a development of a Capital Region waste management plan, and that work is underway.

Mr. Lamoureux: Actually, Mr. Chairperson, even prior to a decision being made, the government was aware that it was supposed to be playing a more leading role in ultimately what was going to be happening with landfill waste and failed to live up to that expectation. The Minister of Environment or the prior minister might have been a wonderful minister in many different ways, but in this particular incident the minister actually failed and failed substantially.

We had, I know myself, hundreds of signatures of individuals, postcards that did not want to see this particular site, the BFI site, go ahead. It was an issue during Question Period for a number of days. The minister is quite right when he says that, look, we do not 300 landfill sites scattered throughout the province and that there is some merit for it. I concur with the minister, but I also challenged the department in the last Estimates--I believe it was during the Estimates--to demonstrate why it is that Winnipeg and the Capital Region need to have three landfill sites, because I went and I made presentation to CEC and looked into the issue. A lot of off-the-cuff, off-the-record type of comments from civil servants had indicated, quite frankly, that Winnipeg could suffice with just one landfill site, so whether it was one, two or three, the line that I had taken was, demonstrate the need for the third one before you give the final approval.

This government never did demonstrate the need. At least it did not make the attempt to explain the need and to the Chamber through the Estimates. What is important is that, yes, the decision has been made and the question then becomes, have we learned something from that particular ordeal? I like to believe that we should have learned something, and that is that we need to be more involved as a Capital Region on a number of different issues. The landfill use or use of landfill sites is one of those critical issues, especially as we become more and more environmentally in tune with what is happening around us.

So, when we talk about waste and waste disposal, the Minister of the Environment, failing the Capital Region in addressing the issue, has to play a critical role in ensuring that there is some sort of an overall master plan that is reflective of what Manitobans as a whole would like to see in environmental waste. So I do not necessarily have to put it in the form of a question, because it is more so something that was just disappointing from my personal perspective. It is something about which I know the constituents that I represented felt fairly strongly, that the government did deal with this in a very poor fashion. It was not one of those issues of, well, not in our backyard. It was one of those issues in which first demonstrate the need, and if the need is there, then let us go on location. If the location can be justified for where it was being proposed, then fine, that is the location.

So it is not one of those "not in my backyard" issues. It was what was in the long-term best interests of landfill sites for the city of Winnipeg and the region surrounding it, and for that I am disappointed. The only thing that I can hope is that the government has recognized finally that the province does have a role to play, especially if the capital region--there is a Capital Region Committee--fails to deal with the issue, then the department and the provincial government have a responsibility to fill in where the capital region policy committee might have failed. I do not know if the minister is wanting to comment on that.

Mr. McCrae: Very briefly I will, Mr. Chairman, except for the things the honourable member said about my predecessor. I think a lot of the things the honourable member says make for instructive advice, instructive and constructive advice. That is the direction--it is obvious that is the direction society wants to move in, and so I can see why the honourable member would be expressing the things that he is expressing. I do not know if it gives him very much comfort, but the BFI site has the highest environmental standards being imposed on it. It is by far the most environmentally secure waste management facility in the region and more rigorous than imposed on the City of Winnipeg itself at the Brady landfill site.

* (1610)

I think it is encouraging, and hope the honourable member will be encouraged to know that of 28 active waste disposal grounds in the Winnipeg area, we expect 17 of those to be closed within the foreseeable future. That is 60 percent of the landfills to be closed down. If there are to be new landfills, you can bet that they will come under very, very rigorous examination of such proposals. If the technologies that are available were put to use--I know it costs money, but more and more I think I see a willingness on the part of the people of this province, for example, through your environmental levees, that sort of thing. If they know how the dollars are being used in these areas, there is a better sense of partnership. In the past, I think that members of the public have had--note, I say in the past--some trouble perhaps trusting that their dollars are going to go to where they think they are going to go. While I do not as a general rule believe in dedicated accounts for this and accounts for that--the Finance minister looks after that--but while as a general rule I believe that the priorities of the government need to be reflected in their spending wherever the revenue comes from. On the other hand, if you want to get industry to be involved in recycling, you have to make the money available to them, and that is where these levees have a useful purpose.

