Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Environment.
It was agreed at the outset of the Estimates for this department that questions could proceed in a general manner with line items to be passed once the questioning had been concluded. Accordingly, I will open the floor for questions.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Chairperson, I believe that before we recessed I had raised the issue with the minister regarding the level of waste, hog manure in particular, in this province. He was explaining that because there will be a doubling of the number of hogs, there very well will be a doubling of the manure, and I believe I asked him if he thought the province had the ability and the land base to absorb that level of slurry.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): I have no indication that a province like Manitoba, as sparsely populated as it is compared with so many other possible livestock production areas in the world, I have no reason to think that with the appropriate regulation in place that there should be any damage to our environment.
* (1440)
Mr. Dewar: Has the minister looked at other alternative ways of applying the slurry?
Currently, it is injected, I believe, but only in small amounts, that a lot of the waste is applied by what is called the big-gun method where it is simply sprayed onto the soil. I believe in the Netherlands, immediately following the application, the slurry is tilled into the soil, for example. Have you looked, perhaps yourself and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), at alternative ways of applying slurry to try to lessen both the odour and the possible contamination of the environment?
Now, it is my understanding if you use the big gun, there is very little control as to how much any particular section of land or an acre of land receives. Obviously, the lower the land, the more--it is a liquid, after all, and would accumulate in lower areas, which I know is detrimental to that particular piece of land. It would cause irregular growth of crops.
So have you looked at other ways of applying slurry to the land?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, indeed, this is part of the work of various sectors, including the government. The regulation we have now has specific enforceable limits as to what amounts can be spread on land. It is based on what the crops can use.
Yes, we do have the land base, as I pointed out, and no one can operate within--under our regulation, manure management plans have to be in place, and those manure management plans take into account the agronomic point which ought not to be surpassed with respect to the nitrogen levels.
All of this activity going on also gives rise to Manitoba being a centre for research into the issues the honourable member raises about how is the best way to apply this material, and what is it that makes this material like it is. There are those who believe sometimes that what goes into the hog has an impact on what comes out of the hog, too, and the government has been supportive in encouraging the work of the Laliberte committee, because that committee is funded partly by government, but Manitoba Pork itself is very interested in this question the honourable member raises. This committee is financing new and innovative ways of dealing with waste including soil injection and composting and other techniques and research.
So we are very hopeful that the time will come when some of the things being worried about and complained about may be history because research, being what it is, holds great potential. If there is anywhere where that research ought to be important, it is in the province of Manitoba, where we are seeing the greatest growth in an industry that has been seen, certainly here but almost anywhere else as well.
Mr. Dewar: In terms of lagoons, how often does the Department of Environment do an inspection of a lagoon, and during the process, how does the department get involved, first during the construction and then once the lagoon is in operation?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, inspection is carried out during construction and then when operations are underway, and depending on the nature of the operation, the frequency of inspections after that depends on the nature of the operation itself.
Mr. Dewar: So lagoons are inspected more than once annually?
Mr. McCrae: It is not something that you could say is a regular thing. During construction, to see that specifications are being met; during operation, to see that the facility is doing the job it was designed to do, and after that, it would depend upon what the inspector learned during the first two inspections as to whether there was any requirement to come back on a frequent basis or at all in the future, depending on the type of facility that has been built, depending on where it has been built and depending on environmental conditions in the area. All of those things would dictate how frequent or whether it needs to be very frequent at all that future inspections take place.
Mr. Dewar: Well, is there at least a requirement that there be an annual inspection of all the lagoons in Manitoba?
Mr. McCrae: It does depend on the nature of the risks that are involved in a particular storage facility, so that some may even be inspected monthly if it is in a higher risk area or if ground conditions are such that more frequent inspections are indicated. In other cases, it might be annually. In other cases, it may not even be annually, depending on the circumstances.
Obviously, if someone knows about a problem with a particular lagoon or storage facility and wants to make a complaint or issue some form of warning to the department that there is a problem, that again would be taken into account in determining whether another inspection was needed. I do not think there has been any change in that just by virtue of the regulation; I think that has probably been the case for years and years.
Mr. Dewar: I just want to suggest to the minister that there be at least an annual inspection. It would go a long ways to try to deal with some of the concerns that individuals have regarding this industry. All of us hear these concerns, and the major issue is, of course, one is the odour, and the other, which I would suggest is the more serious, is the potential for lagoons to be damaged either during the agitation process or when lagoons are pumped out. The liners could be damaged.
This is a concern that people are raising. The potential for the contamination of their ground water I think is a very high concern that people have regarding this industry. I think if the government was to say, well, we will at least do an annual inspection of lagoons, I think it would go a long ways to deal with some of these very legitimate concerns that Manitobans have.
Mr. McCrae: Certainly, I do not want to rule out any positive and helpful suggestions the honourable member might make. That is something I will talk about with the department. So, in essence, I will take the honourable member's comments as a representation for consideration.
* (1450)
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I wonder if I could ask the minister one or two questions on a very specific issue, and that is regarding a fuel oil spill at Gods Lake Narrows. I am in correspondence with a Father Edmond Paradis, and perhaps the minister is as well. I was given to understand that we were dealing with a fairly large spill--I believe it was the winter before last--at the rectory there. Now, I think we have to understand that those priests are not always at the rectory. They are itinerant priests and they move around, so these buildings are empty for weeks at a time.
So there was a sizable spill, and then there was a smaller spill later. The archdiocese does not object to the notion of polluter pay and certainly wants to take responsibility for this, but, at the same time, Father Paradis says it is a tremendous fiscal burden on them. This is not an economic enterprise in the sense of a business; this is a Roman Catholic church. It is more a charitable organization, and their bills, I believe, are running somewhere between $80,000 and $120,000 with possibly more to come later.
They are very cash strapped, and they are wondering, is there any way to mitigate this? Is there any way to soften this blow? They are not begging off; they are just saying we should not be treated the same as, let us say, a big company which maliciously or wilfully or indirectly pollutes. The pollution happened. They are going to admit it. They are just having great difficulty paying for it. They are wondering if there should not be perhaps a different scale, a way of evaluating so that a charitable institution like a church should not have to pay the full burden. They admit the guilt and the problem. They are willing to rectify it. They are just having trouble coming up with the money.
Mr. McCrae: Just very quickly to go back to the last question raised by the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), the example my department has suggested--for example, if a lagoon is over a hundred feet of clay, it is hard for anybody to suggest seriously that an annual inspection is required. So I do not say that it is a ridiculous suggestion the honourable member is making, because it is not, but there are some which it clearly does not make any sense to do that. So that has got to be taken into account too.
With respect to the point raised by the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), on the specific case that he is talking about, we would attempt and have done, I believe, but we certainly would try to be sensitive of the unique circumstances the honourable member has raised. I am advised that the department would be open to some reasonable way of dealing with the issue. So it is not our wish to be hard and fast and treat some nonprofit organization like we might treat a large smelter operation, for example. Simply, different circumstances require different solutions, and I believe that is the strength of this department in some ways, certainly the strength of a province like Manitoba where we have all of the things that are going on here, but we have a relatively small population, and it is like somebody who is a fellow resident of Manitoba is not much different from a neighbour.
That is one of the wonderful things about living in a place like Manitoba. We do not have to be as bureaucratic as you might find it in places where there are greater populations and more issues to deal with. So all I can say today is that we will sure take what the honourable member has had to say to heart and attempt to be sensitive to the nonprofit type issues that are being brought forward.
Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that answer. Would members of the minister's staff then be prepared to talk to Father Edmond Paradis in The Pas and perhaps work out some compromise solution that everybody could be happy with? Again, I want to stress the fact that Gods Lake Narrows is an isolated community, it is a small community, it is in the North, it is off the beaten track. The church basically does charitable work. We are not talking money here, not talking profits. If you could work out some resolution with Father Edmond Paradis out of The Pas, we would be very happy.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, we will undertake today to the honourable member to make a contact with Father Paradis and also to report to the honourable member particularly what kind of progress we are making.
Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister and I would like to turn over to my colleague from Dauphin.
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Chairperson, I think it is too nice a day to be talking about pig slurry and oil spills, so I am going to move on to flowers, if that is okay.
An Honourable Member: Why do we not call it five o'clock?
Mr. Struthers: It is not that nice a day. I would like to talk a little bit about an area of the province that I had a chance to see, to view, and to see that there is a well being built south and west of Gull Lake. It is the Gull Lake project that I am referring to. The current concern that has been brought to me and to the attention of the Minister of Environment is that the well is being built to drain some freshwater from some wetlands and pump that water into Gull Lake to try to dilute the mess that the lake has come into because of development in and around that lake.