But, just to wind up, I agree with most of the things, most of the things the honourable member said because he wants to see us move in the same direction that I want to see us move. I hope that one of the things I will be able to do in my role as minister is to see a reduction in the number and square cubic yardage, or whatever you call it, of landfill in our province and see a growing environmental industry out there which will make better use of recycled materials. So that, you know, a little while ago we said the market is a little slow right at the moment for recycled products or the input, shall we say, into the recycling business. I understand also that there are peaks and valleys in this type of industry, and we are in one of the valleys right at the moment. But I expect to see us back out of there and into a greater use of recyclables, so that we can achieve what the honourable member wants us to achieve because I want that too.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I am not too sure of the exact time when it was announced but, when the city came up with the blue box, you would see the blue boxes all over the city. What I have noticed over the last number of months is, the number of those blue boxes out on the curbs has actually gone down. I think it is because primarily the people that are collecting the blue boxes are saying you have to do bundling and so forth, which I think somewhat causes a little bit of disinterest from those that might have been expressing some good will. It appeared, for example, on my own street that everyone was participating by having the blue box put out in the front when it first came out. Then shortly, you know, a couple of months later, it has been cut down quite significantly, unfortunately.

I am wondering if the government, in any way, is looking at that local consumer residential recycling program, in what way it might be able to facilitate more people getting involved in recycling. Does the government see any role or does it have any programs or plans to date to try to get more people involved in recycling? That goes just even beyond the city of Winnipeg, obviously, into rural Manitoba, areas where there is both high and low density.

Mr. McCrae: I think I am with the honourable member in the sense that in some way, no matter how small, I would like to see every Manitoban involved in some way in an environmental project, whether that project is looking after your own garbage in a sensible and responsible way or in some other way such as the Ecole Guyot, which, two weeks ago now, I and the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs had occasion to attend at that school and preside over its being presented with the designation of Earth School.

The Stewardship Corporation is interested in public education too. You know, we could deal everybody out and just have the garbage picked up and recycled at a recycling site or at a place where all the garbage is separated. That is one way to do it, and it costs money, but it could be done that way. What you do when you simply do that and nothing else is, you forget to tell the whole population that they have a role. So with these blue box programs and those types of things there is indeed a public education that is being gained through that kind of a program.

Ecole Guyot is the best hope we have for a longer term future. I do not like to sound like a commercial, but they have got 250 little children there. It is an elementary school engaged in 1,000 environmental projects in the space of three years. I mean, if it was not for Ms. Gauthier, the teacher who has taken on this particular job with the children and the parent council and the staff of that school and got everybody involved, I mean, that is a pretty wonderful thing Ms. Gauthier did. But the point is there are 250 children who learned something at a very formative time in their lives. I have no doubt but that they will pass on some of the things they have learned at Ecole Guyot to their children and to the communities they live in.

Those projects included things like cleaning up the Seine River, like collecting pennies to send to environmental projects of one kind or another, writing letters to politicians, writing letters to corporations that are involved either in environmental depredation or environmental cleanup, but I imagine the former rather than the latter that the letters have been going to.

All of those formed came together to come up to 1,000 projects. So what I am trying to say is, education is really a good thing to do. So I would like to see these blue box and other programs made more effective and, if the Stewardship Corporation is aware of the honourable member's concern, I think we see tonnage up some months and maybe down other months but, as a whole, I would not want to see it get to the point where what the honourable member described is the order of the day. That is the way we are now. We no longer use our blue boxes, because we are tired of it or we have lost interest. Because the garbage just keeps on coming. We do not need that.

I would be happy to pass on this concern to the Stewardship Corporation so that it can look at the dollars that it has available to it and make determinations about what further public education programs should accompany everything else that is going on in our various municipal jurisdictions in the province.

* (1620)

Mr. Lamoureux: I would appreciate the minister doing just that. I know he could ultimately say the member from Inkster can also pick up the telephone and phone, and that is why I do appreciate the minister's effort in terms of making or placing that particular, passing on that piece of information. Now, I do not have the numbers to demonstrate it, primarily because we do not necessarily have the resources from within our caucus to assist me in compiling those numbers. That is my little plea for additional assistance at some point in time, and the hint is well received by the minister.

Our party would be quite negligent in not mentioning, as I am sure the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) has already done, the concerns with respect to the floods. There is no doubt the environment, in many different ways, is going to be significantly affected. As opposed to posing specific questions with respect to it, just to indicate that we are very much aware and believe that the Department of Environment over the next number of weeks has to keep on its toes with respect to the issues that need to be addressed as a direct result of the flood of the century. With those few words, I appreciate the member for Selkirk giving me some time to ask some questions.

Mr. McCrae: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) led off this afternoon by asking questions about the challenges the flood of the century presents, not only to everybody else but also to the Department of Environment, and we had some discussion about that, and we certainly will be busy for the next while here in Manitoba doubling efforts in testing water and those types of things to make sure our population is safe. I am worried about contamination to water wells, and water supplies, and all of that and other kinds of contamination, too, so the honourable member can be assured that we are very mindful of our responsibility in this area.

So very quickly on the whole issue of education, again, the Stewardship Corporation is indeed distributing educational material in our schools and offers financial support to every school for recycling, and I think that is good, but I also think that there is nothing better than physical, human involvement. I appreciate all the efforts of the corporation and of the municipalities, and I do appreciate that because we have come some distance in this particular century and in the latter part of it with respect to our environment. But we do not want to lose what we have gained, or allow to be frittered away, the environmental awareness that we have attained over the last dozen or so years in this province and in this country.

We should take full advantage of that, make sure the people of today pass on to the people of tomorrow what they have learned. It is not only passing on one's knowledge, but passing on one's environment habits that we would like to see happen. So I think we are pretty mindful of the issues raised by the honourable member.

Education is important. It is important that we not only put reading material in front of our young people and everybody else, but find ways to get them involved. There is a value to that that you cannot really measure in dollars or that you cannot really, perhaps today, measure in reduced tonnages, although we expect to see that continuing to reduce and continuing to see progress made. I think I understand what point the honourable member is trying to make, and I will be sure to pass on to the Stewardship Corporation his concerns in this area.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister some questions. Perhaps he can provide this in a written form, an explanation of the differences of the Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 waste disposal grounds in the province. I note that part of that deals with the size of the population that a particular site serves, but as well, I am sure there is more criteria when it comes to establishing a Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 site than simply the size of the community adjacent or nearby to a particular disposal ground. If he could provide that to me in written form, I would appreciate that.

Mr. McCrae: It is agreed.

Mr. Dewar: Just one final question, and that relates to the operations of the Clean Environment Commission, if he could just give us a report as to what he foresees the activities of the Clean Environment Commission will have in this upcoming year?

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. McCrae: I expect to see Clean Environment Commission activity in the area of forest management in the year coming from now, and what with all of the healthy indicators we have for economic development in Manitoba, I suppose it could be said that proposed developments will be coming forward which may indeed require the attention of the Clean Environment Commission.

The honourable member maybe ought not to have asked this question. Either that, or maybe wait and ask the Minister for Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) when his Estimates come, because the answers that he gives, some of them will result in activities for the Clean Environment Commission.

I mentioned forest management. I think that is going to be one important piece of work that will be done by the commission. The fiscal year for the commission ends in what, September? It ends March 31, and we expect that there will be a report for '96-97 available in the fall, although depending on the legislative schedule, I am not just sure when I will get tabling that, but it would be probably in the next session.

Mr. Dewar: In terms of The Contaminated Sites Remediation Act, the commission will have added responsibilities to deal with hearings. Do you know if the commission has been approached to get involved in an outstanding issue because of the act?

Mr. McCrae: We are very happy, and I wish the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) could hear my voice right now because I would be reminding him of the work of the previous Minister of Environment and the people with whom he worked, obviously, in getting the Sites Remediation legislation in place in Manitoba.

The Clean Environment Commission's role there, we hope, will be largely providing mediator services, but where that fails, of course, that is when they will have to get a little more formal and have hearings. I do not know of any hearings that will be held for sure with respect to that particular legislation, but I guess the coming year will show to what extent their mediation requirements will be.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

Item 31.1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $333,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $76,500--pass.

Item 31.1.(c) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $814,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $255,200--pass.

Item 31.2.(a) Environmental Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,212,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,107,600--pass.

Item 31.2.(b) Environmental Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,758,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,015,300--pass.

Item 2.(c) Legislation and Intergovernmental Affairs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $163,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $96,100--pass.

Resolution 31.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10,353,200 for Environment, Environmental Management, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Item 31.3 Clean Environment Commission (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $283,000--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $178,600--pass.

Resolution 31.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $461,600 for Environment, Clean Environment Commission, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Item 31.4. International Institute for Sustainable Development $916,800--pass.

Resolution 31.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $916,800 for Environment, International Institute for Sustainable Development, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

* (1630)

The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Environment is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary for the amount of--at this point we request that the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.

Item 31.1.(a) Minister's Salary $25,700--pass.

Resolution 31.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,505,300 for Environment, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister and the critics to have the opportunity to prepare for the commencement of the next set of Estimates? There will be a short recess at this time of five minutes.

The committee recessed at 4:34 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:39 p.m.