The concern is that the wetlands that are losing this fresh water also are the home of wild orchids, lady slippers, several different species of flowers that are unique to that area that you would have to look high and low and probably not find anywhere else in the province. At least that is the information that is given to me. So I think it is an issue that I know the minister takes seriously because he has addressed this issue about a year ago in a letter to me, and I appreciate the straightforwardness I received at that time.
I think a good case can be made for being very careful in this sensitive part of our province. I would not want to see the level of water in the wetlands be reduced to such a stage that they could not sustain the unique species that already thrive in that area. I believe that the minister would share that concept.
I would like the minister to begin with, just to update me on the status of that Gull Lake project, and indicate to me the kinds of factors that this government is willing to consider to lessen the amount of damage that could be done to the wetlands south and west of the Gull Lake project.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, there is a pumping test taking place right now. It is a test only, and our decision as to what position we would take would be based on those test results. The test I am talking about will also form the basis for whatever conditions the Department of Environment would put on the new licence governing any activities in this area. It is good that the member raised that because my department officials are here and can hear what he is saying and read, and also we will make sure that those involved are aware of the concerns the honourable member is raising before any decisions are made respecting those test results or any licence issues.
Mr. Struthers: Can the minister indicate when that pumping test will be completed?
Mr. McCrae: Do not have a specific date, but we think that the pumping test would be completed this spring at some point.
Mr. Struthers: Has there been an attempt by your department to consult the public in general? Are there public hearings that needed to be done before the test was started and were there any public hearings conducted? Or is the process that once the test is done, then you do public hearings before you give the project the go-ahead or reject?
* (1500)
Mr. McCrae: Well, a decision about public hearings is made based on a determination as to whether public hearings would in any way have an impact on the outcome as it would show up in the licence, for example. We believe at this point that we would have sufficient expertise to be able to make a determination based on a pumping test. If that feeling should change, we will know that later this spring and whether anything further needs to happen in terms of things like public hearings, that would be looked at, I assume, after those pumping tests and determinations made after that. Not every matter that comes along needs to be the subject of a public hearing, but if there are indications that as a result of a public hearing we could learn something that we do not already know, then that would be one of the reasons we would have public hearings.
Mr. Struthers: I can see that if the pumping test says that the project should not go ahead and you can simply say, no, this project is rejected based on what we learned in the pumping test, then I can see there would not be a need to go for public hearings. If the pumping test says, yes, we can go ahead, then I can see that would be the scenario under which you would then involve the public in some formal way if you are considering going ahead with the project. I wonder if I have encapsulated this correctly or if I am way out in left field on that one.
Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member has it characterized correctly.
Mr. Struthers: Maybe this question is dependent on what you find out with the pumping test as well, but I believe that the proposal is to pump water out at around the level of 1,600 litres per minute. Is that still the game plan of the proponent? Can the minister tell me if that is correct?
Mr. McCrae: No, I cannot tell him that, but we will certainly find that out for him right away.
Mr. Struthers: The funding for the project, I understand some or part or maybe all, I am not sure, will be coming out of the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund. Are there dollars through that fund earmarked for this project?
Mr. McCrae: We will find that out for the honourable member.
Mr. Struthers: Could the minister also report what class of project this Gull Lake project is considered? I am not sure--that obviously has some implications on the process which the proponent would move ahead or not move ahead. I am not sure what class of project this is. Maybe the minister could help me out with that.
Mr. McCrae: It would be a Class 2 development under the act.
Mr. Struthers: Has this project always been a Class 2, or has it moved?
Mr. McCrae: As far as I know, it has always been a Class 2. I think the committee needs to understand--the honourable member knows more about this matter than I do--and I make no secret about that. We will certainly--if there are further questions, the honourable member can write them down or bring them to my attention. We will get him the answers.
Mr. Dewar: Last year in October it was reported that the community of Virden was accepting, and again this is reported, contaminated waste from Saskatchewan. I believe it was 4,000 cubic metres of separator sludge, and at the time the province ordered a review. Maybe the minister can just enlighten us as to the outcome of that review.
Mr. McCrae: It was a very quick review because what I wanted to find out was what was going on that would lead to a headline like the kind the honourable member has referred to: Waste sparks fear in Virden. It turned out--and I think honourable members, ones that are here on our committee who attend UMM meetings, as we all do, and that sort of thing, know exactly what is going on in that particular corner of our province. There are disputes between a rural municipality there and a town about one thing and another, and it is my theory that that is what gave rise to this particular matter coming to the surface as it did.
What is the case here is that the town owns a landfill on property which is in a neighbouring rural municipality, not in their own backyard as it were. In any event, this landfill is accepting fill, and it turned out that an analysis of the material showed something different from what was indicated in the headlines in the newspaper. This is the status near the end of February. During an audit at the landfill using an independent consultant hired by the R.M. of Wallace, analysis indicated one sample that had hazardous waste level material in it. That was 130 parts per million of ethyl benzene. Hazardous waste level is 100 parts per million.
Hazardous waste material is prohibited at the landfill. The current permit does not allow for hazardous waste level material at the landfill. A warning letter was issued to the Town of Virden in regard to the findings of the independent consultant. The issue apparently has been rectified but department staff will be doing confirmatory drilling and sampling before the end of March, but I think the thing that was misleading was the level of hazard involved. No one is saying that there is no hazard at all, but I think sometimes using one issue can help highlight another one, and I believe that is what might have happened in this case. But we are keeping our eye on this one.
Mr. Dewar: In the minister's answer, he mentioned they were doing drilling which was to be concluded by the end of March. Well, now we are into May. Can you give us the results of those test drillings?
Mr. McCrae: The information I was putting forth was information made available, as I have said, near the end of February, so when we say that we are going to be doing some of this drilling before the end of March, the honourable member is correct. It has been done, we have results, and that is something we can share with the honourable member as well and will do so.
* (1510)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I just have a couple of questions to ask of the minister that I started this morning when the bells were ringing, and that is an issue I raised last year with the minister. That was the way chips were being distributed by L-P. There was some concern in the community about the sites that they were being dumped in and that there was no environmental process in place. There was only inspection if someone brought it to the attention of the department.
I want to ask two things. There was one site that we got a report on and there was an indication that the site would--in fact, there was a problem with the site and the chips would be cleaned up. I want to ask the minister whether or not those instructions have been followed, and I want to ask also what the process is now. Is it now required that sites are inspected before chips are being deposited?
Mr. McCrae: I will deal with the second question first. The process to assess sites for receiving wood waste has been established by the department and Louisiana-Pacific. Louisiana-Pacific will initially assess a proposed site and then send their proposal to our department's regional office. If low-risk site approval occurs--sorry, if it is low risk, the site is approved. If it is moderate-to-high risk, the regional office may inspect. They can propose sites and they can approve or reject sites. These will be based on environmental considerations. From April 1997 to February '98, 123 sites were approved and 45 percent were inspected by regional staff. Total quantity of wood waste shipped as of March 9 of 1998 has been 18 million kilograms of wood waste.
Now, on the first question, the issue that was raised last year with respect to the one site. The person involved was issued a director's order to remove the material and that order has since been rescinded on the condition that the person involved take the necessary action to prevent surface water from entering or leaving the slough. The person accepted all the responsibility for the material, and Natural Resources department advised him that they did not disapprove filling in the slough under The Water Rights Act. Now, there is another party that was directed to provide a plan for the use of the material stored on his property, that plan has not been submitted and the regional director will follow up. This matter is still in process. Other approved disposal practices are being monitored to ensure the practices are environmentally safe.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to ask the minister: Is it possible to get copies of that correspondence, or are those documents within the department?
Mr. McCrae: I do not know if it is or not. I would want to think about that. We are talking about correspondence between--what?--private citizens doing business with Louisiana-Pacific and being monitored by my department. I do not know to what extent I am entitled to, by law, bring that forward. I will ask about that though, and if it is the appropriate thing--if it is not infringing on everybody's rights, I do not know why I could not do that.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to raise one other point. The minister indicated that over the past I believe year and a half, somewhere in that range, some 18 million kilograms of chips have been disposed of as landfill.
I wonder if the Department of Environment is doing any work with any other department to look at ways that we might be able to use this as an energy source because there has to be an awful lot of energy that could be developed out of that, and that is certainly an area that I think we should be doing some work on.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member is on the right track with respect to this material and work is underway, research, to see if it is not an appropriate use for this material, like as a fuel. Unfortunately, it is not being used as a fuel yet, because that work has not been done. Now the honourable member is wondering who is doing this work. I will find that out.
As I say, the timing of this is not--I do not think it is moving as well as some of us might have hoped, but Louisiana-Pacific is changing its bark burner system. See, that system would eliminate the need for bark disposal offsite. Now the honourable member is familiar with this. I know I have been out there myself and been given the briefing on this matter. Even if burning is going to be happening, laced woodchips would probably still be needed to be handled in an approved manner because then you are dealing with other kinds of pollution issues.
The company has been asked to continue seeking positive means of reducing the generation of this material and also seeking ways to find beneficial uses for the waste woodchips. We have advised Louisiana-Pacific that we are concerned that wood wastes would ultimately, on a permanent basis, be used for bedding material.
* (1520)
Mr. Dewar: I believe during the minister's opening comments he mentioned that the Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation has just completed its five-year plan. What are some of the initiatives that this corporation will be taking over the next number of years to deal with some of the problems with recycling here in Manitoba. As you know, we have debated this in the House, there are a number of Winnipeggers that do not have access to recycling initiatives if they live in apartments and townhouses and so on, and there are other municipalities that have not signed up for different reasons, generally an issue of money. Of course, there are all of the Manitobans who purchase one of these containers, literally millions, I believe well over 200-and-some-odd million containers that are purchased every year.
So what action is this corporation going to be taking to try to deal with some of these little flaws, I suggest, with this program?
Mr. McCrae: I think that we should have a meeting and invite the honourable member, so that we can talk about various issues facing Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation, because I do not think any answer I give could give you a complete picture of all of the issues that they grapple with. I mean obviously today, we have problems with the market for recyclables. It is not a good time right at the moment, but experience has shown that this is cyclical. Hopefully, we are in one of those valleys right now and would like to get back up closer to a peak in that area, because I guess I should say that it is a good time to have a surplus. I remember hearing the honourable member talking about the surplus in that account, and it may be that they have to use some of that surplus to help them through these difficult times with respect to the market.
I have directed the corporation to get on with incorporating multifamily dwellings into the system, as well as extend it to the institutional and commercial sectors. I met recently with Councillor Timm-Rudolph talking about this matter. I do not know what the ultimate resolution is, but we are working on it and having discussions. I know the Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation is concerned about this part of the issue. That is kind of a major problem I think that is getting looked at, and hopefully we can report progress before too very long.
We are looking at the levy. Nothing is going to happen tomorrow, but if we can get--I mean, maybe if there is such a surplus, and we do not need it all to iron out the wrinkles in the programming, maybe there is a way to either spread out the levy more to more products or more waste stream items, or alternatively, or maybe both, also reduce the level of the levy. We do not need to raise more money than we need on a continual basis. But on the other hand, having a surplus does not mean we need to run out and spend it either till we know that it is the right thing to do.
So those are some of the things that are kind of before the corporation at the present time.
Mr. Dewar: I have the report which was included in the fiscal year of March 31, 1997, and the surplus of the fund at that time was $5.7 million.
What is the current surplus in that corporation as of the fiscal year ending March 31 of this year?
Mr. McCrae: We are getting close to the point where a dollar into the fund is going out as well. The number the honourable member quoted, we are not too far away from that, although it has climbed a little from that to hovering around the $6-million mark, but I am advised that is probably now to the point where it is going to level off and not grow anymore, which means now we can take a good look at what to do with money that is surplus but not to count on this to be a continuous cash cow.
Mr. Dewar: In a report to our caucus, I believe probably the same report that the UMM presented to the minister, they talk about this program and that they support the program, but they also felt there was a need to, and this is a quote from it, the need to review municipal support payments.
What action would the minister take to look at that? I imagine what they are talking about perhaps is sliding scale in terms of a municipal supporter. Is that part of the five-year plan, to review support payments to municipalities in this province?
Mr. McCrae: In the first question, I forgot to correct the honourable member, but it was a three-year plan not a five-year one as we were talking about. I would think those are the things that the board of the corporation needs to look at on an ongoing basis. Are the programs the municipalities are running effective? Are they able to sustain those programs? In times of bad markets, you get the odd complaint that maybe they cannot go on with present levels of support from the corporation. I mean, you have to look at that pretty hard because you do not want programs to be going down. You want to keep them running because we have made some good progress and we want to continue that. You want to look at that matter in the context of how much money is reasonably available. I mean, talking a few minutes ago about the possibility of reducing the levy, well, if the municipalities make a good case that they are not able to sustain at present levels of support and the corporation has to look at increasing the support, and we do not want to raise the levy, well, then you have to do some careful financial planning about how you can make that happen. The corporation regularly audits actual program costs for municipalities and therefore looks at adjustments as they might be added as a result of these audits, based on actual costs.
So I think what the honourable member is asking is really what is happening.
Mr. Dewar: They also raised concerns regarding the future of ACRE, you know, the Association for a Clean Rural Environment. I know they feel that it is a very good recycling program currently. They have stated that 90 percent of the containers are returned to depots, but they are also concerned about this Crop Protection Institute to replace the system. What is the status of ACRE, and does the minister support ACRE or is he looking at changing this program?
* (1530)
Mr. McCrae: Well, the ACRE, Association for a Clean Rural Environment runs a program for the Crop Protection Institute, which is the group of companies that produce and distribute all these pesticides and herbicides and those sorts of farm chemicals. It is another industry stewardship program which ACRE runs. Now I guess you would have to say it is not ACRE's program, but they are running it, because they get their money from the Crop Protection Institute which is money raised on levies on these containers of farm chemicals.
Well, recently and as a result of this, ACRE has set up collection sites at numerous rural locations in Manitoba, and generally speaking, and I believe the UMM agrees with this and others, this is a good program. It is taking all this stuff out of the wrong places in our environment and dealing with the materials in a proper fashion. Everybody is in favour of that, and Manitoba's program is achieving good levels of compliance and success. In other words, I do not know of any grumbling going on. It is a good program.
The Crop Protection Institute, however, it is theirs. It is their levy. They are the ones that have to raise the money, and they think they have maybe another idea for this. A suggestion was made that maybe they could have a return to dealer system. Well, it is a little hard to accept that right away because, goodness gracious, there is all this work has been done to set up the depots we have and there is a high level of satisfaction and compliance which is not necessarily there in other areas but it is here. Yet it is their program.
So we are not too interested in seeing change. So what I have asked the Crop Protection Institute to do, if they are interested in moving to a different system, show me that it is going to work better. I mean, I cannot really stand in the way of something that might turn out to be an improvement simply because we have all this buy-in-Manitoba and everything, which is good to have. I want to know: are your dealers all set up and ready to start receiving containers that used to have these chemicals in them? Have they got the space? Have they got the facilities in their shops? I already know the answers to some of those questions. They do not.
They are not really ready to do that, and I do not think they are all that interested as a matter of fact. Yet dealers are not going to speak out too loudly because these are their suppliers of materials that they retail. I have written to the Crop Protection Institute, and I have sent copies to my colleagues in Saskatchewan and Alberta who also have programs. I have written saying that I would not support what you are suggesting without some kind of independent review of any proposed changes that might come forward here.
So I am hoping that the Crop Protection Institute will know that the ball is in their court on this. I understand that support has not been forthcoming from the pools. Now that is important support. The KAP, the Keystone Agricultural Producers, I believe have concerns about the proposed changes and so does the UMM. That being the case, it is pretty hard for me as minister to say oh, yes, we will go ahead and change everything. I am not going to because I do not need to do that unless I am shown that they can protect the environment better than the environment is being protected right now.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to pass these Estimates at this time.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 31.1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $371,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $76,500--pass.
31.1.(c) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $684,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $303,600--pass.
31.2.(a) Environmental Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,424,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,224,700--pass.
31.2.(b) Environmental Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,732,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,132,600--pass.
Anytime any of you would like--if there is something, just holler out and I will recognize you, in case I am not looking at you.
31.2.(c) Legislation and Inter-governmental Affairs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $178,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $103,500--pass.
Resolution 31.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10,795,600 for Environment, Environmental Management, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
31.3. Clean Environment Commission (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $299,500--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $189,200--pass.
Resolution 31.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $488,700 for Environment, Clean Environment Commission, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
31.4. International Institute for Sustainable Development $1,145,900--pass.
Resolution 31.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,145,900 for Environment, International Institute for Sustainable Development, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Environment is Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary. At this point, we request the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.
Item 1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $26,300--pass.
Resolution 31.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,462,800 for Environment, Administration and Finance.
This completes the Estimates of the Department of Environment.